Yes, Virginia, there was a Standstill Agreement

TERMS OF STANDSTILL AGREEMENT

APPROVED BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE AND EXECUTIVE BOARD
OF THE DIOCESE OF VIRGINIA
DECEMBER 18, 2006

1. The Diocese of Virginia ("Diocese") and The Episcopal Church ("TEC"):

a. will not initiate any attempt to take possession the congregations' property.
b. will not initiate any canonical or ecclesiastical actions against the congregations or their clergy or vestries.
c. will not initiate any civil legal action against the congregations, their clergy, their vestries, or their trustees.
d. will permit the congregations' clergy and stay to continue to pay premiums and receive benefits under the Diocesan health care plan until at least January 31, 2007.

2. The congregations:

a. will not initiate any transfer or conveyance of their property.
b. will not initiate any civil legal action against The Diocese/TEC, but may report their congregations determinations by filing a petition/report with the relevant VA Circuit Courts pursuant to Va. Code 57-9 without violating the agreement. The congregations' Va. Code 57-9 filings will state that notice has been provided to The Diocese/TEC. The congregations will not take any further steps to bring the Va. Code 57-9 filings to judgment. Upon the Diocese's request, the congregations will seek a stay of their Va. Code 57-9 filings. If the Diocese seeks to intervene in the Va Code 57-9 filings, the congregations will not oppose such intervention and upon the Diocese's request will jointly with the Diocese move to stay the filings. In not opposing the intervention, the congregation of course reserve the right to contest the Diocese/TEC's alleged interest in the property.

3. The Diocese/TEC and each of the congregations:

a. will seek in good faith to negotiate with each other an amicable resolution of their differences concerning the property and clergy status.
b. may terminate the agreement by giving 7 days notice to all other parties, but this shall not affect the agreement between any remaining parties unless they independently invoke their right to terminate. This Agreement shall terminate on January 18, 2007 unless renewed by mutual agreement.

Patrick Getlein, Secretary to the Diocese of Virginia, has written to the Washington Times and asserts that the congregations (who entered into this Standstill Agreement with the Diocese -oops, he doesn't mention the Standstill Agreement at all and for some reason it's still not on the Diocese of Virginia website) have "filed claims in Virginia courts to authorize that unlawful effort" to "take that property with them" by the "congregations that chose to leave The Episcopal Church."

As we see in this Standstill Agreement by Standing Committee and the Executive Board of the Diocese of Virginia, they agreed that the congregations "may report their congregational determinations by filing a petition/report with the relevant VA Circuit Court pursuant to Va. Code 57-9 without violating the agreement." Which of course, is what we did. We thought we were heading to Bishop Lee's Property Committee, as All Saints Dale City had done before us, to negotiate the next steps. The Standstill Agreement plainly acknowledged that filing the petitions/reports by the congregations with the court was not - repeat, was not - the initiation of any civil legal action.

Why would Patrick, on the Diocese of Virginia's stationery, write to the Washington Times asserting that the congregations who voted to depart following the Protocol for Departing Parishes and had negotiated the Standstill Agreement and had elected representatives to Bishop Lee's Property Committee had "filed claims in Virginia courts to authorize" what he calls an "unlawful effort"? He then asserts that the Diocese of Virginia is in court "defending" against their claims.

The fact remains that the Standstill Agreement acknowledged that there had been no civil legal action taken when the congregations filed their petitions/reports with the Virginia Circuit Court. We all thought, until the Diocese of Virginia withdrew from the negotiating table (they left us at the table, remember?) that we were moving forward, in the words of the Standstill Agreement, to "seek in good faith to negotiate with each other an amicable resolution of their differences concerning property and clergy status."

Instead, the Diocese (following a fateful meeting with David Booth Beers, Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church) suddenly withdrew renewing the Standstill Agreement and instead initiated lawsuits, followed closely by The Episcopal Church which did the same thing separately, against all the congregations, their rectors, and their vestries. The Standstill Agreement was left in tatters on the floor by the Diocese. Perhaps that is why they don't have a copy to put up on the website - the Standstill Agreement is still missing from their collection of the Diocese's public legal documents. What's up with that, Patrick?

Can it be because the Standing Committee, the Executive Board, the Secretary, and the Bishop of Virginia do not want the members of the diocesan community to know that the Diocesan leadership actually entered into this Standstill Agreement in the first place and, as such, had publicly admitted that the congregations had not, as Patrick Getlien attempts to claim to the Washington Times, that the congregations had "filed claims in Virginia courts to authorize" what he now calls "that unlawful effort"?

The Standing Committee and Executive Board of the Diocese of Virginia cannot state one month that the filing of the reports/petitions were not civil legal action against the Diocese and the next month claim that it was.

It will be very interesting to see whether the Diocese of Virginia will finally admit to entering into the Standstill Agreement and post that legal document on their website.

And just to be clear - the ADV does not take out lines of credit to pay legal expenses. People give out of the kindness of their hearts - it's truly amazing what the people have done and continue to do. If you'd like to contribute to the ADV Legal Defense Fund, click here.

One more thing, the Diocese is attempting to do a "Baghdag Bob" spin on their failure to get Judge Bellows to permit the diocese and The Episcopal Church to go to trial right away over the property, which is what they were in court to do last Friday. Instead, the judge ruled that they would have to wait until at least next fall to even consider the topic - for the subject of what ever trial might take place in October 2008 will actually depend on the judge's ruling on the current case (57-9) now before him. Last Friday the Diocese attempted to force the congregations to spend enormous amounts of money on legal expenses to respond to requests for voluminous discovery on every aspect of the relationship between the congregations and the diocese and that attempt failed. The judge said no.

WED. PM UPDATE: We have learned that Patrick "Baghdad Bob" Getlein's letter to the editor will be published in tomorrow morning's edition of The Washington Times. We expect there may be other interesting things to read tomorrow. And again, if you'd like to give to the Anglican District of Virginia Defense Fund, please click here.

For the Record: The Standstill Agreement

Last weekend I had dinner at an old friend's home and we got into quite a discussion about the current "troubles." It occurred to me that my friend had not heard of or seen something called the Standstill Agreement. It's no where to be found on the Diocese of Virginia's website nor is there any mention of it there.

It's as if it never existed.

Following the votes of the congregations to depart the Episcopal Church and following the Diocese of Virginia's Protocol (which included recognizing the legal statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia which called for congregational votes), Bishop Lee established a Property Committee to begin to negotiate a settlement that would be a witness to the larger Christian community as well as to provide a way for us all to remain in as closest communion as possible. He also requested a Standstill Agreement which assured all the parties that no adversarial litigation would be filed. That standstill agreement recognized that the filing of reports by voting congregations in accordance with the Virginia Division Statute did not constitute adverse litigation otherwise prohibited by the standstill agreement.

No where on the diocesan website is there a record of this Standstill Agreement. It was to be renewed as the negotiations continued and would provide a safe space for those conversations (following the model established by the departure of All Saints, Dale City).

However, following a meeting of the Presiding Bishop's chancellor, the Standstill Agreement was ended by the diocese. The diocese then filed lawsuits against all the churches, their rectors, their trustees, and their volunteer lay leadership. This was followed by The Episcopal Church doing the exact same thing as well. Even to this day, it was a tremendous shock.

Here is the Standstill Agreement (click on the graphic or here and you will either be able to read the original document as or download it to your desktop). Please read it very carefully. One hopes that the Diocese of Virginia will see fit to add it to their website and clarify the order of events.

Diocese of Virginia: Short-term Memory Loss?

Once again it appears that the Diocese of Virginia has conveniently forgotten that it constituted a Standstill Agreement with the Virginia churches that voted to separate following the Virginia statute 57-9. Oops.

It continues to be missing from the Diocese of Virginia's website, as if it never existed.

It's existence is a problem for the Diocese and for The Episcopal Church because the agreement, requested by the Bishop of Virginia himself, assured all the parties that no adversarial litigation would be filed. And none was.

That standstill agreement recognized that the filing of reports or petitions by voting congregations in accordance with the Virginia 57-9 did not constitute adverse litigation otherwise prohibited by the standstill agreement. No one sued anyone.

