Humbling Considerations

The context of Anglicanism
The root cause of the Episcopal Church’s current crisis is the conflict between fundamentally different understandings of essential Christian doctrine and ethics. The practical consequence is that The Episcopal Church (TEC) has become, in effect, at least two churches that embrace radically different understandings of the Bible and Christian gospel with inherently conflicting views on how to live as an authentic
disciple of Jesus Christ.

Before we can even begin to discern whether we as a congregation can remain within TEC as it is now constituted and governed, we need to understand the context of TEC and Anglicanism within the greater Story told by Scripture. This is a large and encompassing Story, extending from the beginning until the end of time. This Story tells us who we are as human beings, and how we are to live in a manner pleasing to God. We cannot lightly disregard its authority.

One way of summarizing the Story told by Scripture is: God is seeking a people among whom he chooses to dwell in order to bless the whole world. At the center of the Story is the Cross of Christ, who was slain for our redemption, that we may place our trust in him, thereby being reconciled to God and receive the gift of God’s own life, his eternal life, which begins as we start to know Jesus. This theme of God’s saving the world by indwelling his people is beautifully and succinctly summarized in the prayer Jesus prayed for his disciples (and us!) on the night before his crucifixion (see John 17:1-26).

God is a Trinity of Persons who made us so we can share his life as the community of his people. He wants the whole world to be drawn into the life he offers. He does this by dwelling with his people, transforming us into the likeness (image) of Christ. The goal of the Christian life is to become Christ-like. Like him, we are to be about the Father’s business. That business is redemption and transformation, drawing the world into his new creation.

God works, not through our pride, but through our weakness: “But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me” (2 Corinthians 12:9). Scripture is unflinchingly realistic about the weak human condition. There were no perfect disciples or perfect churches in the New Testament. The apostle Paul says of himself that he struggles against weaknesses to temptation in order to live the sanctified life (Romans 7:7–25). The Corinthian church was riddled with rivalries and immorality. No church is immune; it is no surprise when sin and division rear their ugly heads.

Yet God can work miracles of transformation to bring us out of our enslavement to sin if we will allow his new creation to break in. We continually need to repent and put our lives under the authority of the scriptural Story, at the center of which is Jesus—the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through him (John 14:6).

The above is but an outline of the grand and comprehensive Story of the world and humanity told by Scripture and the traditional doctrines of the church. This Story provides the context within which we must discern our response to the crisis in TEC. The only legitimate reason to seek to affiliate with an alternative Anglican province is if we clearly discern that God is calling us to do so, for the sake of the witness and mission of the church. We must do what God says. This is what we must discern prayerfully together as a congregation with love for one another and for those with whom we differ. Any other course would be sinful and based on human pride.

Two churches, two gospels
The Episcopal Church’s response to the practice of homosexuality is merely a presenting issue; a symptom of far deeper divisions. These divisions cut down to foundational understandings about Jesus Christ, the Bible, the gospel, and what it means to be the church and a Christian. Nonetheless, how the church deals with the issues of sexuality bears significantly on the church and—unless resolved—threatens to undermine the mission of the church.

At the heart of the conflict over sexuality, bound up with how the church reads Scripture, is a question: Is homosexual behavior a part of the old, the sinful ways of humanity, or is it not? Is it a state from which God’s grace can transform a person, or barring that, give the ability to live as he or she is, according to God’s standards and holiness? Or is it something that we should now see as consistent with his new creation, something holy, which images in a holy way the love of God for humanity and should be commended to anyone as a pattern of holy living? If the former, then the church must uphold its long-standing teaching, while seeking in the most compassionate, respectful, and pastoral way possible to reach out to and proclaim God’s love, forgiveness, and transforming power to those who for whatever reason find themselves living outside the boundaries of God’s standards. If the latter, then the church must courageously and prophetically speak for this new understanding of God’s truth, and lead the world into the acceptance thereof.

There is an inevitable conflict between these two understandings. Each side, if it is true to its own convictions, has a claim to make against the other. That is why the issues are tearing the fabric of the church apart and severely hindering work in common mission. That is why the two sides of this dispute cannot just agree to differ and be about business as usual.

What is at stake is the very integrity of the good news of the gospel that is being proclaimed! What gospel are we converting people to? Whichever side one is on, can one in integrity and good conscience be a part of converting people to a gospel that is perceived as being false and destructive, that does not promote human flourishing by living according to the holiness of God? The tragic dimension of this conflict is that the mission of the church to the world is hindered and many people will be deeply hurt whichever direction the church takes.

