 |
| Rector John Yates and the congregation of The Falls Church Anglican |
The Falls Church Anglican is being forced to leave its long-time home on May 15 as the result of a judicial ruling rejecting its request for a suspension (authorization to remain on its property during an appeal) of the January 2012 decision and March 2012 Final Order.
“While we are saddened by leaving this Christ-centered place of worship, we rejoice at the outpouring of encouragement and offers of assistance, including furnishings and building space from Presbyterians, Baptists, Catholics and other friends. Through these many blessings, we are equipped with the knowledge that God has great plans in store for our congregation. Ultimately, our passion for spreading the Gospel and reaching the lost will not wane,” said The Rev. Dr. John Yates, rector of The Falls Church Anglican.
According to Rev. Yates, the challenge has not hindered the congregation in its ministries and missions. “In spite of the litigation since 2006, we have established thriving, independent ‘daughter’ churches in Alexandria, Arlington, Vienna and beyond. We hope to plant our seventh daughter church this year in the District of Colombia. Meanwhile, we have more than 2,000 people in worship and fellowship each Sunday. Also, more than 450 teenagers participate in one of the largest youth programs on the East Coast.”
Junior Warden Carol Jackson added, “For several years we have been experiencing the power of healing prayer in our own congregation and recently began a partnership to extend that ministry in the Baileys Crossroads area, with Columbia Baptist Church and St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church. Together, we minister to the poor and the immigrants among us in the Culmore Clinic. People from all walks of life, all faiths, and all economic situations, now have a safe place to ask for and receive prayer and excellent medical treatment.”
Between 2005 and 2007, The Falls Church Anglican and 14 sister Virginia congregations voted by overwhelming majorities to separate from The Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia. The move was taken because the congregations determined that The Episcopal Church had drifted so far from orthodox Christianity that they could not in good conscience remain under its spiritual authority.
“The cost to the congregation has been and will be huge. Locating available worship space for a church of our size and office space for over 100 staff and volunteer ministry leaders remains extremely challenging. In spite of this adversity, we remain steadfast in our decision to take a bold stand for the authority of Scripture,” said Senior Warden Sam Thomsen.
The Falls Church Anglican has remained at the forefront in the formation of orthodox Anglican institutions in North America. Members of the parish have been leaders in the creation of the Anglican Church in North America, the fast growing (nearly 1,000 congregations and 100,000 worshippers) national organization, and the Anglican Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic (38 congregations and nearly 6,000 worshippers each Sunday), in Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia.
“We leave without resentment or acrimony; we pray only the best for those who will follow us in our historic church, that the transforming Good News of Christ will always be proclaimed in this place,” Rev. Yates concluded.
On Sunday, May 13, The Falls Church Anglican will hold services at its current location, 115 E. Fairfax Street in Falls Church, Va. Services of praise and thanksgiving will also be held later that evening. All are welcome to attend and are invited to future worship services as well. Please check the church website (www.TFCAnglican.org) for service times and locations.
The Falls Church Anglican is a member congregation of the newly established Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic, a regional and growing diocese of the Anglican Church in North America dedicated to reaching North America with the transforming love of Jesus Christ. The Diocese consists of 38 member congregations.
14 comments:
I wish them well. I think they will find that the next six years will be far more productive and fulfilling than what they are leaving behind. I only wish they would have had the sense, judgment, leadership and courage to have done this in 2006. If they had, I might have joined them.
Scout
That last comment is tantalizingly ambiguous, but very much out of place in this thread. Whatever it meant, and against whomever it was directed, it reflects a kind of nastiness from which we all should want to keep a great distance.
Scout
It has not been said...and should be. Most of the folks worshipping at T F C A now were not members 10 years ago. Or even 5 years ago. Congregations change. The parish I joined 30 years ago in Falls Church does not exist. Those of us moving back to our church are original episcopalians. And some of us aren't. It is the nature of a dynamic parish. We wish all well. This has not been easy for any of us...
Scout, this is outrageous, but you have been for years now. If TFC had had "the sense, judgment, leadership and courage" to do what?
Leave the buildings and history of 300 years because the bishop of Virginia was a coward? Yes, "a new sheriff has come to town" being his explanation for backtracking on his own protocols for peaceful separation.
While it may not be true of you and your intimates, it is true of TEC at large: what was once the Protestant Episcopal Church, an ecclesial body with an honest commitment to the creeds of Christendom, it has become a religious organization led by Unitarians, the Western version of Hinduism. After years of reading your protests to the contrary here, I know you have no eyes to see that, which is tragic in its own way.
As SHE said, "I would rather sell it to a nightclub!" Or it may be that it becomes a Muslim center, as she preferred in Albany last year. All in the name of "protecting our heritage for the future of the church."
Sense, judgment, leadership and courage-- you have no idea what those words mean, which is principally why didn't leave six years ago.
The Falls Church will go on, even without having its historic home. And something less will take its place for a time, until attrition brings that to its own sad end. Ordinary people are drawn to ideas and visions that are compelling; there is nothing about the Unitarianism of TEC that is.
Thanks for getting so personal, AH. I have another theory as to why I didn't leave 6 years ago, and since I know the answer to that and you don't, I think my version has the advantage of authenticity. My view at the time (and it remains so today) that long after certain members of the clergy and vestry decided that they could not stand to be further associated with the Episcopal Church, they stayed in place rather than resign, and spent months organizing not only an exodus from the Church, but a plan for how to do it at minimal sacrifice to parishioners who, they hoped, would join them in large numbers. This, in my view, was an ethically deficient approach, an impression magnified in my own mind by the way those who wished to stay were treated after the departure. I thought then, as I do now, that the better course would have been to leave in 2004, or 2005 when the aversion became unbearable for those people. A fair number would have followed them. It struck me that schism is the bane of Christianity, that no one was forcing TFC to act against conscience on the hot button issue of the day, and that there was simply no provision in the governing documents of parish, diocese, or national church that gave departing parishioners property rights. Finally, I could not have been part of any action that displaced people who, in good conscience, did not agree with the decision to depart, but who thought it proper and correct to stay in the Church.
Those were my reasons at the time. While you or others may have different views, I don't impute bad motives to you. I submit that my views are, particularly in hindsight, ones that merit some degree of respect. Much was wasted in this property stuff. It was completely avoidable.
Finally, I don't agree that "something less" is The Falls Church that continues. That parish is battle-hardened by the adversity of forced exile. They learned a great deal about who they are and why they are. The Falls Church will do just fine as it goes forward. I also have very optimistic feelings about the departing group. I think, freed of this unnecessary burden that they unwisely imposed on themselves, they will thrive.
Scout
History will judge who went on to thrive. The history of the past 30 years does not bode well for the future of TEC regardless of how many buildings it hoards.
ACNA's history has yet to be written. It is young and not without growing pains.
The wild card for the future of TEC lies with US Supreme Court. If it does not take the cases submitted, TEC will continue post apogee. If it does take the issue of implied trusts, it will be high drama.
Except that the implied trust argument will have no application to the disposition of the Virginia cases, will it, Ralph? The lower court decision here did not rely on a denomination-imposed trust analysis.
I frankly don't think the US Supreme Court will take these cases from other jurisdictions, but that's pure conjecture on my part. They can take anything they want, and deny review of anything they want. Sometimes it depends on how they want to structure the issues that are getting to them in a given term.
My guess is that both The Falls Church and the departing group will do well with this behind them. There's no reason one has to thrive at the other's expense.
Scout
SCOTUS decision, or lack thereof, will have no effect on the VA churches and I made no assertion to that effect.
My point exactly. We are in complete agreement.
Scout
A rarity that both Ralph and Scout are wrong. While the TFC decision would not be on appeal, SCOTUS could clarify church property law in a manner that would cast doubt as to whether Judge Bellows' decision could pass constitutional muster. This would have an impact on the VASC's disposition of the appeal.
LOL, I doubt we will ever be in complete agreement Scout.
While I will agree there is no reason TEC nor ACNA should have to thrive at the other's expense, that view is not held by TEC's PB. (all the stuff about selling to anyone but breakaway congregations).
Does TEC believe the ACNA is actively working to supplant TEC? I think so. Does this view exist within the DioVA? Perhaps, based on hearsay...
The question I would put to those who see ACNA as the opponent is why would a young denomination waste resources in such a direction when TEC is in decline already?
The PB had every good reason to think that there were a number of people who were trying to establish a denomination by taking properties used by Episcopalian parishes and converting them, without compensation to use by another denomination, despite the absence of any provision in canon law permitting this. I don't think any of us would think it wise to reward or encourage that conduct. However, if people leaving the church simply done what people traditionally do in that situation - find a new church or band together to start a new church - I doubt that the PB or anyone else would have done anything other than to wish them well. Now that the law has required people to do what they should have done out of a sense of order, judgement, fairness and plain old horse sense, the conciliatory words from the Episcopalian side are sincere and heartfelt.
Scout
Post a Comment