Peace on Earth

I heard the bells on Christmas day
Their old familiar carols play,
And wild and sweet the words repeat
Of peace on earth, good will to men.

And thought how, as the day had come,
The belfries of all Christendom
Had rolled along the unbroken song
Of peace on earth, good will to men.

Till ringing, singing on its way
The world revolved from night to day,
A voice, a chime, a chant sublime
Of peace on earth, good will to men.

And in despair I bowed my head
“There is no peace on earth,” I said,
“For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good will to men.”

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail
With peace on earth, good will to men.”


~ Henry W. Longfellow, 1864

Christmas break fun!

Grades are in...and I'm pretty stoked. :) Looks like my teachers liked my term papers and the TFC articles. It seems like most of my senior friends had similar experiences with getting better grades as an upperclassmen. I guess you get better as it as you go along. The moral of the story is that I'm so glad that I worked really hard this term. It definitely paid off! It makes me feel less nervous about grad school and I'm fairly confident now that everything I am sending in makes me look like a really good candidate. I've finally finished my essay, so I should be able to send everything in today or tomorrow, and then I just have to wait until April.

I've been at Georgetown for the past two days visiting with Caelah while she's been finishing up her finals. Her roommates are really sweet and it's been fun to chill in a college dorm again. We went and got Ben and Jerrys last night (which kept me up for hours) and I felt really nostalgic for freshman year, going to the Co-op with Rachel and Christine for ice cream runs around 10:00. Good times. :)

Jesse and I played squash yesterday at the gym. Neither of us are particularly good, but we had so much fun. We didn't keep score and just rallied back and forth, switching the serve when we would have otherwise. It was a good way to get the essentials of the rules down and to practice hitting good shots and returning them. We also went to Jana's apartment on Monday night for a party she was hosting and to meet some of her grad school friends.

So, all in all, I'm having a relaxing and rewarding break. I think it might be time to give back to it and do a little more writing than I've been getting done. ;) Perhaps "Something Brilliant" and "Heart of Gold" chapter 12 will be finished this week! That would be brilliant. ;)

Something Brilliant

It's good to be home. :) It's 10:36 right now and I'm sitting in bed with Kirby (the family Sheltie) who is curled up in delightful slumber with his head resting against a paw, but I know he's not completely asleep because his ears are perked up, listening to my fingers pattering across the keyboard. He sort of looks like a little fox.

I haven't done much of anything in the past two days, mostly because I haven't been feeling well. I was actually told that I wasn't allowed to do anything productive by Mom and Mike, heh. Well, I was still a little productive around the house and such. But I did follow their advice and spend most of my time in front of Nick Games and Sports (Legends of the Hidden Temple, GUTS, and Family Double Dare anyone??), ABC Family (Full House), and watching movies. I do feel better, which is nice. Still waiting for my voice to return.

I've also started a new story, "Something Brilliant." Here is an excerpt...

“I’m a failure,” Ron groaned.

“You’re not a failure,” Harry
reassured.

“I’m too dense.” Ron threw his wash rag on the
floor.

“You’re not too dense, you’ve had some very inspired
moments,” Harry countered.

“I’m an idiot!” Ron insisted, jabbing
his thumb into his chest.

Harry considered this. “Erm, well,
you might be an idiot. Sometimes. But usually you’re
not.”

Ron slumped against the counter of Weasley’s Wizard Wheezes
and held his head in his hands.

“She’d be daft to accept me.
There’s no point.”

“For heaven’s sake, Ron, you’ve already bought
the ring!” Harry exclaimed. “What have you got to lose?”

Ah, dear Ron and Harry...hopefully Harry will help Ron get his act together. ;) Chapter 12 of "Heart of Gold" is also coming along swimmingly, and should be up sometime soon. I hope. I'm also hoping to go to Georgetown and visit Caelah within the next few days, and I have a whole mountain of books that I want to read! Break is looking to be awesome. :)

Through the narrow wood

Finals are almost over! I finished my article series on The Falls Church for my opinion writing class late last night and turned it in this morning (more on that below), today I took my microeconomics exam, and tomorrow I will take my European history exam. I've already taken Islamic history, on Saturday, and that will be all of my exams for this term. It's been a very challenging term academically, and busy as well. I've hardly had much time to myself! Christmas break will be interesting as I'm not working this year, so I'll have a lot of time to write, read, and spend time with friends.