These are real issues of great importance to people, and it is most important that we see the truth of God’s will for us in these matters. As human beings we all have mixed motives, and rationalizing and political posturing is surely a recognizable human trait. In spite of that tendency, it is important to recognize that there are people on both sides of these sexuality issues who sincerely are trying to seek the truth and be faithful to the highest in the Christian tradition.

Yet evil has a pernicious way of masquerading as goodness and light that is bright enough to blind any of us: Conservatives should not be excused for their failures in manifesting the compassion of Christ to all people, nor for their failure to live up to God’s standards—surely heterosexual sin is as much a sin as homosexual sin. We do not throw sinners out of the church—else our churches would all be empty. The church should be full of sinners! We must welcome all who are drawn to Christ into our churches, and glory in the fact that we are forgiven sinners who have the opportunity to grow in Christ.

Jesus admonished sinners to stop sinning (cf. target=”new”>John 5:14, 8:11). Yet, the church is full of repeat offenders—a casual reading of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) is sufficient to convince us of that. In judging others, we should not so much seek to uphold our own opinions—since our ways are not necessarily God’s ways and “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of the Lord” (Rom 3:23). But, we should seek to point all towards the ways of God: the love of the Father, the mercy of the Son, the power of the Spirit.

One inescapable aspect of this conflict is determining what we teach our children. What do we put into our Sunday school curriculum? Do we teach that homosexual conduct is a good and holy aspect of living that God blesses? Or do we teach the traditional understanding that human sexual relations are to be confined to marriage between a man and a woman? Do we teach that we are unable to figure this out—that the Scriptures do not guide us on this—so the church can only offer options for individual preference? Will the church have any credibility at all if it is unable to resolve such a crucial aspect of human living and morality? What of the family that worships in one diocese and then moves to another—will the children learn one thing in one diocese and completely the opposite in the other (the same could even be said of parishes in the same diocese)?

Perhaps it is the intuitive awareness of the intractability of a compromise solution that argues most strongly for separation. Is it possible to frame a teaching that would be acceptable to both sides? And to God? Is it possible to find a solution that is consistent with both the grace and mercy of God on the one hand and his holiness and rejection of sin on the other?

It is an unfortunate human trait that our ideological commitments often prevent us from seeing important dimensions of reality. Many people in the pews must surely be distressed by these seemingly interminable battles. The church’s mission to proclaim the gospel is profoundly compromised by these fights. The unity that Jesus desires for his disciples is deeply wounded, and the world is tragically pushed away from knowledge of the God’s forgiving and transforming love for all people. This is the greatest sin of our unhappy divisions, and we each bear great responsibility for its continuation.

Some practicalities
It is extremely hard for people to live indefinitely with the tension that these disputes cause. We should be willing to admit that the opposing views are intrinsically irreconcilable and ultimately cannot coexist in a church that lives up to its call to be holy as God is holy. Yet division has a tragic dimension, and will be painful to many. But we can choose to be respectful, not spiteful, and seek to maximize cooperation across lines of division, to the extent possible.

So much depends on how we think about the world. Our basic worldviews shape our lives and govern our actions. We need to become saturated in a scriptural worldview. For example: “Your word is a lamp unto my feet” (Ps 119:105). “Be transformed by the renewing of your minds” (Rom 12:2). Like Jesus, we should always
seek to know the Father’s will and do it, whatever the cost—yet always in humility, not in judgment, in awareness of our own sinfulness before a holy God, and seeking to be witnesses to Jesus as the unique way, the truth, and the life, pointing always to the cross of Christ as the only answer to all of our dilemmas.

What About Our Property?

Introduction
The heart and soul of our congregations are the people, not the bricks and mortar of our buildings. At the same time, however, God has created us not only with minds and spirits, but also with bodies and physical needs. One of those needs is a place to gather to worship God corporately, to grow deeper in our relationship with Jesus Christ and in community with each other, and to be equipped by the Holy Spirit for the work of ministry and outreach (see Ephesians 4). Thus, while our buildings and other resources do not define us as people, God gives us such resources for a purpose. And we are called to be good stewards, using those resources to serve the needs of others and to advance the purposes of his kingdom (see Luke 16).

As Episcopal congregations and vestries discern whether The Episcopal Church (TEC) has walked apart from the global Anglican Communion, and whether to affiliate with another part of the Communion, some have inquired whether this would have any effect on our church property and other assets. A full discussion of that question is beyond the scope of a document such as this. As good stewards of our resources, however, it would not be prudent (or realistic) to say that issues concerning our property merit no consideration. We hope that the following will help you understand the basic issues.