Here is the Standstill Agreement in its entirety, signed by the Diocese of Virginia:

TERMS OF STANDSTILL AGREEMENT

APPROVED BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE

AND EXECUTIVE BOARD

OF THE DIOCESE OF VIRGINIA
DECEMBER 18, 2006

1. The Diocese of Virginia ("Diocese") and The Episcopal Church ("TEC"):

a. will not initiate any attempt to take possession the congregations' property.
b. will not initiate any canonical or ecclesiastical actions against the congregations or their clergy or vestries.
c. will not initiate any civil legal action against the congregations, their clergy, their vestries, or their trustees.
d. will permit the congregations' clergy and stay to continue to pay premiums and receive benefits under the Diocesan health care plan until at least January 31, 2007.

2. The congregations:

a. will not initiate any transfer or conveyance of their property.
b. will not initiate any civil legal action against The Diocese/TEC, but may report their congregations determinations by filing a petition/report with the relevant VA Circuit Courts pursuant to Va. Code 57-9 without violating the agreement. The congregations' Va. Code 57-9 filings will state that notice has been provided to The Diocese/TEC. The congregations will not take any further steps to bring the Va. Code 57-9 filings to judgment. Upon the Diocese's request, the congregations will seek a stay of their Va. Code 57-9 filings. If the Diocese seeks to intervene in the Va Code 57-9 filings, the congregations will not oppose such intervention and upon the Diocese's request will jointly with the Diocese move to stay the filings. In not opposing the intervention, the congregation of course reserve the right to contest the Diocese/TEC's alleged interest in the property.

3. The Diocese/TEC and each of the congregations:

a. will seek in good faith to negotiate with each other an amicable resolution of their differences concerning the property and clergy status.
b. may terminate the agreement by giving 7 days notice to all other parties, but this shall not affect the agreement between any remaining parties unless they independently invoke their right to terminate. This Agreement shall terminate on January 18, 2007 unless renewed by mutual agreement.

The Agreement was terminated by the Diocese of Virginia and The Episcopal Church and their termination was followed by their filing of lawsuits against those the Bishop of Virginia once declared he wanted to remain in as close as communion as possible with.

Even now, that continues to be our prayer. Even now.

Day Two: Diocese of Virginia Annual Council

Russ Palmore is making a report on the litigation and it's no wonder that these dear folks have no idea what's going on. One would expect that at a diocesan council there would be the opportunity for questions, but he just made his report and sat down after a standing ovation. It would be difficult to open up negotiations - or even to talk about negotiations - after a presentation like that.

UPDATE: Again, one of the extraordinary faux pas of Russ Palmore's report to Council was his apparent loss of memory about the Standstill Agreement between the Diocese of Virginia and the CANA churches after the vote and filing of the 57-9 petitions with local courts. The Standstill Agreement still does not appear in the diocese's online documents and for some reason is consistently and constantly omitted from the diocese's public legal presentations to the laity and clergy of the Diocese of Virginia. Perhaps because it includes a piece of information that completely changes the justification for filing lawsuits against nearly two hundred lay volunteers and their rectors after the Diocese inexplicably called off the Standstill and walked away from the negotiating table, the next step in the protocol process instituted by the Bishop of Virginia's own Special Committee.

Here is an excerpt from the Standstill Agreement (2b) (dated Dec. 18, 2006):

2 The Congregations ...

b. will not initiate any civil legal action against The Diocese/TEC, but may report their congregations determinations by filing a petition/report with the relevant VA Circuit Courts pursuant to Va. Code 57-9 without violating the agreement. The congregations' Va. Code 57-9 filings will state that notice has been provided to The Diocese/TEC. The congregations will not take any further steps to bring the Va. Code 57-9 filings to judgment. Upon the Diocese's request, the congregations will seek a stay of their Va. Code 57-9 filings. If the Diocese seeks to intervene in the Va Code 57-9 filings, the congregations will not oppose such intervention and upon the Diocese's request will jointly with the Diocese move to stay the filings. In not opposing the intervention, the congregation of course reserve the right to contest the Diocese/TEC's alleged interest in the property.

Read the entire Standstill Agreement here.

This was where the CANA Congregations stood when the Diocese of Virginia, followed shortly be a completely separate filing by Katharine Jefferts Schori (perhaps just in case the diocese did not take her warnings seriously). Why Russ Palmore forgot to mention this rather crucial part of the timeline when making his report to Annual Council in front of 700 delegates is, well, odd.

You decide. Of course, Council did go ahead and unanimously pass a 2009 budget that included a line item that authorizes taking out a $4 million "line of credit" to finance the diocese's litigation, even as it cuts staff and programs and will retire their bishop early to balance the budget.

Alas.

After the litigation report from Russ Palmore (who actually wrote the Protocol, by the way), we heard a report on the building of a chapel at the Roslyn Conference Center in Richmond and named in honor of Bishop Lee. The chapel plans are beautiful and when built, the chapel will sit on a hill at the Roslyn Conference Center like a beacon of glass. At the end of the presentation, Bishop Lee received another standing ovation as did his wife during Bishop Jones' report that followed. Surely an era is coming to an end, in more ways than we ever could have imagined.

Bishop David Jones is now giving his report, which included a short update on his activities with the "continuing" diocese in Pittsburgh that is being fashioned around old-friend around here at the Cafe, Jim Simons.

He's making the pitch for more financial support and not only that, but that the parishes should give a percentage right off the top to the diocese. How interesting that the Suffragan is giving the money talk. Why is the bishop doing the money talk? And he's using the rationale that the people here need to give the next bishop "the tools he needs" to do stuff.

Okay, here's the rewritten resolution by the Resolutions Committee proposed resolution affirming the "integrity" of what they are calling "committing relationships" which, of course, means - same sex partners living together.

R-1a - The are now discussing R-1a called Involvement in the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America and the Anglican Communion

The resolved includes affirmation of being in the Anglican Communion, as well as to affirm "pastoral care" for everyone (which is code words).

They are now discussing including recommending ssu liturgies at General Convention as an added resolve.

Church of the Messiah Fredericksburg and St. Matthew's Richmond, and a church in Stafford have risen to oppose the amendment since it doesn't have anything to do with the rest of the title of the resolution. Now a member of the Commission has also risen in opposition.

The Amendment FAILS.

Church in Aldie rises to strike final resolve that was added by amendment.

10:30 a.m. Russ Randle asks to table the amendment and vote is taken and a count is now underway.

Kate Chipps does not understand what is going on and so the Chancellor has taken the podium to explain what they are doing.

The motion to table the amendment is passed.

10:37 R-2 Comprehensive Marriage Ministry Strengthens Congregational Vitality is referred to the Executive Board.

You can follow along with the original resolutions here. There have been some changes and we'll try to give you what those changes are as we go along. We're watching in particular R4a (the text is below).

R3-a Advocate for the Poor in 2010 Budget Hearings and Strive to Protect the Poor from Disproportionate Suffering is now on the floor and is being discussed with an amendment. It has also been modified by the resolutions committee. The final resolve now reads that parishes should work with the Virginia Interfaith Center which is interesting.

Amendment is passed.

10:46 a.m. Another amendment is proposed by Holy Cross, Dunn Loring. This amendment wants Bishop Lee to appoint a Task Force to lobby the Commonwealth of Virginia.

I wonder where they'd get the money to finance a Task Force and lobby the Commonwealth government?

Very interesting, Patrick Getlein has taken the podium to explain what the Interfaith Center for Public Policy is as a lobbying center. This is also the group that has gathered together regarding providing support for the diocese's litigation against the Virginia congregations that have voted to separate.

The amendment failed! Fascinating.

10:57 Discussion now begins on R-4a:

R-4a Integrity of Committing Relationships

RESOLVED, that the Diocese of Virginia recognizes our responsibility to respond to the pastoral needs of our faithful gay and lesbian members in a spirit of love, compassion and respect, and in doing so seek to fulfill our baptismal commitment to respect the dignity of every human being; and be it further

RESOLVED, that accordingly the 214th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia affirms the inherent integrity [and blessedness] of committed Christian relationships between two adult persons, when those relationships are "characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God." (Resolution 2000-D039 of the 73rd General Convention of the Episcopal Church).