I have posted my articles series about The Falls Church in the several posts below. I posted them in reverse order to make reading easier. They are meant to be read in order, and though they are not meant to be entirely comprehensive, I think that I did a good job of describing the debate and issues. There is so much more that I could have included, but I had a 700 word limit for each article, and I was either right on it or just barely below it for all! Happy reading.

I very much enjoyed summarizing and reading over the debate again. I feel like I know more about it now and am much better equipped to discuss the particulars with anyone. John Yates, Martyn Minns, Peter Akinola, and the others have really done such a great job expressing their beliefs in a strong but humble manner. They are such an encouragement to me! It is so good to be amongst Christians who aren't afraid to publicly and respectfully express their faith.

Well, I must get back to revising for my European history test. I've been watching the movie "Miss Potter" while going over my notes. I love these quotes:

"There is something delicious about writing the first few words of a story. You're never quite sure where they will take you. Mine brought me here." ~ Beatrix Potter

"Stories don't always end where their authors intended. But there is a joy in following them, wherever they take us." ~ Beatrix Potter

Part 1 - A New Beginning

It was an Advent Sunday like any other. The priests and acolytes filed in to the sounds of choir and organ lifting Christmas praises to the heavens. The cross proceeded in front of them, a reminder to the overflowing room of the reason they gathered together.

John Yates stood to welcome his congregation to the service of lessons and carols. He then made reference to the results of a church vote, gesturing to the television crews waiting in the upper corner of the church.

The crews would have to wait. Yates explained that they would announce the congregational decision at the end of the service.

It was December 17, 2006.

The vote would determine whether or not Yates’ congregation, The Falls Church of Falls Church, Va., would disaffiliate with The Episcopal Church in favor of the greater Anglican Communion. It would be the culmination of more than three years of debate, and the beginning of a property dispute that went to trial Nov. 13, 2007.

The Episcopal Church brought suit against ten Virginia churches last January over their church property after the churches voted to secede over doctrinal issues. The Falls Church was among them, with 90% of the eligible church body voting to break communion.

The Falls Church was established in 1732 as an offshoot of Truro Church, another seceding church located in Fairfax, Va. It is one of the largest churches in the Diocese of Virginia, and existed as part of the worldwide Anglican Communion before the creation of The Episcopal Church after the Revolutionary War. The Episcopal Church makes up only 3% of those in the world who affiliate with the Anglican Communion; missionaries have spread Anglicanism not just in the West, but also to Africa and Asia.

The central issue for the seceding churches is the place and authority of the Bible in church practice. Specifically, the churches are concerned with the election of Gene Robinson, an openly homosexual man, as a bishop in 2003 and the election of Katherine Jefferts Schori as presiding bishop, the highest Episcopalian religious authority. Schori has publicly broken with biblical teaching by asserting that there is more than one method of attaining salvation, ignoring the biblical principle of Jesus Christ as the only means through which one can approach God.

Yates referred to these issues as symptoms of a bigger problem in his statement “Can Two Walk Together, Except They Be Agreed?” from June 2006. Though Yates has sought reconciliation with the Diocese of Virginia and Virginia Bishop Peter Lee, he stated in this document that the time might come when the church would have to choose between their beliefs and staying in the denomination for tradition’s sake.

Yates sought reconciliation until the Episcopal General Convention in June 2006, when Schori was elected as presiding bishop and the convention failed to pass a resolution affirming the Bible as the supreme authority over the church.

For Yates, the tide had turned. These decisions deepened the rift, and the time had come to consider affiliating with the wider Anglican body who had previously affirmed the stance of The Falls Church.

The churches banded together and wrote a protocol for secession, which was endorsed by Lee until Dec. 1 when it became clear that the churches may actually vote to leave.

In his sermon that December Sunday, Yates remarked that while he bears “no ill will” toward Schori or The Episcopal Church, “when two groups have irreconcilable differences, the pastoral thing to do is find a gracious way to separate.”

The Diocese of Virginia brought suit despite these efforts, claiming an interest in the property of the church. However, The Falls Church has argued correctly its right to keep the property according to the Virginia Division Statute, Virginia Code § 57-9, which recognizes the right of congregations to keep their property when separating from a divided denomination or diocese.

The Falls Church has the legal right to secede from their mainline denomination if they are confronted with an irreconcilable difference. Further, they have a right to their property under Virginia law. The following articles will examine these issues in greater depth as we await the decision of the Fairfax County Circuit Court.

Part 2 - Is Property the Issue?

Last January, the Diocese of Virginia declared that the rectors and other leadership of the ten seceding Virginia churches had severed ties with the Episcopalian communion and therefore do not recognize the authority of The Episcopal Church, and “have openly renounced the doctrine, discipline, or worship” of The Episcopal Church.

As such, the diocese declared the real property of each church abandoned and stated their wish to take charge of it. However, the rectors and congregations had not vacated the premises, and therefore the diocese felt it necessary to bring suit against them.

Further, the diocese claimed that the parishes belonged to The Episcopal Church and not to individual congregations because the denomination is hierarchical in nature and property is held for the use of its overall mission. As the churches wanted to leave the denomination, their use of the property could not be for its greater good.

The diocese asked the court to declare that each parish’s property was held for the benefit of an Episcopal congregation and must be used for its mission, that the parishes could not use the property for any other purpose except that provided for in its own constitution, and that the court issue an injunction to stop the churches’ use of the properties.

The requests were made in response to the churches’ filing under Virginia Code § 57-9, the Virginia Division Statute, informing the state of their majority voting decisions to separate from The Episcopal Church.

The code was passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 1867 in response to denominational schisms over slavery and the Civil War. It provides that where a “church or religious society” experiences a “division,” affiliated congregations may vote to determine which “branch” of the divided overall body they wish to join. The church must report the results of this vote to the local circuit court and its approval is “conclusive as to the title and control of any property held in trust for such congregation.”

In essence, if a religious body is split over an issue and congregations are forced to take sides, they have the right to keep their property. A claimant under this code must prove that they belong to a religious body that is in dissention, that a majority vote has been conducted, and that the congregations are joining an affiliated branch of the church body.

Clearly, The Episcopal Church is a church in crisis. The dividing issues of sexual behavior and biblical authority have been widely publicized in the news and its leadership has made statements about them. Likewise, The Falls Church has been affiliated with The Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican Communion for centuries. It has sent representatives to leadership meetings and has participated in discussions about its place in both bodies in recent years.

Further, it is easily proven that The Falls Church acted according to the stipulations of Virginia Code § 57-9 – a vote was conducted, resulting in 90% of the eligible voters declaring that they wished to secede, and the results of that vote were reported to the Fairfax County Circuit Court.

The Falls Church also expressed its wish to align with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) and the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV). These bodies were “created in response to the subject division as an offshoot for Episcopal congregations that desire to remain part of the Anglican Communion,” according to a statement from the defendants.

Virginia Code § 57-9 leaves the decision up to individual congregations and provides every means for the government to stay out of the decision. However, the requests of the Diocese of Virginia ask the court to take the property because it can only be used to further the mission of The Episcopal Church. In essence, they request that the government impede on The Falls Church’s right to exercise what they believe by taking their property.

The Episcopal Church is asking the court to crush a smaller body. Their interest is not so much in the property, but in asserting their authority, whereas The Falls Church wishes to secede peaceably.

The court should uphold their filing under Virginia Code § 57-9.

Part 3 - Two Diverging Roads

The Falls Church did not arbitrarily conduct their vote and decide to leave without warning. In fact, the church has been engaged in dialogue over this issue and the issues of contention with The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion for at least a decade.

In 1996, Assistant Bishop Righter of the Diocese of Newark performed the ordination of a practicing homosexual. The greater Anglican Communion condemned this action in 1998 decennial Lambeth Conference, a meeting of the leaders of the worldwide Anglican Communion. However, The Episcopal Church continued to defy the greater church authority with the election of Gene Robinson in 2003.

The Archbishop of Canterbury appointed a commission that issued the Windsor Report in October 2004, criticizing the consecration and stating that the worldwide communion had made its position clear. The report called for a moratorium on additional consecrations.

Further actions by The Episcopal Church continued to fly in the face of the Windsor Report, so much so that in 2005 the Anglican leadership asked The Episcopal Church to withdraw its members from the council until the next Lambeth Conference in 2008.

Virginia Bishop Peter Lee voted to approve Richter’s actions at the 1997 General Convention, and adapted the policy of the Virginia Theological Seminary to match them. He also supported the elections of Robinson and Schori.

In contrast, The Falls Church has upheld the standards of the greater Anglican Communion and engaged in dialogue with Lee and The Episcopal Church about them. Such dialogue led them to ally themselves with like-minded members of the Anglican Communion in the United States, and to withdraw their monetary support of the Diocese of Virginia.

Yates, the vestry, and the leadership of the other ten churches have written innumerable statements regarding their beliefs and viewpoints, and have made every effort to reconcile with the Diocese of Virginia.

When it became clear to them that reconciliation was no longer an option, they drew up a statement of protocol through a council appointed by Lee.

This protocol called for a period of discernment and reflection on whether to leave The Episcopal Church of at least 30 days, voting on the issue at a special congregational meeting called by the vestry, a majority of at least 70% for the motion to pass, that any dissenting vestry be given voice to submit their opinions, and a second vote over whether or not the congregation wishes to keep the church property. The Episcopal Church agreed that the churches could secede if both votes passed by majority.

The Falls Church and its cohorts acted according to these principles, only to be sued by the Diocese of Virginia once they had been carried out.

Granted, The Episcopal Church has an interest in its flock. It also has an interest in expressing its concerns and beliefs and ensuring that those who align with them are given a voice.

However, it is pointless for the diocese to bring this case to court because the law clearly favors The Falls Church.

Lee and other Episcopal leaders, including Schori, gave the churches the impression that while they would be saddened by their departure, they respected their protocol and decisions.

Further, the dissenting minorities in the majority of the seceding churches are so small that it is ludicrous for The Episcopal Church to attempt to seize the property on their behalf. There are over 1, 300 adult members of The Falls Church, and only around 100 of them voted not to break communion.

It is clear that the majority of members wish to align with the greater faith body that shares their beliefs. It is The Episcopal Church who is expressing a minority opinion in this case, comprising only 3% of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

As Yates said last December, the best thing that a leader can do in an irreconcilable dispute is to find the most gracious way to separate. The other leaders and he never wished to fight the case in court.

One road has diverged into two. The best road for peace would be for The Episcopal Church to end litigation and resolve differences cordially and respectfully, instead of trying to bully the churches into giving in to their demands.

--------------------------------

Reports referenced in the articles can be accessed at the following web sites:

www.thefallschurch.org
www.americananglican.org
www.episcopalchurch.org
www.globalsouthanglican.org
http://kendallharmon.net/t19
www.thediocese.net
www.40daysofdiscernment.org

A new beginning

I am working on a 3 article series for my opinion writing class about the Anglican realignment. Hence I have been reading innumerable articles and statements from The Episcopal Church, the Virginia Diocese, The Falls Church, Truro Church, etc about perspectives, history, the court case, etc. The court case seems to have gone very well. We'll know the fate of the church properties in about two months when the judge announces his decision, but the trial could hardly have gone worse for TEC. At one point the presiding bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori basically admitted that she had lied to Archbishop Rowan Williams, the bishop of Canterbury.

Anyway, so I've been going through all of the documents again, and I just can't believe some of the things that TEC is claiming! They've basically written their own gospel! I just can't see how someone can say that they believe in the Bible and use the Bible to prove their own points, and then say that all expression of human sexuality in any context is okay.

To validate a church statement because it's societally acceptable is logically, and theologically, incorrect. That's like saying that if it became societally acceptable to lie, we should get rid of that commandment. Mike and I had a bewildered discussion about this after reading through TEC statements together while I was working on my articles. Will post them later today after they are done.

"A New Beginning," by the way, is the title of the series. Let's hope.

To tide you over, here is my series proposal:

The organization of the Christian church is a pressing issue of our time. In recent years, debates have centered around theological differences and methods of church leadership. Such debates have been divisive and caused rifts in more than one historical denomination. These rifts have lead to further discussions about church property and whether or not a denomination can legally halt the secession of a member church. The Episcopal Church is currently suing over ten Virginia churches that have voted to disaffiliate with the overarching church body over theological differences. The lawsuit over the church properties went to trial on Tuesday, November 13.

I would like to examine the arguments and actions of The Falls Church and Truro Church, the two Virginia churches most invested in the debate, to validate their dual claims that they should be able to split from the church body and keep their church property. I will not consider their theological arguments; that is for them to defend. Rather, using historical evidence from the Virginia Division Statute, Virginia Code § 57-9, which recognizes the right of congregations to keep their property when separating from a divided denomination or diocese, and examining their actions from 1996-2007 I will show that they are well within their right legally to disaffiliate and that they did their best to resolve the debates before taking drastic measures.

My main opinion is that the churches have acted in accordance with the law and should be allowed to part ways. My first piece will introduce the debate and the main opinion, setting the tone for a more thorough examination in the latter pieces. My second piece will examine the Virginia Division Statute and my opinion will be that the court should hold up the law and allow the churches to keep their property. My third piece will examine the actions of the churches to seek reconciliation with the overarching church body and my opinion will be that they sought every means necessary to close the rift, felt that there was no other option, and so conducted their vote in a reasonable manner. They should be allowed to part ways.