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.

The Diocese of Virginia Annual Council (January 20-22, 2011) will take up consideration of continuing financing litigation or seeking peaceful resolution

BB NOTE: The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia will be considering resolutions at their Annual Council (January 20-22) in Reston, VA, to either continue to pay the mounting costs for litigation against the parishes that voted to separate from the diocese in 2006 or to seek non-litigious conversations with all the parties to find a mutual beneficial resolution.

Please pray for Resolution R-9, for those who are petitioning "in the spirit of reconciliation and sound financial stewardship" to the Bishop, the Standing Committee, and the Executive Board to seek a "bilaterally beneficial outcome."  Watch those words very carefully: Bilateral beneficial outcome - a win-win scenario for all.  Right now the Diocese and the CANA Congregations are engaged a lose-lose scenario, whatever happens everyone loses.  This resolution pleads for an end to the "mutually destructive process of civil litigation."  For this to be achieved we will need to have kindness, consideration, and yes, resolution on all sides.  Come Lord Jesus, come!

R-9: Stewardship and Property Litigation

Resolved, that the 216th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia urges the Diocese to initiate negotiations toward an amicable resolution of differences over property ownership with the congregations that have departed from the Diocese; and be it further

Resolved, that the 216th Annual Council, in the spirit of reconciliation and sound financial stewardship, petitions the Bishop, the Standing Committee and the Executive Board to engage in the negotiating process so that a bilaterally beneficial outcome might be achieved and an increasingly prolonged and mutually destructive process of civil litigation be avoided.

Submitted by the Rev. Charles D. Alley, Rector, St. Matthew’s, Richmond; the Rev. James H. Cirillo, Rector, Grace Church, Casanova; the Rev. Geoff Gwynne, Vicar, Christ the King, Harrisonburg; Mr. Douglas LeBlanc, Lay Delegate, St. Matthew’s, Richmond; The Rev. Cuthbert H. Mandell, Rector, Aquia Church, Stafford; The Rev. C. Robert Merola, Rector, St. Matthew’s, Sterling; The Rev. John Thomas Sheehan, Rector, The Church of Our Redeemer, Aldie; The Rev. Mario Gonzalez del Solar, Assistant Rector, St. Matthew’s, Richmond

Background: During the past year, the Virginia Supreme Court has sent the case back to the Circuit Court for retrial, virtually sending the multimillion dollar legal proceedings back to the starting line. While litigating this matter has not been a positive witness to the Kingdom of God, nor has it enhanced the evangelism and witness of the Church, the matter of financial stewardship must also be addressed. In view of the present financial environment in the Diocese and the possible need to sell properties in order to maintain the law suits, as well as the unlikely ability of our continuing Episcopal congregations in these locations to immediately assume the financial burden of such properties, it would seem prudent for all parties to pursue an amicable settlement rather than litigate outstanding property claims.

BB NOTE: A counter-resolution, which focuses the attention not on the mounting legal and personal and spiritual costs of continuing the litigation but rather focuses attention on "supporting the bishop" (as if he pays any of it!) is being proposed as well.  Most of the supporters of this resolution are made up of members of the shadow congregations formed by the Diocese as part of their litigation strategy following the sudden withdrawal of the Standstill Agreement in January 2007.  This resolution takes a passive aggressive stance, purporting to support the bishop, but only if he continues the litigation.   What is actually rather interesting about this resolution are the names absent from the list of submitters, which again is something to hold up in prayer.  It's clear that these folks who did submit this resolution feel the need not to present the case for spending millions of dollars on litigation, but rather to put pressure on the bishop.

Let's consider this.  If Bishop Johnston were to consider a peaceful resolution, would that mean all these people would no longer support him?  Isn't that what this resolution infers?  From some of Bishop Johnston's recent statements that doesn't seem to be an issue.  So who is this resolution for but those on the outside, those actually funding all the litigation.  This resolution places their sacrificial giving in the context not of furthering the ministry of the church or the gospel, but as the way to "support the bishop."  It's just sad.

R-8: "Continued Support for our Bishop"

Resolved, that the 216th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia affirms our continued support for the Bishop in his leadership to preserve Episcopal properties for the mission of the Episcopal Church by all available means, as requested by the Executive Board in 2006.