Endorsed by:
Region V
The Vestry of St. Anne's Episcopal Church, Reston
The Vestry of the Church of the Holy Comforter, Richmond
The Vestry of St. Mark's Episcopal Church, Richmond

A new "Whereas" is proposed and has been taken by the chair. A delegate has risen opposing the amendment that its content is beyond the competence of the council to make an judgement. The amendment fails.

St. Anne's Reston - thanks the committee. Is thankful that this resolution changes the diocesan policy on intimate relationships. Wants to propose another amendment in the second resolve second sentence "and blessedness" - integrity alone is insufficient. So it would read:

RESOLVED, that accordingly the 214th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia affirms the inherent integrity of and blessedness of committed Christian relationships ...

Russ Randle rises to oppose the amendment. He says he will support this whole resolution, but not this amendment. Says this will adversely affect mission relationships with the Sudan.

Another Delegate has raised the issue that the second resolve is out of order and opposes the amendment.

Lauren Stanley supports "blessedness" - that "holy love" and "blessedness" goes together. She says that this will not be a problem for the Sudan. She said that the people don't care.

Front Royal supports the amendment on blessedness.

Another delegate said we should judge no one and embrace everyone. She opposes it because it signals out a particular group for blessedness and not everyone.

St. Anne's Reston is in favor of the amendment.

Vote: They are taking count. "Blessedness" has a particular sacramental meaning and this word will emphatically change the Diocese of Virginia's stance on same sex "blessings."

11:14 a.m. While the tellers count the bishop is introducing his staff, who get a standing ovation. Bishop Lee is introducing other folks as well as we await the outcome of the vote on including the word "blessedness" into the proposed resolution.

A call for the resolution to be tabled has just been requested from the floor but was ruled out of order by Bishop Lee.

We are told that the vote is very close.

VOTE: 211-206 - the amendment passes to add the word "blessedness." BB NOTE: This is one major example where five or six people make a difference.

The call is again made to table the resolution.

The table fails - about 1/5 or even 1/7 voted to table.

An attempt is now made to refer this resolution to the Windsor Dialogue Commission.

St. Anne's Reston back at the mic to oppose the referring of this resolution to the commission.

11:23 a.m. St. Michael's Arlington also opposes referring the resolution to the commission.

Susan Eaves, chair of the Commission, is confused - she is clarifying that the commission is finished its work. It doesn't exist any more. Is also confused also over people not wanting to talk about these issues. She says that all the decisions reside with the bishop.

Caroline Parkinson - opposes the referral because so much is referred.

Roger from Church of the Spirit - Speaks about Bishop Lee's affirmation of what is the diocesan policy on relationships and marriages, and asks a question to Bishop Lee.

Bishop Lee says he stands by what he said in the past and the council has its own voice. Bishop Lee would not permit Roger to ask a follow up.

Another delegate said the vote revealed that there is no consensus and that they need more conversation.

St. Paul's Memorial Charlottesville - This is an issue that can't be solved by talking about it. He says that the "rights" need to be extended to gays and lesbians.

St. Paul's Bailey Crossroads - calls the question, says this is just another way to table.

Now a vote on the motion to defer.

11:30 a.m. The motion to refer fails.

St. Dunstan's McLean - concerns are that it seems like a small appeasement or something small we're giving to gays and lesbians in the diocese. WANTS a larger context about what is sacred in relationships and not half-based. He has concerns about the second resolve "two adult persons" does this include a man and woman living together? Seniors living together? What is a covenant relationship in the Anglican Communion? He wants to see a resolution with theological depth.

Another Delegate is opposed to the resolution and requests the second resolve be removed, but supports the first resolve. He has served on the Windsor Dialogue Commission.

Discussion is now underway to remove second resolve.

11:33 a.m. Aquia Church Stafford - He asks whether we are doing this as a church? Only the last speaker talked about Holy Scripture. Before we get into the whole complex issue of sexuality, we need a comprehensive view of theology - can't move into "blessedness" without the underpinnings of theology. Excellent points, excellent.

St. Michael's Arlington is against the amendment to strike the second resolve.

Rector St. Paul's Bailey's Crossroads - says that Set Our Hope on Christ is the theology. Why has our church paid so little attention to it?

Another member of St. Paul's Bailey's Crossroads - also speaks out against the amendment, says it's time to take those steps that it's integrity and blessed. Let's just take a step and do it!

All Soul's Mechanicsville - opposes amendment because it affects those who are living together and go to Episcopal Churches and take communion and we're all ready affirming those relationships of men and women living together without marriage by not talking about it.

Roger from Church of the Spirit, Alexandria: Question on D039 does not include the theology of committed relationships have integrity - that's a new thing, that's a new theology, that is not a spirit of D039 and as someone has been listening for twenty years since the diocese has been doing the listening thing for a while - we're going to have this as new theology while quiets the voices of those who don't agree. How will they be listened to because council has spoken and we've created something new here. Words have meaning, if it is a will of council to do something new then do it, but don't say it's in the spirit of D039.

Bishop Lee is now lining everyone up behind two mics representing the two sides. Debate continues over whether to remove the second resolve. That resolve reads:

RESOLVED, that accordingly the 214th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia affirms the inherent integrity [AND BLESSEDNESS) of committed Christian relationships between two adult persons, when those relationships are "characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God." (Resolution 2000-D039 of the 73rd General Convention of the Episcopal Church).

The debate continues.

Church of Our Savior Charlottesville - Look at the words, he can envision relationship between two adults same sex or different sex and can envision one of those individuals being married to someone else. Excellent point.

Lauren Stanley says that the language is in line with D039.

St. James Louisa - supports removing second resolve. There's nothing in this resolve about lifelong, but could be monogamy of one relationship after another.

Kate Chipps - wants to vote and get on with our lives.

Bishop Lee calls for a vote.

Amendment fails.

Call the question. Ready to vote.

The Resolution is passed.

There's no call for prayer, nothing. Monumental moment for the Diocese of Virginia.

Discussion is now underway regarding a special meeting of General Convention of the Anglican Covenant:

Russ Randle encourages adoption.

St. Anne's Reston opposes adoption.

Here is what they are voting on:

R7: The Anglican Covenant

Resolved, that the Diocese of Virginia urge the Presiding Bishop to call for, and the majority of bishops to consent to, a special meeting of the General Convention at a “time certain" before the 2012 convention in order to consider adoption the Anglican Covenant. "

The call is for a special meeting of General Convention to consider the Anglican Covenant.

We are now awaiting the results of this vote.

Resolution Fails -171 to 210.

R-9a is a resolution to refer R-5 and R-6 to the Windsor Dialogue Commission (which the chair thought was done with their work) and that it would be included

12:05 p.m. St. Anne's Reston has risen to amend the resolution to delete the first resolve and add three resolves that would restore R-5 and R-6. The text is here.

The council is weary and it's six minutes passed it's published ending time.

St. Luke's Wellington - against the amendment. Bishop Lee clarified that the commission has not been discharged.

Christ the King Harrisonburg - moves to table the amendment.

Council votes and tables the amendment.

St. Anne's Reston - wants clarification. Is there a time limit to table? Chancellor says that the time limit is indefinite.

St. Gabrielle's says that the second Where As is contradictory to what was just passed in R4a. Consensus is now clarified regarding gay and lesbian relationships in the church.

Lauren Stanley moves to take from the table the amendment. It is second. No debate. The vote to take the amendment off the table.

Motion fails.

Andrew Murrow of St. Mary's Arlington - second Where As is a paraphrase of what PB said at the Press Club.

Kate Chipps said that what we did a few moments ago was for the Diocese of Virginia, not "The Church."

Falls Church Shadow - proposing amendment - majority vote does not signal a consensus to amend to say "Where as the church and the diocese ... "

Now voting.

Bishop Lee calls for the tellers.

