Truro Announces Loss to Diocese of Virginia

A heavy loss in every way conceivable.  Condolences to Truro.

“Brother in Christ?” What on earth?  The Bishop of Virginia is a heretic. He’s not a brother. Very disturbing and somewhat embarrassing announcement from an Anglican rector.

I guess you can offer a rent free lease when there is no one to occupy the buildings. This looks like church sitting and is very sad.

“What the Diocese has sought since the court’s ruling has been a ‘witness’ and not merely an ‘outcome.’ The parties have carried on a public dispute for five years and it is important that we publicly begin to make peace.”

Well, if Bishop Johnston wanted to ‘make peace’ with the Truro Church, he could put Christian fellowship before money and wave the $50,000 he wants as a settlement for the baseless bull-crap ruling he got on the CANA churches’ finances. While it would be nice for him to return a church building, which was built as a sanctuary for Christian worship, and which would otherwise either go to ruin or devolve into a crack house for the addicts to pee in, he could at least offer to sell it to them  for an under-the-market price since (1) they were the ones paying for its upkeep all along, (2) it was their building to begin with, and (3) no one will pay top dollar for a large and aging building in his real estate market.

What a nice olive branch any of these suggestions would be, but there is no chance in hell it will happen. It’s all pretense. Episcopalians continue to mistake notions such as ‘love’ or ‘peace’ for feelings: the love of Christ and HIS peace <i>are not feelings, but acts.</a> Episcopal leaders don’t understand the scriptures they read each Sunday. They are clueless.

Actually Sareh, I’m not sad, but relieved.  I’ve been sensing as I pray that it is right for Truro to move on from the litigation and have been hoping for something like this. (Though I confess that selfishly, I’d love to see Falls Church carry the appeal forward and win to set a precedent…)

The 14 months of rent-free lease will hopefully helpfully ensure a more-orderly transition, though it could be an awkward, difficult period of “in, but not of” the church property.  Part of me wishes we’d now just “walk away” and be free of the encumbrance to the buildings.  But that’s a lot easier said than done in heavily developed Northern Virginia for such a big active parish with all sorts of programs and ministries seven days a week as Truro has.

I’m glad to see Truro gets to keep the name Anglican and its affiliation with ACNA.  That’s a pretty heavy loss for TEC right there, a major blow to their “no-competing franchise” obsession.

I’m also glad about the commitment to charity…

Could probably weigh in more, but sense I’ve now already said plenty, and besides it’s dinner time here and I’m hungry!  Time to head home!

Praying for much wisdom for Truro’s lay and clergy leaders in the days ahead as this all shakes out.

Agreed, AIT . . . the Diocese has certainly been a “witness”—a witness to horrifying legalized thievery, which it is now continuing and attempting to veneer over and deceive the public with the enablement of the rector of Truro.

The whole thing is really really sad.

Why anyone would wish to submit to a bishop of The Episcopal Church who does not believe the Gospel as a landlord I cannot imagine, much less to engage in *further* “covenanting” with the man—a man who cannot keep his oath of ordination and a man who is singularly untrustworthy in dealing with written texts, both contractual and divine.

It’s all just a heavy heavy loss for the parish of Truro.  I just feel sorry for the laypeople—stuck with a rector proclaiming that a man who sued them out of their building and who is a known heretic is now one of his “brothers in Christ.”

They’ve got to just wonder “well—then why did we leave TEC, then, if we’re all brothers in Christ?”

“It’s all just a heavy heavy loss for the parish of Truro.  I just feel sorry for the laypeople—stuck with a rector proclaiming that a man who sued them out of their building and who is a known heretic is now one of his “brothers in Christ.””

Precisely Sarah. You nailed it.

In re-reading my comment #5, I fear it could sound / read as being spiritually presumptuous, as if God told me what was “right.”  I’m not meaning that at all.
.
I don’t intend to claim in my comment #5 that I had any special discernment that giving up the appeal was right, just sharing that I had a definite longing in my spirit for this season of litigation to end as I’ve been praying in the past 2 months, and a sense that “giving up” now would actually be the most spiritually healthy thing for Truro.  (Up until Feb. I’d been fully behind the litigation as it seemed very important to take a public and visible stand.  My sense that it is time to say “enough” is a very recent one.)

