All Comments for: Big Win for Va.'s Breakaway Anglican Parishes in Property Fight | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > April (Web-only)

Christianity Today, April (Web-only), 2008 |

Big Win for Va.'s Breakaway Anglican Parishes in Property Fight

Judge rules that 1867 law on church divisions applies in battle with Episcopal Church, diocese.

Sheryl Henderson Blunt | posted 4/04/2008 10:04AM

A Virginia judge Thursday upheld key arguments of 11 Anglican churches seeking to keep their property and assets after leaving the Episcopal Church and its Virginia Diocese. The Anglican District of Virginia ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

dave B

Posted: April 14, 2008 7:52 AM

When conferences change their position on issues like abortion, homosexuality, authority of scripture, salvation, or any other serious issue, then congregations who haven't changed their position should be permitted to exit their denominational affiliation and keep their building. It is the congregation that reaches their community, not the denomination. It is the congregation that pays the mortgage, not the denomination. What good is an empty building to a denomination, except to sell it for profit. And if it is to sell it for profit, then that's greed. Also, there is an issue called "Power." Do denominational conferences get a kick out of flexing their muscles and showing their "so called authority" when they go into a church, confiscate their offering plates, their brass crosses, their pariments, and then change the locks, and close the doors of the church to the existing congregation? Something is seriously wrong with power hungry denominational conferences.

TAL	Posted: April 11, 2008 3:32 PM

to sue a fellow believer is wrong, to break from a church with just cause id good, I think if the exodus of church memebership is set on continuing with each other as a congregation then good, find a new way to be a church as designed by the corporate entity and meet in homes rent a community hall and make yourselves useful to the general public rather than making a spectacle of Christs name. If the denomination would get its head out of the sand and start living by God's law not by man's, they would say fine keep the property. bottom line is the church of the past is an institution that seems to be more interested in propagation of the denomination than salvation of the Lord. Rise up people and model the early church and live as a church body versus a church organisation.

Ella	Posted: April 09, 2008 3:45 AM

It is a bad witness and against biblical authority. 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 NIV If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers! The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.

SuitHappy

Posted: April 08, 2008 12:08 PM

The leaders of the break-away churches knew full well they didn't "own" the property they were using. And in most jurisdictions, the law protects the corporations who do hold title to a given property. Notwithstanding, simply bringing suit for the title is self-evident of legal ownership. The break-aways are as greedy, self-serving, and self-righteous as they accuse the church they're leaving. It would be interesting to know if the properties had high debt service, if they would've sued for title anyway. Otherwise I see just the free and clear ones are the properties they want for "free", huh?

Esther

Posted: April 07, 2008 10:37 PM

lewsta has a good argument. In too many instances, it is the denomination's leadership as a group that has gone so far afield from what the original church group believed, so why should the group which has strayed so far away own the property? We are fast losing leaders who will stand up for the truths of Scripture. If the congregation desires to stand firm, they should be allowed to keep the property. It is so reminiscent of the chief priests and the Parisees of Jesus' day who were so afraid of "losing their nation" that they wanted Jesus crucified.

Anne S

Posted: April 07, 2008 11:56 AM


I belong to a breakway church that chose not to sue. Our priest reiterated over and over that Christians do not sue fellow Christians and we, the vestry, agreed with him. Within nine months of vacating the property, we had brought a former denomination's church and are doing well.

Budster

Posted: April 07, 2008 11:21 AM

The other side of the same coin: Why is TEC so dependant on those buildings. If the concgregation desires to keep worhipping in the same building, as the same congregation - just without the denominational affiliation, what is the problem? Tod Morton is correct - this is causing the denomination to be overly concerned w/carnal issues, while loosing focus on what should really be important. However, if we are going to quote scripture, then we must take the scripture in total. "Scripture out of context is pretext" - wish I knew who said it. IF TEC accepted ALL scripture as as THE Word of God to be adherred to, then they would fall under conviction for what they have done, and the Episcopal Communion would not be in division. Scripture should be unifying to the body - and if it's not, something is wrong.

elly	Posted: April 07, 2008 10:23 AM


why are the breakaway parishes so dependent on their buildings? we call them churches, but they are not the Church. if the breakaway parishes believe they are following God's will, then why don't they also believe that another meeting place will be provided for them?