Whereas, many members of the Diocese are pained that gay and lesbian members are not fully accepted by our Church; and

Whereas, the Church and the Diocese have not reached a consensus about the place of gay and lesbian persons within the life of our Church; and

Whereas, we are in the midst of episcopal transition; be it therefore

Resolved, that R-5 and R-6 be referred to the Windsor Dialogue Commission; and be it further

Resolved, we commend to the entire Diocese the listening process that has been set before us at this Council.

What is before the Council right now is to add the words "and the Diocese"

12:17 p.m. While the voting continues, Sarah Bartenstein, President of the Standing Committee is at the Podium.

This is a very sad moment in the history of the Diocese of Virginia. I wonder if Bishop Lee ever imagined that his episcopacy would end like this. He does a masterful job with the resolution debates, he's just amazing in how he holds it all together.

"It seems that transition is very much on our minds these days," Sarah says from the podium. Yes, that is true.

By the way, Meade Memorial was made a parish. It was nearly lost in all the other items on the agenda. That's very good news for that longtime church in mission status.

Sarah is now paying tribute to Bishop Lee. She is glad that Bishop Lee will be with the diocese before and after General Convention. She announces a special service:

Washington National Cathedral
May 30
Celebration of Bishop Lee's Ministry

Back to the Resolutions. Vote on Amendment 234-136 carries - "and the Diocese of Virginia" is added to the resolution.

St. Anne's Reston - Proposes an Amendment - Asked the commission return next year.

And that a commission be charged to make a report to the 215th annual council. There's been a move to table the amendment. That fails. Bishop Lee calls for discussion.

Rick Lord of Holy Comforter Vienna with Sue Eaves - the Windsor Dialogue Commission has made two reports, one last year and one this year. They speak against this amendment.

Now voting.

The amendment fails.

Now back to R9s. The question is called.

R9s is adopted.

Constitution and Canons - call for a comprehensive review of diocesan (and regional) structures. They are against C-1.

Council votes no against C-1.

THE BUDGET:

The council is now going over the reductions in the budget. I don't see anyone running to the mics to discuss the budget, but for one comment. The budget is passed.

Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales, returns to the podium. He is going to "table" his fourth meditation. Instead, he's going to give closing reflections on what he's seen happen over the past several days, including the hospitality he's been shown, the outward-lookingness of people, the encouragement that people show one another, the wide-variety of items on the agenda, also impressed with the ministries that the diocese provides, more than most Welsh dioceses do.

Now he's telling the council that he doesn't want them to think that The Episcopal Church and Canada are pariahs - but that all are in the firing line. He feels that The Episcopal Church has behaved "graciously" unlike other members of the Communion.

Regarding the Covenant, he says the Church in Wales has problems with the Covenant and hasn't adopted it. He says he is concerned that the current draft still has "punitive" clauses that encourages spying on one another.

He said that he would resist the founding of another province with every fiber of his body. He got a standing ovation for that one. He says it's "total nonsense." He says that if it's possible for that to happen to The Episcopal Church, it's possible for any of us, he says. He says he's a minority in the primates. And he commended Bishop Lee's work.

Bishop Lee has now taken to the podium.

This is his final address to Annual Council. He is commending the people gathered. "I'm leaving with a sense of thanksgiving," he says. And now the final blessing.

Sine die.

Reading between the lines: Commentary on the latest Press Release from the Diocese of Virginia

One of the things we learn when we've been in Virginia for a while is that saying things "directly" is not exactly the "Virginia Way." And so when we read the latest press releases from the Diocese of Virginia, we begin to recognize that reading them is an art form. They must be read between the lines - only hold on to your hat, it might become useful.

For the past month we've been treated to several rather interesting press releases and letters from the Bishop of Virginia and the Diocese. First there is a protocol for departing congregations, then there is "I never knew you" statement that there is no protocol for departing congregations, then there is a "yes, well, there is a protocol for departing congregations and I know the Chancellor of the Diocese of Virginia actually wrote it and the Bishop of Virginia put his stamp on it, but it really isn't what we all said it was." And then there were the letters - the three-page "Bishop is going to sue my cat" letter followed by the "why can't we all just get along letter" followed by the "you'all are just a bunch of Nigerians" letter followed by the a literal statement of the facts, followed by last night's latest press release.

And that one is fascinating. It hit the papers last night, since it "announced" that it had issued a "standstill agreement" and all parties had agreed. But then, buried inside the text, is a Virginia-style threat - and it's a doozy. Did you catch it?

First off, the "standstill agreement" did not originate with the Diocese of Virginia, it originated from the churches that now make up the Anglican District of Virginia. That is probably a good thing to know. The Diocese released their press release and somehow forgot to tell the Anglican District of Virginia churches that it had accepted all our requests. Oops.

Perhaps that was make it sound like it was their idea to deflect what was buried inside the press release - something that was not contained in the Standstill Agreement but was added by the Bishop of Virginia, The Standing Committee, and the Executive Board, and all their lawyers later. It's this paragraph:

“In some of our churches where that membership has now been significantly reduced, there are faithful Episcopalians who need to be given every encouragement to establish structures necessary for their continuity as the Episcopal Church.

So it begins, "In some of OUR churches ..." So right from the start, the Diocese of Virginia attempts to foster an image that they claim domain over the churches, as though we are Serfs on the Estate of His Lordship.

The letter continues, defining what happened on Sunday as something "where the membership has now been significantlyly reduced ..." Now this phrase is totally devoid of any pastoral concern or feeling, it is as though a tornado came blasting through Fairfax County and whipped all the church members into the whirlwind, whisking us all off to the Land of Oz. Here's your hat, what's your hurry?

It is an amazing twist of the truth, as though something random happened and not a major historical and overwhelming vote of We The People (we are actually in America, aren't we, where one person, one vote actually has meaning?). The sentence should read "where on Sunday an overwhelming majority of church members voted to sever their ties from The Episcopal Church and The Diocese of Virginia (which - by the way - still continues under discipline by the worldwide Anglican Communion and will still have to answer to its failure to fulfill the requests of the Windsor Report and Dromantine) and instead remain in the Anglican Communion by joining the Anglican District of Virginia (CANA)." But then, that would have been really accurate and would not have served the purposes of the next part of this sentence that reads:

"...there are faithful Episcopalians who need to be given every encouragement to establish structures necessary for the continuity as the Episcopal Church." Faithful to what?

Do you remember this presentation by David Booth Beers to the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church Oct. 24-27, 2004 when he made the case regarding the possibility of Episcopal Dioceses separating from the church so that if there is a "remnant within a diocese who wish to remain, they will retain title to church property for the diocese."

This is exactly what this threat is about in this press release from the Diocese of Virginia. We shouldn't be naive, but thoughtfully consider that the "standstill agreement" initiated by the District of Anglican Churches in Virginia is actually a helpful cover over the real intent of the meeting of the Bishop, The Standing Committee, the Executive Board, and the diocesan lawyers on Monday. It appears that the real intent is to "establish structures necessary for their continuity as the Episcopal Church" in all those churches that voted to go to CANA. And they need more time to do that.

This is not about pastoral concern for Episcopalians in the District. It has been very clear at Truro that every member, whether they are Episcopalian, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, Presbyterian or whatever - every member of Truro (and I am sure this is very true of the other congregations as well) are cherished and valued members of the parish. I know this is true at Truro for I have had many conversations with those who probably voted to remain Episcopalian. But they also indicated that they loved Truro the way it is and didn't want it to change - and that is certainly our intent - to remain faithful to the risen Lord Jesus and to the Scriptures - it is The Episcopalal Church who left us, not the other way around. I am not sure the Diocese still grasps this - but then, it really isn't about that for them, it's actually about their intent to "establish structures necessary" so that those church buildings - Truro, The Falls Church, St. Paul's, St. Stephen's, Apostles, Christ the Redeemer, St. Margaret's, Church of the Word, etc. - continue as Episcopal Churches. As Beers illustrated two years ago regarding the ACN Dioceses, the "remnant ..will retain title to church property for the diocese." Are they nothing more than useful pawns to aid the Diocese in their own legal strategy? I just can't believe that Virginia would take on the politicized culture of 815. How did that happen?