Submitted by The Rev. Lucia Lloyd, *St. Stephen’s, Heathsville; The Rev. Michael Pipkin, *The Falls Church, Falls Church; The Rev. Cathy Tibbetts, *The Falls Church, Falls Church; The Rev. Kate Chipps, *St. Margaret’s, Woodbridge; The Rev. Donna Foughty, *Epiphany, Herndon; Mr. Don Metheny, President, Standing Committee; Mrs. Cindi Bartol, Standing Committee; Mrs. Myfanwy Hall, Standing Committee; Mr. Roger Inger, Standing Committee; The Rev. Michael Cadaret; The Rev. Geoffrey Coupland; Mr. Dick Eager; The Rev. Lindon Eaves; The Rev. Bob Hall; Mrs. Sandy Kirkpatrick; The Rev. Daniel Robayo; The Very Rev. Hilary Smith; The Rev. Lauren Stanley; The Rev. Margaret Ann Faeth, Immanuel Church on the Hill, Alexandria; The Rev. Joie Clee Weiher, St. Luke's, Remington; The Rev. Leslie Hague, St. Michael's, Arlington; The Rev. Daniel Robayo, Emmanuel, Harrisonburg; The Rev. Jennifer McKenzie, Church of the Good Shepherd, Burke; Mr. Paul Brockman, Standing Committee; The Rev. R. Ellen White, St. Anne's, Scottville; The Rev. David May, Grace Church, Kilmarnock; The Rev. Scott Dillard, Wicomico Church

Background
We are deeply grieved that those who have severed their ties to the Episcopal Church have continued to claim that our property now ought to belong to them, and that they have made this litigation necessary. Bishop Lee and Bishop Johnston have provided steady leadership, and we believe it is important that they have full latitude to determine which options are wisest in providing for the worship and ministry of Episcopalians in these locations for generations to come.

BB NOTE: Here is a Prayer for Resolution:

O Father, in this time of deep separation in our beloved church, we offer this prayer for the just and amicable resolution of the litigation we are facing, for the healing of broken relationships, for the softening of hearts hardened by hostility, and for common ground in our Common Prayer. Please help us all to be empowered by your Holy Spirit to dedicate our mutual resources for your work and glory, not our own, that we may find some good to come from this conflict that has engaged us for so long. Hear us, Lord, we pray, in the name of your Son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

To learn more on how you can help find resolution in Virginia, please go to Finding Common Ground in Common Prayer here.

A House Divided

 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 

Mark 3:25

Yes, it is a sad day.

No one won today.  It is sad because the Virginia churches satisfied the Virginia statute 57-9 but for the definition of a branch as defined by the Virginia Supreme Court.  What this means is that we could now be back to 2006 again when the Virginia parishes followed the protocol.  It is an interesting moment.  The days continue to unfold.  It is a time of thoughtful consideration, a time of prayer and fasting, a time of listening to the Lord and to one another.

For what saddens me even more, even now, is that the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed that there has indeed been a major division in The Episcopal Church.  It is severe enough for that part of the statute to be satisfied.  This means that the Supreme Court could see and affirm that the Episcopal Church is indeed in very serious division.

I find that part of the ruling today the saddest of all.

I will tell you however, that the first person to contact me - to want to know how I was feeling and if I was okay was a loyal and perhaps somewhat progressive Episcopalian.  She's very much an advocate of what some might call innovations, she would see as acts of justice.   But what seemed to matter more to her today were not positions on issues or property or lawsuits - but the welfare of a friend.  Her outreach of hospitality meant so much and it's those kind of actions - still possible after everything that happened - that gives me waves hope, even now.

I don't know what the future holds.  Today actually may bring us back to where we started, back when we had the Standstill Agreement and were talking.  I even take Henry Burt's words of asking the ADV churches to hold Episcopal services a good one.  That had been in place when the lawsuits first were filed, but the Episcopal clergy designated to conduct the services were later warned by the then-diocesan bishop that if they did so they would be deposed.  I see this invitation from Henry as a very positive sign.

A lot has happened in the past three years.   The fact remains that the Diocese of Virginia did not affirm Glasspool's ascension to bishop - neither the bishop or the Standing Committee.  One can see in that action a desire to remain in communion.  I pray that we may, even in this late hour, find ways to reopen conversations.

Just recently, Truro hosted a wedding conducted in the main church by a current Episcopal rector in the Diocese of Virginia.  It was an amazing opportunity to work together again.

Tonight we are standing on the courthouse steps.  Our table, as even the Supreme Court of Virginia could see, is divided.  Shall we continue more division or shall we take seriously the question and admonition from the Archbishop of Canterbury himself?