Legal considerations
There is no prescribed or agreed-upon procedure for a congregation to disaffiliate from its diocese or TEC. One possibility, however, is that a congregation would engage in discussions with the diocese concerning its decision to affiliate with another branch of Anglicanism and would reach agreement on a means of settling any differences with the diocese and amicably parting ways. The Presiding Bishop of TEC has indicated that legal disputes over the ownership of parish property are internal diocesan matters, and that TEC’s canons would permit a diocesan bishop to reach an amicable settlement with a congregation that wanted to leave TEC and retain its property.

In the Diocese of Virginia, the Rt. Rev. Peter Lee has appointed a committee that has been meeting privately over the past several months with a view toward, among other things, reaching agreement on the general principles that would guide a Christ-like and amicable separation of congregations from the diocese and TEC, should that become necessary. If we ultimately determined that we must come under other Anglican oversight, it would be our hope and prayer that we could do so in a manner that was fair and mutually agreeable to the congregation and the diocese.

In other dioceses, amicable property settlements have involved the departing church paying an amount of money to the diocese in settlement of the diocese’s claim against the church property. Of course, a departing church may resent the suggestion that it should pay anything to the diocese; may feel that the demand is extortionate; and may have difficulty with the idea of giving money to a body with which it is not in full fellowship. But litigation can be extremely expensive, and these congregations have not been willing to accept the risk of losing such litigation (and with it their property). Moreover, regardless of who is in the right, lawsuits between congregations and the denomination could potentially harm the witness of the Christian church to the world. Those latter considerations favor amicable settlement.

If, however, the approach of negotiated settlement should fail and other legal action were unavoidable, we would have to be prepared to take steps to confirm our ownership of our property under civil law.

Although the Virginia courts have repeatedly explained that Virginia law does not recognize religious denominations’ claims to hold an implied trust in local church property, dioceses in other states have argued that TEC’s “Dennis Canon” or similar diocesan canons give them a trust-based interest in local congregational property. Thus, we may be forced to litigate that issue.

We would, however, have a number of legal arguments at our disposal to protect our property. For example, in addition to the limitations that Virginia law places on implied trusts, Virginia law also provides a mechanism for a congregation, in the event of a “division” within a religious denomination, to determine by congregational vote the “branch” of the divided church to which it will thereafter belong (Va. Code § 57-9). This law further provides that the church property will follow their decision. Although the Windsor Report acknowledges division within the Anglican Communion, and the Virginia diocese’s own Reconciliation Committee acknowledges that this division is of the deepest and most serious nature, it is possible that the diocese would contest this action, resulting in costly litigation.

Concluding thoughts
As with any matter that is litigated, no one can guarantee in advance what the outcome would be. We are prepared to litigate these issues, however, if that should prove necessary. And if a congregation’s discernment includes the possibility of affiliating with another branch of Anglicanism, we recommend that the congregation immediately begin the process of identifying legal counsel who may best serve its needs.

This is not to say that we would expect to institute litigation against TEC or the diocese. We believe that we have been, and will continue to be, faithful in following the various biblical teachings (including Matthew 18) in an attempt to resolve these issues amicably. Moreover, if the diocese or TEC were to “go to law” by initiating a lawsuit against us (1 Cor 6:1), we would defend our congregation’s property.

In any of these circumstances, however, we would seek to act in a Christ-like manner—to act in love, to be vigilant in guarding against self-interest and improper motives, and to honor God above the vindication of our interests.

Many of us are stewards of facilities that have been maintained over the years by Christian believers who intended and expected that they would be used to preach the gospel and to build people up in the Christian faith. We have a duty to keep the trust of those believers, to perpetuate that gospel message for those who will hear it in the future, and, above all, to be faithful to God in our stewardship of the resources that he has committed to our care. The leadership of our congregation has given much thought concerning how to resolve these matters in a biblical manner. We encourage you to ask them about the issue, if you have questions.

As you enter the 40 Days of Discernment™, let us assure you that we will continue to seek to resolve any property-related issues with the diocese amicably, and without resort to litigation. We would urge you not to let property be a determining factor in your vestry’s or congregation’s discernment process. Decisions concerning the future direction of our congregations should not turn on whether there is a guaranteed outcome concerning the ownership of church property, but on the Lord’s leading. Property is a resource that should facilitate God’s vision for your congregation, not hinder it.