If this isn't true - then show me. I would LOVE to be proved wrong. I mean it. I really mean it. Let's return to the spirit of the Protocol and not engage in this sort of offensive tactics. Please.

So what this latest Press Release actually appears to do is put the churches on notice that the Diocese is going to track down the members who voted no and "encourage" them to establish a presence contrary to the majority so that when the Diocese is ready, when the "standstill agreement" is ended (it only takes seven days to end the agreement at any time - or did they fail to mention that part in their Press Release?) then they can be positioned in court to have established their own pawns in the churches and fight against the majority of the faithful Christians who followed the protocol established by the diocese in the first place to avoid this kind of the cynical politicizing of the process and instead walk out a Christian witness of an amicable agreement and take over the property.

How did this happen? How did the National Church succeed in taking over the heart of the Diocese of Virginia and convince Bishop Lee to abandon all his principles, his "center aisle" philosophy and engage in the type of ecclesiastical politics we only used to see at General Convention? What happened? I wish I knew. I really wish I knew. I don't know what happened, but it must have been terrible. This is vindictive, but dressed up in fancy clothes.

The press release reminds us again that "the Executive Board and Standing Committee authorized the Bishop to explore all options with the Episcopalians who remain and to take appropriate actions for their support and full participation in the life of the Diocese." Looks like they want representation at Diocesan Council at the end of January for all the churches that are now in the Anglican District of Virginia. Bishop Lee will go to any means, "explore all options" to get it.

What it does for us is illustrate more and more that what guides the Episcopal Church is not the historical Anglican faith, grounded in Scripture, expressed in the 39 Articles, proclaimed in the Creeds, and centered on the Risen Lord Jesus Christ. What guides The Episcopal Church is best expressed in this hatchet job from ENS regarding one of the smallest churches to vote to sever their ties to the Episcopal Church, St. Stephen's Heathsville. This is a small rural parish - a wonderful parish, one where the rector preaches out of the Scriptures and centers on Jesus. The overwhelming majority - satisfying the criteria set by the Diocesan Protocol - voted to sever their ties to The Episcopal Church and join the Anglican District of Virginia. But since then, the Diocese of Virginia - following the lead of David Booth Beers and the National Church - is seeking to "encourage" dissent and division in the church and instead "establish structures necessary" to take the property away from the voting majority. This is such a big deal that they sold the story to ENS.

Watch that spin - they seek to do it again.

Is this the future of The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia? While we stand down, is the Diocese going to take that time to "establish structures necessary for the continuity as the Episcopal Church?" Does the prestige of having historical properties mean more to The National Church and the Diocese of Virginia than the vote of the majority of faithful Anglican Christians? And will they follow up their plan to retain the historical symbols of the Church, even as they continue to discard the historical faith?

bb

LATER: The onslaught begins from the National Church. Read today's editorial by Katharine Jefferts Schori in the new faith online feature at the Washington Post. Take note of her very serious threat when she writes, "Even if a large percentage of a congregation departs, the remaining people will be assisted by the diocese and the larger Church to reconstitute their congregation and continue in mission and ministry in that place." The Bishop of Virginia has abandoned the year-long work of his personally appointed Special Committee through pressure from the National Church, as we see spelled out clearly in these words from the new Presiding Bishop.

For the Record: It was the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia that sued the Virginia churches that voted to separate; we did not sue them.

I have just learned from one of the Church of England bishops that Episcopal bishops are going around the Lambeth Conference and saying that it was the Virginia churches that sued the Diocese of Virginia and the Episcopal Church. That is false. Completely false. In fact, the voting took place at the request of the Bishop of Virginia and was clearly stated in his protocol which was followed by all eleven churches. We did not sue them - they sued us.

Let me say that again.

We did not sue them. They sued us - twice. The Diocese of Virginia sued 200 lay volunteers and their rectors and then Katharine Jefferts Schori did the same thing.

The lawsuits were filed suddenly and without warning after Bishop Lee pulled out of his own negotiations following our vote.

You can see here the "Standstill Agreement" we had in place to govern our negotiations following the votes. It is clear in this Standstill that the Diocese recognized that the recording of our votes at the courthouse was not - I repeat - was not a hostile action but was what the law required. The Diocese recognized this, as you can see in the Standstill Agreement. Filing our votes was not a suing the Diocese or the Episcopal Church. It was not a hostile act. The Diocese of Virginia acknowledged this clearly in their Standstill Agreement.

We never took the next step of transferring property because 1) we believed we all ready owned it and 2) we were going into negotiations with the diocese. That was where we stood.

Following Bishop Lee's direction, each of the parish vestries elected two representatives to Bishop Lee's "Property Committee." Bishop Lee also chose representatives of his own. But within days - before even one meeting of his own Property Committee - the Standstill was not renewed and lawsuits were filed by Bishop Lee and Bishop Schori. It was a shock.

Let me say that again. It was Katharine Jefferts Schori and Peter James Lee that sued 200 lay volunteers - men and women - in Virginia for voting as Bishop Lee's Protocol for Departing Congregations directed.

I know. I was one of them.

And I have never sued anyone.

Make a Note: Judge Bellows puts trial dates on calendar - has not yet ruled what will be covered on those dates

The Diocese of Virginia has just released a statement on the state of their lawsuits against the eleven Virginia Churches that followed the Protocol for Departing Churches and voted to separate from the Episcopal Church.

In their weekly Communique under the headline "Judge Sets Date for Trial," the diocese states that “The Hon. Randy I. Bellows has set Oct. 6-30, 2008 for the second phase of the trial over ownership of Episcopal Church property.” The Diocese then asserts that "In this second phase The Diocese of Virginia and The Episcopal Church seek declaratory judgment regarding the property, a ruling that requires the CANA congregations to vacate Episcopal property, transfer of title and a full accounting of all property. "

This is not true.

The judge has reserved trial dates this fall, but the judge has not yet ruled on the subject covered by those dates and won’t make a decision until after he rules on the 57-9 filings, some time after January 19, 2008 (which will probably be in February or March 2008).

On January 4, 2008, the Diocese of Virginia and The Episcopal Church had originally petitioned Judge Bellows to begin litigation of their lawsuits immediately, which would have caused a dramatic increase in legal costs for the eleven churches now sued by the Diocese and TEC. These eleven churches followed the Diocese's Protocol for Departing Churches and voted to separate from the Episcopal Church. The protocol followed the Canons of the Diocese of Virginia and the statutes of the Commonwealth, including Virginia's Statute 57-9

The judged said no.

The Diocese had originally agreed that they did not consider the filing of the reports (no property has ever been transferred) a hostile action and made this clear in the Standstill Agreement approved by both the Standing Committee and Executive Board of the Diocese of Virginia. The Standstill Agreement still does not appear on the Diocese of Virginia’s website.

What the Diocese calls the “second phase” is actually the original lawsuits the Diocese of Virginia and the Episcopal Church in separate actions filed against the eleven churches, their trustees, their rectors, and over 200 lay volunteers who had operated in good faith under the Protocol for Departing Churches under the authority of the Bishop of Virginia. This was done despite the fact that the Diocese and the eleven church had begun the next steps (following the model set by Bishop Lee with the property negotiations with All Saints, Dale City), including electing representatives to Bishop Lee’s own Property Committee. This was in place, as the Standstill Agreement illustrates, until the Episcopal Church intervened and the negotiations were shut down.

While the judge has reserved trial dates this fall on his calendar, he has not yet ruled what the content of those dates will be - let us make that perfectly clear. There are all kinds of speculation now underway on what the focus of those dates will be (others have differing opinions, depending on the judge’s opinion), but the judge has not yet ruled – and the last time we checked, he has the final say in the matter.

Litigation continues its grip: The new bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia writes the diocese as they head back to court

Since the language has not changed with the departure of Bishop Lee (and this language never sounded like him anyway), it's clear that the lawyers have a firm grip on the Diocese of Virginia.

Bishop Johnston now writes the diocese, continuing the same rhetoric that came into the diocese to erraticate (er, eradicate) the former Bishop of Virginia's Protocol for Departing Congregations (which by the way, is still on the diocese's server, at this writing). Bishop Johnston's rhetoric is so alien to how we've understood the role of congregations in the Diocese of Virginia, one wonders what local parishes that remain in the Diocese are thinking. Certainly the bishop is not completely clued in, but listening to the 815 lawyers - who seem to have very little understanding about the historic polity of Virginia (Bishop Moore and Bishop Meade anyone?). One does hope he'll be able to think for himself, but when someone as strong as Bishop Lee buckles under pressure from 815 - why would the new bishop be able to bring the diocese back to the negotiating table?

Let us recall that it was the Bishop of Virginia who abandoned his own negotiating table within days of calling the departing congregations to send representatives to the table in 2007 - his own negotiating table! We did not leave the table - he did, and it's apparent that Bishop Johnston hasn't been told that (or has he?). One does hope he has an opportunity to read the Standstill Agreement soon. One also hopes he has an opportunity to talk to the departing rectors directly and personally. I in fact pray for that.

We can see here the erroneous argument about freedom - last time I checked we had a freedom to vote, especially in Virginia where Anglicans voted long ago to not remain in the newly Disestablished Church but separate to form their own congregations. The Diocese of Virginia was built on the freedom of the people to choose, freely choose its associations and the associations of its congregations. In Virginia we also believe that those who own property have their names on their deeds. One hopes Bishop Johnston, being new to the Commonwealth, has the opportunity to learn Virginia history.

Bishop Johnson quotes the lawyers' strategy in his letter:

freedom is under direct attack here in our diocese in the form of a Virginia law that allows the government to interfere with the faith, polity and structure of our Church and other hierarchical churches in the Commonwealth.

Let's just remember what happened. The Bishop of Virginia instituted a Commission on Reconciliation out of the Diocese of Virginia's Annual Council in 2005. That Commission found that the Diocese was at a Level Five Conflict, the worst possible. From the Commission on Reconciliation's report, the Bishop of Virginia created a Special Committee of his own choosing to find a way forward, with six members led by his own Chancellor. This Special Committee met for a year in close consultation with the Bishop of Virginia and the chairman, his own chancellor, wrote the Protocol for Departing Congregations as a way to recognize that the conflict was so severe it was toxic and in danger of causing congregations to collapse and to enable a process for the congregations to remain in as a close a communion possible. The protocol included a system of voting by the members of the congregations under the canons of the Diocese and the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Have we made that clear?

The congregations went through 40 days of discernment which included hearing personally from the Bishop of Virginia and presentations from from the Standing Committee on Sunday mornings when the congregations gathered.

The congregations then conducted a legal vote (the Diocese has never contested that the votes were conducted legally and in good order) and filed their votes in their local court house according to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. A Standstill Agreement (which is still not on the Diocese of Virginia's server, even though it is a paramount legal document) then was commissioned between all parties and the Bishop of Virginia to prepare for negotiations over the property. The local congregations refrained from taking legal steps on their property in anticipation to the negotiations that were about to be underway in Bishop Lee's own Property Committee.

Each congregation's vestry was requested by Bishop Lee to appoint two members to his Property Committee and this was all ready completed by some congregations when David Booth Beers, the lawyer to the new Presiding Bishop, came into the Diocese in 2007 and two days later Bishop Lee called everything off, cancelled renewal of the Standstill Agreement, began deposition procedures against all the clergy who voted to separate, instituted personal lawsuits against nearly 200 lay volunteers, and invited the new Presiding Bishop to also personally sue the same 200 lay volunteers and institute their own lawsuits against the voting congregations.

So let's just talk about freedom - let's talk about trust, let's talk about honor, and let's talk about love and the hope we all once had that we would find a way to live in as close a communion as possible. We are still at the table, Bishop Johnston. Where are you?

Here's Bishop Johnston's letter:

October 9, 2009

Dear Diocesan Family,

A panel of the Virginia Supreme Court will hear our petition for appeal on October 21 and, while it is unfortunate that these legal proceedings were necessary, I trust that this hearing will bring us one step closer to resolution.

I am proud that the Diocese of Virginia and the Episcopal Church have chosen the path consistently to defend loyal Episcopalians, and to safeguard and to protect the Church's legacy and the Church from unwarranted governmental and legislative interference. It is with the same determination to stand by the people, traditions and legacy of our diocese that I look toward our appeal.

For nearly 225 years, the Episcopal Church has had the freedom to govern itself according to its beliefs. But that freedom is under direct attack here in our diocese in the form of a Virginia law that allows the government to interfere with the faith, polity and structure of our Church and other hierarchical churches in the Commonwealth.

I believe that this law is unconstitutional and that there is too much at stake to let it remain in effect. The legal struggle to secure our right to organize as we choose and safeguard our churches from those seeking to seize them has not been easy. This journey has been a long one, but now more than ever we must all gather around those who need us most at this difficult time.

Loyal Episcopalians have been exiled from their Episcopal homes for too long and I ask you to keep all of them in your prayers. This includes St. Stephen's, Heathsville; St. Margaret's, Woodbridge; Epiphany, Oak Hill; and The Falls Church, Falls Church. These parishioners have been denied the ability to worship as they wish at the very same churches where they were married, where they baptized their children and where they buried their loved ones. I view this next hearing with great hope for the day when I will join these faith-filled Episcopalians as they return to their church homes to celebrate and worship together.


Faithfully yours,

The Rt. Rev. Shannon S. Johnston
Bishop of Virginia

BB NOTE: The phrase used by Bishop Johnston, "unwarranted governmental and legislative interference" is another way of saying that the Episcopal Church believes itself to be above the law. Think about it.

Tip of the Tinfoil to The Intrepid.

Live Blogging Diocese of Virginia Resolutions Votes at Annual Council

Live from Intrepid on the floor of the Annual Council of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia:

We are getting a report on the commission about ssbs ... They were a united group with close spiritual bonds. They had a modified indaba process and created a friendship among members. Perhaps biggest accomplishment was staying focused on what we were asked to do.

"We were asked not to opine on whether ssb should be authorized ..."
"We established an opine free zone"

The underlying issues remain potentially divisive.
Our guidelines needed to address key issues.
We needed to be mindful that some clergy might not want to participate in ssb
We carefully studied resolution 14s which reminded us that asked for canonical recommendations but we were convinced that the authorization of ssb was solely at the discretion of the diocesan bishop.

We also determined that no changes to diocesan canons are necessary or desirable
As with heterosexual marriage we believe national canons are the appropriate level

To establish diocesan canons would be cumbersome and preemptive process of that national process.

We talked our task with open minds, we did the research, and followed our work to it's logical conclusion.

We have come up with our best recommendation for consistent and enforceable guidelines for providing pastoral care for same sex couples looking to have their relationships blessed.

We have submitted these guidelines to Bishop Johnston for his use. They are for the bishop to see as he sees fit. We have no recommendations for canonical changes for this council.

More to come

...

This is what I have said from the start. The authorization of services is at the permission of the ordinary of the diocese, the bishop. When the bishops say they need to hear from the diocese or the national church or the decision is based on legislation it is a dodge. The authority has always been in the hands of the bishops to allow or disallow such practices ... And so to choose whether or not to stay in communion with the rest of the consensus fidelium or to step outside the boundaries of the orthodox church. The commission has put the ball back in the hands of the bishop ... Something I brought up in a previous council meeting when I asked why we were bothering with listening sessions when Bishop Johnston had already said he believed in ssbs and said he would work for them personally.



Russ Palmore is reviewing the litigation now

Eleven congregations voted to secede. They immediately filed petitions to have state courts grant them ownership of the properties where they worshipped. We followed later with our own petition.


(BB NOTE: Again, Russ Palmore's statement is not accurate.  The eleven churches immediately filed petitions recording their votes - they did not take the next step to file petitions to have the state courts grant them ownership of the properties - that is absolutely false.  The votes were filed.  At that time we thought, following the Diocese of Virginia Protocol negotiated by Russ Palmore and Bishop Lee, we were heading into negotiations to come to a financial settlement withthe the diocese.  There was no reason to ask the court to intervene - we thought we were headed to resolution as was demonstrated in the prototype of the All Sants Dale City Resolution.  This was covered in the Standstill Agreement drafted by Bishop Lee and agreed to by the voting churches.  This Standstill Agreement is still not publicly available on the Diocese of Virginia's website - it's as though they don't want the people of the diocese to know about it - it will interfere with this timeline, I don't understand why they won't put the Standstill up on their website, it's public - you can read it here and here.

They wish to take Episcopal property to a new entity ... Under a statute that is extremely unusual. No Episcopal congregations had ever attempted to use this statute. It has always been the rule of the Episcopal church that properties held as a trust for the church as a whole. Most of the churches knew this and participated in council twenty five years ago when we wrote this canon into the diocesan canons, and they originally followed these canons. Every year until 2006 their Vestries took an oath to uphold the doctrine of the Episcopal church.

They asked the courts to rule that only a majority controlled the properties ... It would be fair to say that the diocese and the Episcopal church has experienced stumbling blocks.

Trial is still necessary under modern Va church property laws. While we cannot predict with certainty, I and the lawyers for the Episcopal church believe our claims are well supported ... Perhaps recognizing this the departing churches have tried some interesting new tactics.

In the mean time you may hear that the diocese has not been willing to negotiate. That is wrong. As Bishop Shannon mentioned we are willing to negotiate ... Our willingness to negotiate continues. We have been in touch with one of the other congregations about settlement. We will be reasonable but reasonableness is a two way street.





(BB NOTE: This is very good news - reasonableness is indeed a two-way street and it's clear, as we can see in the recent resolution between the Episcopal Diocese of New Jersey and a CANA/ACNA congregation that such resolution is now possible.).

This is not a path the diocese wished to travel. Yet when I look down that road I see more stepping stones than stumbling blocks.

----

Working on resolution R2A now.

.....

Well that was fun. Odd debate ... And then a vote to be taken in orders. Very few of us clergy holding up red cards (an odd misnomer since they are decidedly pink) to vote against resolution 2.

My delegate asked why we were doing it this way. I thought it was clearly a way to identify the few of us left in the room ...

....

Resolution 12s now ...

Resolutions heartily recommends approval. Discussion? None. People are tired and hungry. It passes without opposition.

Intrepid is a delegate at the Annual Council of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia.

Judge Bellows issues another ruling: sets new court date for August 11

Today Judge Randy Bellows issued a Letter of Opinion granting the Attorney General of the Common of Virginia's Renewed Motion to Intervene and defend the constitutionality of the Virginia Division Statute 57-9 in regard to the contracts clause of the United States Constitution.

In addition he also issued a court order that the scope of discovery will continue as he made it clear that he doesnot want to put at risk the date of the October trial. He reiterated that the scope of the October trial will include focusing on the whether the votes taken by the CANA congregations were fairly taken and to verify the outcome of the majority of the congregations votes to affiliate with its choice of branch.

He will also rule following the October trial whether the contracts clause of the U.S. Constitution causes 57-9 to be unconstitutional, which is a major reason for the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia to reintervene and defend the constitutionality of the historic Virginia statute.

From those rulings he will determine the fate of each congregation.

He also set an August 11 court date to hear oral arguments concerning three issues:

1. Whether the Diocese of Virginia and The Episcopal Church may assert at the October trial that the voting CANA congregations contracted away, waived, abandoned, or relinquished their right to file 57-9 petitions (BB NOTE: which makes me wonder why the Standstill Agreement did not consider that action hostile which this assertion surely does - and may also explain why the Standstill Agreement is still not up on the Diocese of Virginia's website). The judge says that the CANA Congregations maintain that this assertion is both untimely and unpled.

2. Whether the contracts clause protects only contractual rights that existed prior to the effective date of the predecessor statute to 57-9 (1867) which Judge Bellows explains is the position of the CANA Congregations.

3. Whether in determining the applicability of the contracts clause to particular congregations, the Court should consider only applicable deeds, which Judge Bellows also explains is the position of the CANA Congregations.

Judge Bellows says in his Order that these three items are pure questions of law and will be resolved prior to the October Trial. He set the date of August 11 in the Fairfax Circuit Court to hear those oral arguments from the Episcopal Church/Diocese of Virginia and the CANA Congregations.

So from Lambeth to Court do we go. Hi ho, hi ho, hi ho.

The Diocese of Virginia: Big Time Oops

The Diocese of Virginia has put the following up on their website and it’s so blatantly filled with major "OOPS" that it just can’t go without some sort of challenge.

The Diocese: "The dispute over property in the Diocese of Virginia entered the civil courts when the separated CANA congregations filed petitions with the courts in their jurisdictions reporting the results of their congregational votes and seeking the court’s declaration that the property belonged to the congregations."

OOPS! The Episcopal congregations voted and then – following the Diocese of Virginia’s Protocol for Departing Churches – filed that vote in their local court house. WE DID NOT, repeat, did not seek the court’s declaration. We thought we were following the Diocese of Virginia’s Protocol and that we were entering into property negotiations by joining Bishop Lee’s official Diocese of Virginia Property Committee (the Diocese fails to mention that part – or the Standstill Agreement that the Diocese entered into with the Virginia Churches as we prepared for the next phase in the Protocol). The property negotiations had all ready been modeled for us by the property negotiations between the Diocese of Virginia and All Saints, Dale City. This all came to a sudden halt in January 2007 following a meeting of the Diocese of Virginia’s Standing Committee, Executive Board, and Bishop Lee with the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor, David Booth Beers. Within days of that meeting, the standstill agreement was abruptly cancelled, lawsuits against the 200 lay volunteers and their clergy were filed by the Diocese and then another set by 815, the clergy were inhibited (even the ones who were remaining Episcopalian), and health benefits for clergy and staff were cut off, including COBRA benefits that cost the Diocese nothing but their honor. One thinks that David Booth Beers could not have the Diocese of Virginia declaring the facts that division had indeed occurred (as the Protocol stipulated) or their whole House of Cards would tumble.

The Diocese: "The Diocese and the Episcopal Church responded to those filings and are defendants in those cases."

OOPS: Defendants. That's rich. The Diocese sued 200 lay volunteers and their rectors and the Episcopal Church followed by filing their own lawsuit, also suing 200 lay volunteers and their rectors and the churches are the defendants – not the Diocese and TEC. The Diocese is the one that left the negotiation table (remember this?). The Diocese and TEC who are the ones who filed suit. This assertion is so blatantly a major OOPS it is shocking. We're the defendants. We're the ones sued. Does the Diocese really think we're all a bunch of stupid sheep?

The Diocese: Subsequently, the Diocese and the Episcopal Church filed complaints seeking a declaration that Episcopal Church property, while held by local trustees, is held in trust for the benefit of the Episcopal Church, the Diocese of Virginia and Episcopalians throughout the generations.

OOPS: The Diocese sued personally nearly 200 lay volunteers and their rectors when the The Commonwealth of Virginia does not recognize suing non-stipend volunteers in these circumstances (as the Diocese and 815 later found out). In addition, the Commonwealth of Virginia has not recognized implied trusts. Wishing it were so does not make it so, any more than wishing there was no division makes it so.

The Diocese: Those cases have yet to be scheduled for trial.

OOPS: The first trial is set for Nov. 13-19 and will cover the Virginia statute that the Protocol was based upon, a Protocol written by the Diocese of Virginia’s own Chancellor, former Standing Committee President, Reconciliation Task Force Chairman, the retired Chancellor of the Diocese of Virginia, a Parish Trustee, and the rector of a historic parish. At issue is whether the Virginia statute applies to this case and that there is indeed division within the Diocese of Virginia and the Episcopal Church. If this is not the case, then Judge Bellows has the week off.

The Diocese: At issue is the real and personal property of 11 Episcopal churches.