Anxious Anglican

Posted: April 05, 2008 1:28 PM

RickE: The Virginia statute specifically authorizes congregational voting to determine property ownership in the event of a church division. This decision concerned the applicability of the statute to the facts at hand; the judge determined that there had been the requisite division. Now the court will determine whether the statute is an unconstitutional infringement upon The Episcopal Church and the local diocese by excessively limiting their ability to self-regulate. The applicable constitutional standard is very favorable to a doctrine-neutral statute like Virginia's, and in my humble opinion, the national "church" does not have a very good chance of prevailing.

B Waddell

Posted: April 05, 2008 8:09 AM

The fundamental issue is that when the established body abrogates its traditional theological position - one that it has taught down through the ages - that part of the flock that wishes to hold fast to the truth should NOT BE HELD TO the RANSOM of loss of property - usually that they the members have raised the funds and paid for - if they don't toe "the party line" no matter how abhorrent to them &* God it may be. Well done Judge Randy Bellows for seeing through the establishment charade & finding for honesty & truth. This decision will give comfort to other parishes in other lands (Australia) to pursue truth in teaching & justice in property.

RickE

Posted: April 04, 2008 5:36 PM

When I was growing up in Alabama in the 1950's, at least one Methodist congregation sought to withdraw from the denomination over matters of race. The Alabama-West Florida Conference sued to sustain its residual claim to trusteeship of the property. The courts upheld the Conference's claim, ruling that the state did not have the right under the U.S. Constitution to override the recognized internal legislation of an organized religious body, thus upholding the Methodist Discipline. How is the present Virginia case different?

Todd Morton

Posted: April 04, 2008 2:49 PM

1 Corinthians 6:1-8 NASB 1 Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? 4 So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, 6 but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another.

lewsta

Posted: April 04, 2008 2:18 PM

When one considers the source of the funds that initially BUILT those structures, and that it is the same as those who have continuously occupied and used them since completion, I cannot agree with the principle held to by the denominational headquarters (US Episcopal) that somehow THEY (ECUSA) have a right to take what was never practically theirs in the first place. Had headquarters initially built the structures and is now desirous of having them for THEIR own use, it would be another matter. They did NOT build them, and I can only see their claim upon the structures as a form of punishment for not accepting their present policies. But we know--the double minded are unstable in ALL their ways. And no, homosexuality is not the issue. What is is simply will the Scriptures continue to be the final authority for our conduct. Ordaining homosexuals and stealing lands and buildings stem from the same root..."I will be god, I will be the final authority". Oldest lie in the universe.

Joel R

Posted: April 04, 2008 1:35 PM

But the argument is about authority as much as homosexulality. They are not petitioning for the right to go out and start new churches. These statutes were placed on the books to handle cases just like this, when local congreations are upset with national organizations and wish to declare their independence. Leaving beloved church fellowships, doctrines, and yes buildings is something that may be decided by majority vote. That apparently is the right in Virginia. So be it. We have the recourse to the courts... as well as rights to run for office, petition government, draft bills, sue, defend, and to settle. I would hate to impose a restriction on any American faith fellowship that its members could not initiate or defend themselves in court.

Beth	Posted: April 04, 2008 1:22 PM


Adam -- The complication here is that each side believes it is the side that has "stayed," and the other is the side that has "left." Each side believes that since it (in its own view) has not "left" anything, it still rightfully owns the property that (in its own view) never belonged to the other side anyway.

Adam S

Posted: April 04, 2008 12:19 PM

I know that there are a lot of issues on both sides and that money and history is a part of the issues. But what I don't understand is why both sides don't say, "We believe we are right, but because of our Christian faith, we will agree to leave without any rights to the property so that we can show that the issue is about theology, not money." That would say something serious to the greater world. It would say this is not about homo-sexuality, money, authority, etc. but about our Christian conviction.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment