Cutting the Baby in Two

Then the woman whose son was alive said to the king, because her heart yearned for her son, “Oh, my lord, give her the living child, and by no means put him to death.” But the other said, “He shall be neither mine nor yours; divide him” (I Kings 3:26).

On April 30, in the absence of a stay until an appeal can be heard, seven congregations in Virginia will be forced to vacate or deed over their property to the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia. The congregations had voted to separate from the Episcopal Church in the United States (TEC) over questions of the authority of the Scripture triggered by the ordination of Gene Robinson as Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire in 2003. Robinson had left his wife to enter a relationship with another man.

The dissident congregations have been forced out by a decision of the Virginia Supreme Court reversing a 2008 decision by Judge Randy Bellows and remanding the case to the 19th circuit (Fairfax County). Based on a Reconstruction-era Virginia law, Judge Bellows had previously decided in favor of the dissident congregations, allowing them to keep their property. As a result of the new trial the case has been decided in favor of The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia.

The dissenting congregations have become members of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA). CANA is a newly formed communion of churches who have separated from The Episcopal Church in the United States and its affiliated bishops. (See my previous blog of July 2008, Will the Real Anglicans Please Stand-Up?).

The national church, which has pursued a policy of litigation against dissenting congregations, has found itself involved in similar outcomes across the country. As noted in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal, victory in these cases has often left them with spaces unusable to the dioceses of The Episcopal Church (TEC). According to the article, “Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori says this new Anglican group is encroaching on her church's jurisdiction, and she has authorized dozens of lawsuits ‘to protect the assets of the Episcopal Church for the mission of the Episcopal Church.’" The goal according to various spokespersons has been to return the properties to “the mission of the Episcopal Church.” To accomplish this goal, the national church has vigorously pursued the “remedy” of litigation.

According to reports, Southern Baptists and even a Muslim mosque have been the beneficiaries of property sales resulting from the outcome of litigation. One can only conclude the outcome has been to “divide the living child.” It becomes puzzling at this point to understand just which essential mission of TEC is being protected.

The dissident CANA congregations include the historic Truro Church, an early pioneer in the charismatic movement in the Episcopal Church, The Falls Church, a historic and vibrant evangelical expression of the Episcopal faith, and Church of the Apostles. I recall taking a vanload of young people from our Grace Network church in central Virginia to a youth meeting at the Church of the Apostles for a dynamic gathering of worship and teaching in the mid- 80’s. The dissident churches have been among the most vibrant local expressions of the Episcopal Church in Virginia, representing thousands of members and millions of dollars in annual budgets. Rump congregations (where they exist) have been designated the true heirs of the property by the diocese, and now, the courts.

The wider Episcopal Diocese of Virginia is facing steady decline. How can they afford to manage the formidable properties they have won in court? “According to self-reported statistics, the diocese has lost 26 percent of its attendance in the past decade and has ceased planting new churches, despite significant population growth in Virginia. With the rapid increase of the median age of Episcopalians, there may not be a ‘future generation of Episcopalians’ to worship in these properties” (“Episcopal Diocese of Virginia Faces Costs of Legal Victory”).

It seems that those who have remained vibrant must be penalized for staying with the evangelical expression which will keep them vibrant. So what will a declining diocese do with these extremely valuable and historic properties? Plant new congregations, start new ministries, sell? It seems anything is permissible except the permanent presence of a dissident Anglican Church – even if it appears to be the only viable solution.

Meanwhile, the Diocese of Virginia has formed Dayspring to lead the discernment process. According to their website, the diocese views Dayspring as the means by which they may “step back and take careful consideration of the options and possibilities that lie before us. Those involved in Dayspring will closely examine the many moving parts of the puzzle to discern the best way forward.”

Unfortunately, these battles are due to be played out across other declining mainlines as one after another forsakes the spirit of clear Biblical teaching for the zeitgeist.

The CANA churches will soldier on. Their websites (http://www.thefallschurch.org/, http://www.trurochurch.org/ ) reveal a clear and believable resolve to move forward. It will be interesting to see what will become of the properties which must eventually be abandoned. (Truro will deed property over to the diocese on April 30, but has worked out a lease agreement until June 30, 2013). In some cases, sale of non-consecrated properties (i.e. attendant non-sanctuary buildings) may be on the agenda of the Diocese of Virginia. In any event, it appears the baby must be cut in two.

Will the Real Anglicans Please Stand Up?

Who speaks for historic Anglicanism?

As a child I used to watch the television game show called “To Tell the Truth.” Three individuals would appear before a panel claiming to have had an unusual experience or to be a member of some profession or trade. They would answer the panel’s questions about their work or other relevant matters. In the end the panel would try to guess which of the three was the real astronaut or holder of the record for deep-sea diving. At the moment of truth the real candidate would reveal his or her identity by standing while the other two remained seated.

The Worldwide Anglican Communion is engaged in such a contest just now. The recent ceremony joining two male priests in the diocese of London featured language directly reflecting the marriage rite of the Church of England as reported in The Telegraph in June. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury responded in a joint statement with Archbishop of York John Sentamu, “Those clergy who disagree with the Church's teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it." As one observer wrote of this tepid response, this sends the message, ”Keep trying, we’ll eventually change our minds.”