OOPS: No, at issue is the fact that we are a divided church. The Diocese of Virginia and 815 are of the mind that there is no division unless they say there is a division. Never mind that eleven churches followed a Protocol developed by the Diocese of Virginia under the personal authority of the Diocesan Bishop that acknowledged the division, not the report issued by the Diocese of Virginia’s Reconciliation Task Force that acknowledge a “Level Five” conflict in the Diocese. Let’s say that word together D I V I S I O N. At issue is the division in the Diocese of Virginia and the Episcopal Church. Does anyone think we’re all one big happy family and everything is just fine, thank you very much? One does not use the word “division” in polite company.

The Diocese: In each case, that property currently is occupied and used by non-Episcopal congregations. Four continuing Episcopal congregations have been denied use of their property, locked out of their buildings, deprived of their rights to that property and forced into exile.

OOPS: All the parishes welcome all people. Episcopalians fill the pews of the Virginia churches since Bishop Lee has done nothing to excommunicate (as he did with some of the Virginia rectors and clergy in those parishes) the laity in those parishes. I am still an Episcopalian worshiping in a CANA Church. I keep praying for repentance and reconciliation. But we are divided Episcopalians and some of us have found shelter in CANA congregations. All are welcome in the parishes, including Episcopalians. We are family. The people of those parishes followed the Protocol for Departing Parishes and voted to separate from the Diocese of Virginia and remain in the Anglican Communion. No one – repeat no one has been “locked out of their buildings, deprived of their rights to that property and forced into exile.” That is simply outrageous. It sounds like the Diocese of Virginia thinks its some Social Club and they get to define what is a true Episcopalian. Episcopalians are confirmed or received by a bishop in the Episcopal Church. My reception into the Episcopal Church is still valid, though I was reaffirmed by the former Archbishop of Canterbury with Bishop Lee’s permission. I haven’t been received or confirmed into any other denomination. I am an Episcopalian. And last time I checked I wasn’t denied the use of the property, I wasn’t locked out of the building, and I have not been deprived of my rights to that property (so I have rights?). And neither has any other Episcopalian member of Truro. We are family. CANA provides us a way to stay in the Anglican Communion. If I went to a Lutheran Church, I'd still be an Episcopalian attending a Lutheran Church. If I went to a Methodist Church, I'd be an Episcopalian attending a Methodist Church. If I went to Catholic Church, I would definitely be an Episcopalian attending a Catholic Church. I am an Episcopalian member of a CANA Church, a member of the worldwide Anglican Communion. If I say I am Anglican, does that mean I am no longer Episcopalian? If this is so, then it is the Episcopal Church that has left me. It is the Episcopal Church that has forced us into exile. And so I am Anglican. I choose to be Anglican. And the certificate that Lord Carey gave me says that I am Anglican.

The Diocese: By agreement of the parties, all cases were consolidated in Fairfax Circuit Court, and they have been assigned to Judge Randy I. Bellows.

And that, friends, is the one statement that is true. Alas. You can read more here.

LATER: Read this discussion here at TitusOneNine.

THURSDAY PM: The Rev. Robin Adams, rector of Church of the Word (Gainesville, VA) served on the Diocese of Virginia Executive Board and was present when the Protocol of Departing Churches was brought before the Executive Board and the Standing Committee by Bishop Lee, answers some questions and gives an eyewitness view of what happened:

What was the process which led up to the decision of Church of the Word to withdraw from the Episcopal Church and realign with CANA? Was this an agreed process with the Diocese of Virginia?

Since 2003, conservative churches in Virginia had been in dialogue with Bishop Lee and others in the diocese about their future. The hope was that TEC could be reformed or at least that the diocese of Virginia could be a bastion of gospel values. When it became apparent this would not be the case, 23 or so clergy met with Bishop Lee in September 2005 to ask for a process whereby their congregations could amicably separate from TEC with their properties and be able to continue as Anglicans in some other structure. Bishop Lee agreed to this request and set up an official commission to examine all of the elements of the problem and return with a report to the governing bodies of the diocese. His six member team met for many months and submitted a unanimous report in September 2007 called 'A protocol for departing congregations'. The Protocol was 'received' unanimously by the Executive Board and 'by consensus' by the Standing Committee, without a single negative vote.

I was serving on the Executive Board at the time and remember the discussion and vote to receive the report. The clear intention of the Ex Board was to move forward with the recommendations of the protocol and allow parishes a graceful method of disengaging from the Diocese and TEC. It cannot be argued by the diocese that the Protocol has no authority because the actions of the diocese in the next few weeks showed a resolve to implement the details of the protocol. This four page document was released to the diocese as the way forward for congregations who felt that in good conscience they might have to withdraw from TEC. It is worth noting that one purpose of the protocol was to see how the separating congregations might continue 'in as close a relationship as possible' with the diocese. Meaning that although a division was inevitable there could be many areas of mutually agreed ministry in the future. You may read the protocol on our church website, but the basic points are that:-

• A congregation should go through at least a 30 day discernment process.
• Discernment materials would be provided by the diocese as well as from the congregations. Live presentations from the diocese would be made to the congregations.
• A congregational vote would be required and a 70% yes to depart vote would be needed, a super majority.
• A separate vote would also ask if a congregation wishes to retain its property in the event of a split. Again a 70% yes vote would be needed.
• Provisions would be made to continue partnerships with the diocese 'in as close a relationship as possible'.
• A process would be set up to resolve property issues 'amicably' between the parties.

In the fall, Church of the Word entered into the discernment process required by the protocol, resources from the diocese were made available in the parish and the date of the vote was rescheduled to allow for a live presentation from several leaders in the diocese. The vestry also met with the standing committee of the diocese to hear their thoughts.

The protocol, received, approved and recommended by the standing committee, executive board and Diocesan Bishop, stated that if a 70% majority voted to separate from the diocese and also voted to retain its property then the diocese would enter into good faith negotiations about a settlement of property issues. At the conclusion of this carefully followed process 96% of our members voted to withdraw from the diocese and retain our property.

Diocese of Virginia reneges on its agreement

I am shocked and even embarrassed to report that the diocese reneged on its written and verbal agreement in the protocol. It has initiated litigation against these 11 congregations, instead of entering into good faith negotiations as they promised. I cannot believe that the diocese would make such detailed requirements of our churches and even promote the discernment process by supplying materials and people and then turn around and abandon the process. At the February primates meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, the leaders of the Anglican Communion called for a cessation of all litigation and a return to the negotiation table, but so far the diocese has refused to heed the call of the leaders of the Anglican Church.

I was privileged to serve on the executive board of the diocese in 2006 as a representative of region 7. I attended the meetings where the board was kept informed on the progress of the negations of the special committee which eventually presented the protocol. I attended the meeting where the executive board voted to receive the protocol and committed resources to help it work. At that meeting I asked Bishop Lee if he felt that the diocese could meet the requirement for in person presentations to the church from the diocese as required by the protocol. He said that with the help of the standing committee he saw no problem. After we had voted to receive the protocol a discussion then ensued as to whether to 'receive' a report, was the same thing as to 'accept' or 'approve' one. The general sentiment expressed was that there was no practical differences in the use of the words receive, accept or approve and that the diocese was going to provide resources for its part of the agreement. The diocese then proved their de facto reception, adoption and approval of the protocol by implementing the details.

• The protocol was posted on the diocesan website and made available for distribution.
• Previously published material by Churchill Gibson was made available to the Churches as diocesan resource material for the discernment process as required by the protocol.
• A DVD of a speech by Bishop Lee was distributed to the parishes
• Arrangements were made to have live presentations by members of the standing committee to the congregations as required by the protocol.
• At some point in December when the discernment process was well under way there was a great deal of prevarication in the diocese about the official status of the protocol. However, Bishop Lee said that although it was not the only possible way to resolve differences within the diocese it was one acceptable method.
• After the votes were taken on December 17th one week before Christmas, the diocese set up a 'unity commission' and then quickly changed the name to a 'property commission' to begin negotiating a settlement with the churches as required by the protocol.

Read the whole thing here at the Church of the Word website.