"What are the vehicles for sharing perspectives, communicating protest, yes, even, negotiating distance or separation, that might spare us a worsening of the situation and the further reduction of Christian relationship to vicious polemic and stony-faced litigation?"

-Rowan Williams

Church of England Synod

February 2010

One thing I can say, after a very very busy day - is that I am grateful for all of you here at the Cafe, even in those moments that we disagree - and we do often disagree.  You take me to task sometimes and I want you to know I am listening.  I appreciate the honesty and the passion of all the regulars and visitors here at the Cafe.  For the most part, you all are good to each other.  And I want to thank you - let's keep talking, let's keep listening, let's gather around our tables and sing praises to the Lord.  For in all that we do, and all that we don't do - He remains good.

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.

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.

Katharine Jefferts Schori hits the Public Relations Circuit in attempt to fix Episcopal Church's broken image

WED. UPDATE: Confirmed. The new head of Schori's Communications Office is not a journalist or anyone with a serious journalistic background, but a marketing flak. Keep your eyes on the branding.

UPDATE: Right on time! Here's Bishop Schori's speech to the National Press Club today, thanks to Minnesota Public Radio. You can scroll down this post for the speech.

Yep, Katharine Jefferts Schori has gotten rid of the traditional church communications team at her offices in Manhattan and is now - as we write this - hitting the public relations trail (keep those tithes and offerings coming!). She's here in Washington today and speaking to the National Press Club, which is, of course, Flak Heaven. We see one article has all ready hit the LA Times (which is teetering on bankruptcy by the way) that shows us the spin that 815 (ah, your church contributions at work!) is giving the media with their rather innovative interpretation of church history.

Kendall Harmon of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina writes about this reimagined history Bishop Schori is pushing:

"Sorry to say that I regard this article as an embarrassment in lopsided reporting. First, the history itself is flawed, since Anglicanism itself came as a result of a break in the 16th century, and there is also no mention of Methodism, or more of the details of the near split of TEC during the civl war, or the Reformed Episcopal Church split in 1873. Also, could we at least have quotes from people on both sides of an argument. Why could not even one reasserter be quoted in this piece?"

The answer, Kendall, is that Schori has launched a public relations tour and not a history lesson. It's about lawsuits and a public image that is so tarnished with members fleeing its churches (and it's not just about theology or social innovations, it's about a ruined public square marquee that should trouble us all - the Episcopal brand is smashed - no wonder her title of her road tour is Religion in the Public Square).

Heaven's to Betsy, it's not about getting both sides, but about attempting to repair a smashed public image in the public square as TEC continues it's march to sue and depose, sue and depose, sue and depose (who thought up this strategy anyway - Wall Street?). With the most serious journalists all fired from TEC's headquarters in New York, it is clear now that they have been replaced with public relations personnel instead. Same thing has happened on the other side of the Big Pond, as we've seen in the recent and rather dramatic change in strategy for the Archbishop of Canterbury and his media. The Episcopal/Anglican crisis is at hand.

We saw early signs of this reinvention in the reorganizational charts presented last year at the New Orleans House of Bishops meeting, only then the communications effort was divided into forks - one fork was the traditional church journalism and the other fork was for the flaks. The central focus of 815's communication efforts is to repair their image on the national stage. Schori took put a fork in the journalists, the flaks, however, remain.

At any moment we are about to hear the final ruling from the Fairfax Circuit Court on the properties of the Virginia churches that voted overwhelmingly to separate from The Episcopal Church. It makes a lot of sense to attempt to take some ground before the press is inundated with news stories regarding the Virginia ruling. The Episcopal Church has all ready announced, even before Judge Randy Bellows has issued his final judgement, that it will appeal his decision to the Virginia Supreme Court. So here we have Bishop Schori in Washington just as we expect that ruling at any time.

Alas, could not get away from the office today to catch her lunchtime remarks, but Cafe regulars are there. I did submit a question to the National Press Club though:

In Virginia alone the estimates for legal fees already top $5 million, money that could have surely been used for missionary work, helping the needy or reaching out to bring in new members. Looking back, would it have not been better to let the Virginia churches come to a settlement, which they were negotiating, instead of stepping in and forcing a protracted legal battle?

Stay tuned to find out what was really on the menu.

LATER: Here is Bishop Schori's amazingly sophomoric speech (which she lectures the press to be nicer and stop writing about schism and sex) to the National Press Club today. You may need Flash Player plugins to listen to the speech:

The first questions are as if the TEC flaks wrote the questions. ??? What did you as a woman feel like?" Can anyone be more patronizing - imagine asking a male bishop, "What do you think, as man?" Oh get real. Conscience raising? Conscience raising? Oh great, and now we're going to talk about those greedy churches. Of course, TEC isn't one of those. Who are the people asking these questions? Were they in the bus with Bishop Schori? Ah, Episcopalians are broad-minded. Ah - by learning about Islam we learn about our own faith. Really. SHALOM? Shalom? Ah, it's clear that she wants to be the spokesperson for the Liberalism-dominated churches. Just makes the heart feel warm, doesn't it? "If we understand the enemy, they soon become table mates." Did she really just say that?

How do you do that PR, she's asked. Yep - it's all about PR. And Bishop Schori says the way to do it is to tell a "broader story" rather than the "conflict story." Wow, at least she's honest that she's on a PR Tour.

What are the pros and cons of two provinces? What a boring answer. She has no passion, no conviction. "It's an ecumenical relationship," she said. She says that it's separate - which is of course, not true. It's also what the lawyers are telling her to say. Uh - we're all Anglican - and some of us are actually still Episcopalian. It's TEC that went off the rail and is being held accountable for its actions. Oops, she doesn't say that. And now she has to explain to why TEC is in decline. More people die? That's why TEC is in decline - because more people die? Oh my God.

So TEC is in decline because people keep dying. Oh my God.

WHAT? "We tried for a very long time - " wait. PANTS ON FIRE! Let me get this quote exactly right:

"We tried for a very long time to negotiate and came to a place where there was no willingness to negotiate so at that point you ask the courts to enforce the laws of the land."

This is so incredibly false - as we all know, the Virginia Churches were following the Diocese of Virginia's Protocol and with a Standstill Agreement in place following the voting and the recording of the votes (nothing was done to the status of the property - as was agreed in the Protocol), the actual negotiations were set to begin with the institution of what Bishop Peter James Lee called the Property Committee. Each church was to elect two representatives to join his committee and begin to work through the details on the settlement of all the properties. Truro had elected its two representatives on a Sunday and the next day, the Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's chancellor David Booth Beers had a meeting with the Diocese of Virginia Standing Committee and the result of that meeting was on Wednesday the Standstill Agreement was abandoned, the Protocol was smashed, and both Bishop Schori and Bishop Lee separately filed lawsuits against nearly 200 lay volunteers and their rectors.

We were left at the table, a table hosted by Bishop Lee himself. Pants on Fire, Bishop Schori.

Bishop Schori's statement regarding Virginia - which is what Judge Randy Bellows may rule on this Friday - is so false, it is a major Pants on Fire event. Do we have to put this up yet again?

When asked about all the lawsuits - which of course are costing the Episcopal Church millions, she says, "I think we're past the worst of it ..." and then goes on to point out that the Virginia case is going to be appealed (the final ruling should be this Friday - how nice to announce the appeal before the final ruling, but she's not worried, oh no) and oh by the way, it's all based on slavery (which of course, the law is post-Civil War and was actually based on finding a way in a war-weary devastated nation to avoid more litigation and acrimony and more conflict and settle peacefully to build a road to reconciliation, which, in the case of the Methodist Church, actually did happen).

LATER: I just got off the phone with a friend and I told him about the statement that The Episcopal Church is in decline because people keep dying. He said he'd been at a holiday party filled with Emergency Room personnel and one of the ER personnel told him his philosophy of working in an ER, which of course you see the worst of the worst which one can only imagine. How do these people continue to serve, day in and day out - to see people at their worst? To which this particular ER worker said rather wryly to my friend, "Well, eventually, all bleeding stops."

Eventually all bleeding does stop. One way or the other.

She calls the loss a "significant departure." But all she can say is she'll leave the light on for ya. But she's not angry, oh no. She makes these sweeping statements - and they are just based on her PR Talking Points drawn up by the lawyers. She's got lots and lots of talking points - just like the talking points that were handed out by her office to the Episcopal bishops at the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury. It's just sad.

Live recording from last month's performance in New York City.

WEDNESDAY PM UPDATE: VirtueOnline now has a transcript of the press conference here. The video is here.

Diocese of Virginia issues a Statement

PANTS ON FIRE ALERT: It's now official - Henry Burt is the Episcopal version of Baghdad Bob. From now on, he's Baghdad Burt.

The Diocese again noted the regrettable necessity of these proceedings. "While we have hoped that the CANA congregations would propose a reasonable alternative to litigation," said Henry D.W. Burt, Secretary of the Diocese, "the Church must vigorously protect the legacy of those faithful generations who have gone before for those who will follow."

Do we have to go through this again? It was Katharine Jefferts Schori and the Diocese of Virginia that sued the congregations, it was Bishop Lee who cut off negotiations and sued everyone. We all had the Standstill Agreement - our petitions were not deemed hostile by the Diocese. The litigation was initiated by TEC and the Diocese. "While we have hoped that the CANA Congregations would propose a reasonable alternative to litigation ..."

That has got to be the Pants on Fire Statement of the Year.

NOTE VERY CAREFULLY THE SPINMEISTING - Can you read between the lines?

Diocese Forgoes Voting Issue, Prepares for Appeal

September 22, 2008

The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia announced today that the trial scheduled to begin October 6 will focus solely on the issue of which properties occupied by the CANA congregations are actually subject to their 57-9 petitions.

Though loyal Episcopalians have expressed grave concerns about the validity and fairness of the voting procedures used by the CANA congregations, the Diocese will forego judicial review of that process to focus on those issues that will most effectively and quickly return Episcopalians to their church homes and result in the overturning of the 57-9 "Division Statute."

The Diocese is preparing to mount a vigorous appeal that addresses the serious legal and religious questions and implications that have arisen from this unfortunate situation. The Diocese will explore fully every option available to restore constitutional and legal protections for all churches in Virginia.

In a trial beginning on October 6, the Court will examine precisely which property is subject to the Division Statute petitions filed by CANA congregations. The Court will determine several issues either before or during trial, including whether the congregation attempting to take the property actually owns the property they seek under its 57-9 petition, whether deed restrictions require the property to remain with the Episcopal Church, and, in one instance, whether a last-minute transfer of property was valid. Once these issues are decided, the Diocese will appeal the Court's rulings on the applicability and validity of the Division Statute.

"In the Episcopal Church, congregations exist because they are in communion with the bishop of a diocese, through recognition by diocesan governing bodies," said the Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee, Bishop of Virginia. "They cannot unilaterally disestablish themselves or remove themselves from a diocese, and take Episcopal property with them, using the secular court system to validate their actions."

The Diocese is steadfast in its goal of returning faithful Episcopalians to their church homes and restoring the full and time-honored protections of the First Amendment and the Virginia Constitution for religious freedom.

"The court proceedings of the past several months have shown that the Division Statute, which exists only in Virginia, is uniquely hostile to religious freedom and our faith. We are resolute in our commitment to pursue every avenue in seeking the return of Episcopalians who have been exiled from their church homes," said Bishop Lee.

The Diocese again noted the regrettable necessity of these proceedings. "While we have hoped that the CANA congregations would propose a reasonable alternative to litigation," said Henry D.W. Burt, Secretary of the Diocese, "the Church must vigorously protect the legacy of those faithful generations who have gone before for those who will follow."

LATER: It's Monday Night and there's still no posting of the Diocese's statement on 815's website. What's up with that? After all, they are litigating together, in court they sit next to each other at the same table and share pens. 815 is quick to put up their tar & feather story on Bob Duncan, but the Diocese's "statement" is still missing. Perhaps the 815 staff are out saying good-bye to Yankee Stadium. Or perhaps not.

Back to the Court House

The next round in the litigation between The Episcopal Church/The Diocese of Virginia and the congregations in Virginia that voted to separate following Bishop Lee's protocol and the statute 57-9 (which has been found to be both applicable and constitutional on all counts but one that has yet to be ruled) is today in the Fairfax Court House.

Judge Randy Bellows will be hearing arguments concerning the property clause of the U.S. Constitution and 57-9. The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia has re-entered the case to defend the constitutionality of the statute. In addition, the Diocese has now thought up a new strategy and that is to assert that the eleven congregations "waived" 57-9 - which is sort of odd since they've never mentioned that before now. Guess we'll see what that's all about.

Again, please keep the events today in Judge Bellow's court in your prayers. I understand that millions have been spent over the last month or so by the diocese in preparation for today. Please keep your powder dry and your prayers unfurled.

NOTE: And for the record, the congregations did not sue anyone. They filed their votes with the court following the law of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Standstill Agreement made it clear that this was not a hostile act or that the congregations were suing anyone - hardly. It was the Diocese and The Episcopal Church that called off negotiations and filed not one but two lawsuits against the eleven congregations and nearly 200 volunteers and their rectors. Let's just be clear about that.

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.

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 Times Dispatch: The Diocese Is Attacking the Faithful

David Bena writes as a columnist for the Times Dispatch:

It's a sad day for Christendom when a national church attacks faithful Christians instead of encouraging them in the faith. Typically, churches attack the sins of this world and offer solutions to the world's problems.

Yet this is the situation that 11 Anglican churches find themselves in since the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia and the Episcopal Church attacked us with lawsuits.

Our churches were undergoing amicable property settlement negotiations with the Diocese in January 2007 when it and the Episcopal Church abruptly broke off those discussions. They then filed lawsuits against our churches, our ministers, and more than 100 volunteers serving on our vestries (governing boards).

Our congregations simply wished to remain faithful to the historic teachings of the Anglican Communion and could not in good conscience follow the revisionist direction of the Episcopal Church. Unfortunately, the Episcopal Church and the Diocese walked away from us and the worldwide Anglican Communion by choosing to reinterpret Scripture on a number of issues. They sued us when we refused to follow them on that prodigal path.

Consistent with Virginia law, and as agreed to by the Diocese in a "standstill agreement," our churches reported to the local circuit courts our votes to disaffiliate from the Episcopal Church and the Diocese and to affiliate with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America through membership in the Anglican District of Virginia.

THE DIOCESE and the Episcopal Church have no legal right to our property. Among other things, our churches' own trustees hold title for the benefit of the congregations, and long-established Virginia law does not recognize denominational trusts in congregational property like those that the Diocese and the Episcopal Church claim. One of the churches -- The Falls Church -- actually predates the denomination and helped establish it. It is somewhat absurd for the Diocese and the Episcopal Church to suggest that churches cannot disaffiliate from the denomination they helped create.

This Virginia law says the majority of the church is entitled to its property when there is a division within the denomination. Fairfax County Circuit Court Judge Randy Bellows issued an April 3 ruling in which he held that there is a "division of the first magnitude" within the Diocese, the Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Communion at large. He ruled that the Virginia Division Statute applies in this situation in support of our congregations' efforts to keep our property.

At the current stage of this unfortunate litigation, the constitutionality of the Virginia Division Statute is being challenged by the Diocese and the Episcopal Church. But to resolve the issue at hand, there is no need for civil courts to wade into issues relating to theology or doctrine.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that states can resolve church property disputes based on "neutral principles" of law, such as majority rule -- which is what the Division Statute says.

If the Episcopal Church were as hierarchical as it claims, all it had to do was put title to these properties in the name of its bishops, as the Catholic Church does. Then the Virginia Division Statute would not even apply.

THE DIVISION STATUTE was adopted by the Virginia General Assembly to respond to numerous church divisions that arose during the 19th century -- some before, some during, and some after the Civil War. The statute provides a neutral legal mechanism -- applying the democratic principle of majority rule -- to resolve these types of disputes. A number of both Methodist and Presbyterian congregations successfully invoked the statute after its adoption in 1867.

The Episcopal Church's own complaint even acknowledges that it does not hold title to any property of these 11 churches and that the churches' own trustees hold title to all such property for the benefit of the congregations.

The Episcopal Church's position actually creates constitutional problems. According to it, the meaning of the key terms in the Division Statute -- "division" and "branch" -- vary among denominations, based on each denomination's internal rules and structure. That would twist a law that resolves church property disputes based on a neutral principle -- majority rule -- into a law that requires the courts to get into a religious thicket. The Supreme Court has said that should be avoided.

In other parts of the country, amicable negotiations over property and other matters have been resolved. Our Anglican churches have invited the Episcopal Church and the Diocese to return to the negotiating table several times. The leaders of the Anglican Communion have repeatedly echoed that call, but Episcopal leaders are evidently not interested in settling anything amicably.

Pitting Christian against Christian in court does nothing to save one soul, strengthen one family, or help one person in need -- and literally millions of dollars that have been going toward legal fees would be much better spent in serving those true missions of the faith.

David Bena is a contact bishop in the Anglican District of Virginia and suffragan bishop in the Convocation of Anglicans in North America.