In the face of deep divisions facing the Communion many are asking, ”Who are the true Anglicans?” Is it those who support ongoing dialogue in the face of deep disagreement? This stance is a hallmark of the Anglican Church historically. Or are the true Anglicans those who say the time for dialogue is past, faithfulness to Christ and the Biblical revelation requires action not words. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams presiding at this decade’s Lambeth conference states that the Worldwide Anglican Communion is facing one of the most “severe challenges … in its history.” The kettle of controversy ignited earlier this decade continues to boil over.

The catalyst for Archbishop Williams’ statement is the effort by African and Asian bishops to call the church back to biblical and evangelical roots. The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) met in Jerusalem from June 22-29. They issued a statement of historic significance. The GAFCON statement expresses three distinct concerns about the Worldwide Anglican Communion, and comes to some startling conclusions. As a student of church history, I would say the significance of this document cannot be overstated.

The three concerns of the statement are: 1) “the acceptance and promotion within the provinces of the Anglican Communion of a different ‘gospel’ which is contrary to the apostolic gospel;” 2) the declaration by provincial bodies in the Global South that they are “out of communion with the bishops and churches that promote this false gospel,” resulting in a realignment of parishes in Western churches with other provinces of the global Anglican Church; and 3) “the manifest failure of the Communion Instruments to exercise discipline in the face of overt heterodoxy. The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Communion of Canada, in proclaiming this false gospel, have consistently defied the 1998 Lambeth statement of biblical moral principle,” with impunity.

The document acknowledges the historic significance of the see of Canterbury but denies that recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury is necessary for Anglican identity. In light of the inaction of the Anglican Communion leadership in failing to address the concerns expressed by the bishops of the Global South they write: “We can only come to the devastating conclusion that ‘we are a global communion with a colonial structure.’”

The GAFCON statement can be viewed at:
http://www.gafcon.org/

Archbishop Williams, responded in part by saying, “By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council? And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?“ He also urges the bishops to keep waiting. The bishops of the Global South seem to be asking, Waiting for what, the universal apostasy of the Communion?

You can view his entire response at:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org:80/

Here in the U.S. the division within Anglicanism is highlighted by the schism between conservative evangelicals who are seceding from The Episcopal Church in the United States (TEC) and the liberal wing of the church. The lightning rod for the division is two-fold: first, the 2003 ordination of openly gay bishop Gene Robinson of the diocese of New Hampshire supported by the liberal wing, and secondly, the removal of many parishes, and at least one diocese from communion with TEC. The point of conflict is lawsuits over property rights filed against the seceding parishes, including 11 here in Virginia.

For now, at least, Virginia courts are deciding in favor of the conservative groups who have affiliated with the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV) and the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA). A recent decision of the Fairfax County Circuit Court upheld the right of the parishes to split from the TEC based on an 1867 Virginia law designed to accommodate church property disputes in the post-civil war era.

Predictably, the two groups have responded very differently.

Statements on the websites of the ADV and the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia make an identical claim from differing perspectives. In their own mind at least, each is carrying the banner of the “true Episcopal Church.” These claims are summed up in two succinct statements from each group:

The ADV site states “While we disagree with their (TEC’s) decision to walk apart from the worldwide Anglican Communion, we acknowledge their right to do so. We would hope that they would acknowledge our right to remain faithful to the tenets of faith that have given comfort to our forbearers who built the churches TEC and the Diocese are now trying so hard to take.”

The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia site says that “The Diocese remains steadfast in its commitment to current and future generations of loyal Episcopalians and will continue to pursue every legal option available to ensure that they will be able to worship in the churches their Episcopal ancestors built.”

Well put, but claims to represent ancestors are hard to prove. There is a subtle but important difference between remaining true to inherited faith-tenets and remaining ensconced on property in the name of the “Old Guard.” Is the diocese of Virginia prepared to say that true Episcopalians are those who carry a particular bloodline as opposed to fealty to a particular doctrine?

The question of fidelity to the historic faith is central to communions which rely on apostolic succession for validity such as Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or the Anglican Church. They see themselves as stewards of a trust passed down from previous generations by the apostolic authority of the bishops of the church. It was a dispute over the nature of episcopal authority that caused Sir Thomas More to lose his head (literally) when defending the doctrine of the primacy of the bishop of Rome during the Protestant Reformation in England in 1535, depicted so well in the 1966 movie “A Man for All Seasons.”

The purpose of the doctrine of apostolic succession in the patristic (early post-apostolic) church was two-fold: to preserve doctrinal purity and ecclesiastical unity. At least in theory, the Anglican communion opted to make doctrinal purity primary when these two purposes came into conflict during the Reformation in 1535. Charitably, let us say, the Anglican church severed unity with the Roman church in order to preserve apostolic truth rather than the more crass motive of political independence from the intrusive authority of the Roman bishop and his representatives known as legates. Otherwise, the entire house of cards collapses since neither ecclesiastical unity nor doctrinal purity would have been at issue.

Those who feel conscience-bound to remain in the tradition of succession, do well to commit themselves to the primary purpose of succession – the doctrinal purity of the church.

Will the real Anglican Communion in the United States please stand up? As an observer with no personal claim or association with either party, I cast my vote unwaveringly for the ADV, CANA,GAFCON and their commitment to the historic doctrines of their faith. Let’s hope the courts continue to do so as well.