But these are pretty wishy-washy words of mine about “vague senses” and “longings.” And I’m very aware that it is dangerous to try and involve myself too closely in saying what is or isn’t right for Truro to be doing from such a great distance, even though I have been a member of Truro for 23 years…  So take what I wrote in #5 above very lightly.

“...why did we leave TEC, then, if we’re all brothers in Christ?”

Exactly.

Baucum was snookered.

“An important feature of this settlement is that both sides have agreed to enter into a covenant of mutual charity and respect. This document will frame the way the Diocese and Truro Anglican will deal with one another and speak of one another.”

I had wondered when some TEC/ACoC party would demand this—“No settlement unless you stop calling us heretics.”

I dunno, Greg—I’m not confident that you can spend a year purporting to pray with and fellowship with a guy who blatantly does not believe or preach the Gospel and who is suing your congregation, pronounce your friendship with him and your desire to *further* covenant with him, along with allowing him to be your landlord and also bailing him out of the need for a congregation to support the building and property—and claim that somehow he was “snookered.”

A day?  Maybe snookered.  A week?  Perhaps.  A month?  Stretching it.

But. A. Solid. Year?

No—he wasn’t snookered.  He made some choices, and those choices are out there for the world to see and assess for themselves.

Up to him, of course, and I’m sure he’s satisfied in his own conscience as most people are. 

I just feel sorry for the congregation.

I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Frogs in kettles, after all, are snookered… just in very, very slow motion.

The disaffiliation restrictions and burdens should now be lifted from the other Anglican parishes in PA, Virginia and beyond. There seems to be rhyme or reason to it now.

The fifteen-month lease benefits Dio VA/TEC too - if the Truro buildings were vacated, neither Dio VA nor TEC have the congregants to occupy it. The buildings would be vandalized whilst Dio VA attempted to rent or sell them.

As for Rev Tony, while I loathe the idea that he has to call Bp Johnston a “brother in Christ,” I don’t know what else was on the negotiating table, that the settlement might have protected Truro from. Likely Dio VA/TEC were suing the Truro rector and vestry personally, as Dio GA and TEC are of Christ Church Anglican in Savannah. At least that seems to have been stopped in the Truro resolution. Given Judge Bellows’s mealy-mouthed appeasing opinion rejecting the Dennis Canon but implying a trust anyway, perhaps Truro looked at its chances for being granted cert at the US Supreme Court and decided the settlement was its only option.

When we left TEC we chose to walk away from our buildings.  The odds of winning in court were slim in California and the thought of spending years in litigation was unpalatable.  We never once regretted the decision. There is life after buildings, no matter how expensive or historic they are.

What is all this “friendly fire” for?  Truro made a decision to exit the litigation.  They have time now to look for a new building.  Lets pray they get an upgrade.  I am very happy for them that the spiritual weight of being sued is lifted from the community.  This creates more space for the simple joy of faithful service.  I pray that their unity increases and their mission grows.

Congratulations Truro!

Hi Ed, I am very happy that they decided to exit the litigation and are no longer sued.

But then . . . I wasn’t upset, appalled, and repulsed about that.

Ed, I may be wrong but I haven’t seen any criticism on this page of Truro church for abandoning the litigation. It was always their decision to fight the pariah Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, and they had the respect and prayers of millions of Anglicans around the world in so doing.  Equally, we respect them and pray for them if they decide not to continue.

The criticism and concern, as I read it, is that Truro has entered into an agreement with Dio. Virginia, and the terms of it.

It *looks* like they have made a compromise with those to whom believers should not be yoked.

Is the Presiding Oceanographer okay with this lease-back arrangement to the competing Anglican franchise?  I really have to wonder about that!  I wonder if Bishop Shannon Johnston is going to be brought up on charges for being soft on the “schismatics”.

No one is questioning the settlement and the decision not to appeal Ed. I am questioning the “covenant” that will be signed and the use of the phrase: “brother in Christ” as applied to a heretic who, by his teachings, is leading people away from Jesus.

I don’t think there is any result or prize that justifies such language or any kind of covenant that would embrace such language.

With respect to the “covenant of mutual understanding and respect” as I think it is being called; doesn’t that really mean they won’t diss each other publicly?  I don’t read that as a covenant to go plant churches or undertake works of ministry together.

I expect this covenant or “legal agreement” was a required part of the settlement. The press release reads

An important feature of this settlement is that both sides have agreed to enter into a covenant of mutual charity and respect. This document will frame the way the Diocese and Truro Anglican will deal with one another and speak of one another.

RE: “This document will frame the way the Diocese and Truro Anglican will deal with one another and speak of one another.”

So you think it may not be a good idea for Truro church to say “we left TEC because of the apostate teaching of key leaders of the church who shall go nameless, since one of them is a ‘brother in Christ” and we have a legal agreement with him, but at any rate, we couldn’t stay because the key leadership of TEC were believers and teachers of a false heretical gospel”?

Look, it’s no skin off my nose, in a sense—I didn’t choose to leave TEC and saw no good place to go when I surveyed the field. Father Baucum may do and say as he pleases, I suppose.

But my gracious, lawsy-sakes—*had* I left TEC, I couldn’t imagine the feelings I’d have upon reading this joint statement.

I find it simply incredible. It makes a simple mockery of the entire reason for departure.

Connie, good point, that is exactly what happened before.  Just as now, Dio. Virginia was in process of reaching an amicable separation agreement with the dissident congregations, and then Katherine Schori stepped in to override the local bishop and drag both the diocese and the national church into very expensive litigation - all for a property that they can’t populate!

If it is “required” as part of a legal settlement to drop language which identifies the diocese of VA and its bishop as purveyors of a false and poisonous gospel, then the settlement be damned. It is a shame to sign it.

This is the sad state of the world created by human monsters such as Katherine Jefferts Schori.

[8] Karen, as someone who is a member of one of the other Anglican parishes in the suit, may I assure you that I understood your words and sentiment completely—your comment did not seem spiritually presumptuous at all.  You were just saying what has been on your heart in and as a result of prayer.  I hope this gives you some comfort, and I’m glad you expressed your feelings so openly.

What is sad to me is to see orthodox Anglicans like Sarah Greg and Matt calling obviously orthodox leaders of Truro fools and traitors.  Will the divisions and infighting among orthodox Anglicans ever end? Will you not be happy until there are 50 anglican denominations.  So let’s start talking about amia and all it’s permutations.  Will the madness of Protestant splits ever end?

Since diocese of VA will have deed to the property and use of church space, how is it going to work out when the Truro folks are there on Saturday afternoon, getting ready for Sunday services or doing other things, while a “same sex blessing” ceremony is going on in the church?  I am glad that the dark cloud of litigation has lifted, but I suspect there will be some tense times in the coming months.

RE: “What is sad to me is to see orthodox Anglicans like Sarah Greg and Matt calling obviously orthodox leaders of Truro fools and traitors.”

That would be very sad—if actually Sarah Greg and Matt had actually said that.

I suppose imagination is an endless font of sadness for some.

RE: “Will the divisions and infighting among orthodox Anglicans ever end?”

I think the better—less TEC-like—question is “should those who believe the Gospel be analytical and critical of actions of people on *their* side as they were of those who did not believe the Gospel within their former church?  Or should we just give all of our allies free passes and only point out the errors of our worthy opponents?”

Terms of a settlement always reflect who is the party that is prepared to continue the litigation, and who is the party who is more fed up with the litigation, and just wants to be done with it. Because of these realities, the former is always able to exact something extra from the latter—frequently something that the former needs in order to justify for themselves the bringing of the lawsuit in the first place.

And in order to seem to be generous, the former always manages to find something to “give up” which would never cost him or her anything in the first place.

This settlement—as least as represented in the joint statement—fully bears out those realities. As St. Paul said (1 Cor. 6:7)—“The fact that you have lawsuits among yourselves demonstrates that you have already been defeated.”

There is only one winner when Christians sue each other—and it is not the body of Christ.

I have seen another example that those who see from a great distance see, well, from a great distance. A bit of distance may give a person perspective, while a great distance may more probably provide a very blurred and incomplete image of what is being observed.

I have been a Truro parishioner since 1987. Like many other Truro members, I took part in our 40 days of discernment prior to our vote to disaffiliate and our vote to attempt to retain our property. I knew before that period of discernment was completed that I would leave Truro if Truro failed to vote to disaffiliate from TEC. I have supported the litigation both in word and in financial resources. I was saddened when the second court decision went against each of the orthodox Anglican congregations litigating in Virginia. But I see the current agreement as very favorable for our parish.

Since Tory Baucum arrived four years ago as our rector, he has worked with our vestry and others toward keeping the property and at the same time worked hard on alternatives, should the litigation’s outcome prove unfavorable.

Truro has large and complex ministries, for instance, a large preschool operating on its campus and a homeless congregation of over 100 for which we had to contend with a purported zoning violation to keep it from being pushed out by those in city government. Preparing for smooth continuation for such complex ministries required simultaneous strategic planning for multiple possible outcomes. As a congregation we are grateful for the work of our rector, vestry, legal team, strategic planning groups and all those who did and are continuing to do such hard work for the parish and who keep all of us as informed as has been possible in the midst of legal preparations and various negotiations.

Reading some of the comments here, and not having better personal knowledge of actual facts, I could almost believe that Truro was rejoining TEC a little bit at a time or that the parish is somehow being led blindfolded along a path about which we have not agreed. We are not reconnecting in any way with TEC, nor are we unaware of the choices being made by our vestry and other leaders and their reasons and background for their decisions. As of April 30, according to the court ruling we will not own nor have any rights to the property which has been our base of ministry for many generations. Without negotiation we would have been on the street by that date, as would all our ministries.

Instead, we have been able to negotiate with the diocese (and with TEC’s agreement as a party to the prevailing side in the litigation) so that we will be able to operate the preschool for another year in its current facilities, will be able to prepare for the complexities of establishing the homeless congregation in a location that hopefully has all zoning challenges addressed, and will be able to work out other changes needed in this region of very built up and expensive real estate. We began this negotiation by stating that our connections to Anglican bodies and Anglican practice – ACNA, for instance – was non-negotiable. Some other churches have had to drop all such connections in order to remain for a time in their building (now owned by the diocese), but Truro and other churches in recent negotiations have not been requested to do this.

The diocese will be our landlord, not our partner in all practices and ministries. We are not sliding back toward TEC. As a parish, we have been praying for Bishop Shannon every Sunday for many months. I expect we will continue that. He is not our bishop – we are so thankful for our bishop John Guernsey – but he is the geographically closest bishop in the Anglican Communion. We continue to disagree with him and TEC on how to understand the Bible and its call on our lives, but he and many others in the Diocese of Virginia do believe in the historical bodily resurrection of Jesus, and so we can still call them brothers, although with major theological divides between us and them.

We in Truro would have preferred a different outcome in the courts, but given the ruling from the court, Truro and the Diocese of Virginia are attempting to operate toward each other in a spirit of charity and not acrimony. That has not always been true, but I am thankful to see it being a goal now.

RE: “Reading some of the comments here, and not having better personal knowledge of actual facts, I could almost believe that Truro was rejoining TEC a little bit at a time . . . “

Actually, what you’ve read is people saying “why not rejoin TEC”—since you’re entering into a covenant with a heretic bishop who does not believe or preach the gospel but instead preaches a false and harmful gospel.

RE: “Some other churches have had to drop all such connections in order to remain for a time in their building (now owned by the diocese) . . . “

Yes, we know.  Yet another example of the evil actions of a bishop who wishes to claim a veneer of civility for those actions and be a “witness.”

RE: ” . . . but he and many others in the Diocese of Virginia do believe in the historical bodily resurrection of Jesus . . . “

That’s it?  That’s the New Standard?

Incredible.

Bill, that’s about as enabling as it gets, and had somebody said that to *you* back in 2003 you would have laughed that out of town.

Heck, Gene Robinson can say that.  So can scads of other bishops in TEC who don’t believe or preach the same gospel.

I’m more than happy that Truro has gotten out of litigation if that’s what it believed it should do. Glad that it can move on, if that’s the plan.

But to attempt to enable a heretic—and not just a heretic but a man of such vicious publicly-noted actions as Shannon Johnston—look like something he’s not to a watching world?  To pretend as if you’re all just nice Christians together?  To help him try to reconstruct a facade of Christian faith and action while he’s been busy suing people out of their property?

I don’t think anyone at Truro doubts that TEC and the Diocese of VA are heretical, or else they wouldn’t have left in the first place.  The reality is that they lost in court and are having to leave the building, much to their dismay.  But how are they to leave?  They could leave angrily, spouting anathemas.  They could scrawl “Ichabod” (in Hebrew) on the altar, as one departing congregation in Wisconsin did.  (It only made the departing congregation look hateful when the news media reported the incident of “vandalism” by the departing Anglicans.)  Or, they could negotiate for time to find a new home and depart in a way that is at least civil.

We should take note of the comments on Baby Blue Online, including one from Baby Blue herself.  People very close to this situation don’t think Tory Baucum is compromising the Gospel, and having known him for a very long time, I am confident he would not do that either.

Robert S. Munday+

RE: “Or, they could negotiate for time to find a new home and depart in a way that is at least civil.”

That’s a good idea.  How about they do that without declaring Bishop Johnston a “Christian brother” and entering into a covenant to say no evil about his actions and theology and helping Bishop Johnston attempt to recover his public image and enabling Johnston/the Diocese to present a faux image of their gospel?

Do you think that might be possible?

I’ll let Matt and Sarah speak for themselves, but I certainly haven’t accused Fr. Baucum of compromising the Gospel. Despite the little interaction we’ve had, and with the words of trusted mutual friends like Fr. Munday, I’m confident he hasn’t.

I do believe he and those Truro parishioners - and I’m told there are many - who supported these decisions, have made a serious error in agreeing to what they’ve agreed to, especially surrendering the freedom to speak the truth in the interest of “civility.” Virtually the entire rest of the departing Anglican community in America is embroiled in similar property litigation that’s costing them dearly, and not just in terms of money; and I can’t help but think, when they see Truro getting so cozy with Johnston and his goons, that they’re all throwing their hands up and saying, What are we fighting for?

Maybe I’m wrong about that last part, I don’t know, but it does make one wonder, if the opposing parties can agree on so much, what the point was of leaving in the first place.

Greg,

You used this phase: ‘surrendering the freedom to speak the truth in the interest of “civility.”’

I don’t see anywhere in the joint statement from Truro and the Diocese of Virginia where that claim is made, nor do I remember anything at all like that being spoken at our congregational meeting last Sunday.

What the agreement that was filed in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County actually says is this:

’12. The parties shall enter into a mutually agreed upon Covenant of Respect.”

Our parish can certainly enter into a covenant of respect without surrendering any freedom to speak the truth.

We can certainly treat members of the Diocese of Virginia with respect. We treat the pre-Christians that come to our Alpha courses with respect. I treat my Muslim coworker with respect even though her beliefs are much more divergent from mine than are Bishop Shannon’s. I and others can operate with respect toward Bishop Shannon in the same way we should toward anyone created in the image of God. But that does not mean we are in any way hiding or compromising our understanding of the Apostolic faith delivered to us.

Bill Cool, I agree with your last comments above.

Truro had to negotiate an exit. A church of its size and with its on-site ministries could not simply wait for a certificate of judgement and the magistrate to arrive for a forceful eviction.  It would have been easier for a smaller church.

Hopefully, Truro will not be defined by its relationship with the Episcopal Church, good or bad.  Its time to move on.

I can’t access the Baby Blue Cafe link for some reason.  But the Dio Virginia web-site includes this comment:

“Because the Diocese and Truro Anglican are part of different ecclesiastical bodies who share the Anglican tradition, they have agreed to follow a process during the term of the lease by which bishops may visit Truro Anglican with the permission of Bishop Johnston.”

Does this mean that the ACNA ordinary with oversight of Truro cannot visit the church without permission of the Episcopal bishop?

Hi Bill Cool,

“We continue to disagree with him and TEC on how to understand the Bible and its call on our lives, but he and many others in the Diocese of Virginia do believe in the historical bodily resurrection of Jesus, and so we can still call them brothers, although with major theological divides between us and them.”

Well, that certainly opens the door to greater unity.

Here are some other “brothers in Christ” with whom we “disagree” about the bible but who believe in the bodily Resurrection of Christ:

Montanus
Sabellius
Arias
Charles Russel
Joseph Smith,

I could go on.

Again, no one is suggesting that Tory Baucum is a “traitor” to the Faith. No one denies that it is necessary to settle sometimes and get the best possible benefits from a settlement.

But enterting into a covenant of peace with heretics? Calling a heretic “brother”? No I am sorry, there is no pragmatic or practical or legal or theological justification for that. I don’t care how many day schools and ministries and soup kitchens you run.

I am sure Tory Baucum is a faithful Christian brother and I respect what he’s gone through, having been there myself, but this “covenant” of love and peace and this calling heretic bishops brothers is disturbing and wrong.

Pelagius, I forgot Pelagius, another brother in Christ who believed in the bodily Resurrection.

Matt,

Quite obviously, I did not enumerate each belief of the Nicene Creed and tick off whether Bishop Shannon gets a passing grade on such a quiz, but some of your examples are ridiculous. For instance, Joseph Smith, who got the bulk of his “Book of Mormon” not from divine writing on golden tables but from a novel’s manuscript stolen from a Pittsburg printer, could not have truthfully agreed with all the Creed.

You forgot one other hyperbolic example: The demons know that Jesus is the Christ and that he was raised from the dead and that he now and ever shall live in power and with authority.

I will not continue with such a debate.

Good Bill, I am glad you will not continue this debate, because your position is absurd as both Sarah and I have demonstrated. Holding some Christian truths while denying others is the refuge of heretics everywhere. Allowing them to take this tack and allowing that they are “brothers” even as they do is Precisely how false teachers keep and maintain their foothold in the church.

So, again, its probably a good idea for you to step away from supporting this embarrassing, errant, and naive way of referring to ravenous wolves.

I have no objection to Rev. Tory Baucum praying with Bishop Shannon Johnston and indeed pray that this may result in his conversion to Christ.

Prayers for dear Truro and its continuing mission in Christ’s service, God bless ‘em.

Sarah-

Why do you pass judgment on Truro and their Rector?  Aren’t you under the authority of the same kind of TEC heretic?  You little stone bridge has been used as a urinal.  Haughtiness is not a virtue.

Your brother in Christ-

Clifford L. Bronson
Fort Worth

RE: “I’ll let Matt and Sarah speak for themselves, but I certainly haven’t accused Fr. Baucum of compromising the Gospel.”

I’m with Greg.  Articulating the idea that the covenant and friendship and calling a heretic like Bishop Johnston a “brother in Christ” are all really bad ideas and pointing out that at that point one may as well return to TEC with all the other “brothers in Christ” in no way is an accusation of somebody “compromising the Gospel.”

Thanks for making that clear, Greg.

RE: “Why do you pass judgment on Truro and their Rector?”

Why do I assess certain actions of Truro and their rector and criticize those actions?  Because that’s what human beings rightly do.  Analysis, assessment, and criticism are excellent activities that human beings engage in.

As to my being a part of TEC—yes indeed I am and my bishop is a heretic.

As soon as I enter into a covenant with him to not speak those words, and I call him a Christian brother, and I work hard to let him present a false facade to the world—particularly when I’ve left TEC with pronouncements about why I’m leaving and why I can’t continue on in the same entity as with these currently “Christian brothers,” and forming an alternate Anglican entity—I’m quite confident that Matt, Greg, Jackie, and David will assess those actions in precisely the same way.

But I’ve always been clear that it’s perfectly feasible for individual Christian believers to be a part of a corrupt, heretical body led by corrupt heretical leaders.  As has Matt.  As has Greg.  And so on.

It should be noted—as an aside and to be publicly clear [not that he needs any public defense]—that my heretic bishop isn’t even suing people out of their buildings, personally suing individuals, and refusing to allow in previous settlements such things as Anglicans to consort with other Anglican entities like ACNA.  Nor has he called for the institution of same sex blessings.

So yes, he’s a heretic.  But no, so far he hasn’t engaged in the quite wicked actions of Bishop Johnston.

RE: “You little stone bridge has been used as a urinal.”

I am sure that it has.  Little Stone Bridges often are.

RE: “Haughtiness is not a virtue.”

Certainly true—it’s interesting that when an individual assesses and criticizes the actions of another, that’s considered “haughtiness”.  At least . . . now it is considered haughtiness.  Not earlier when it was about Schori, Bennison, and Chane—not then. 

Not in response to Big Tex AC, but in general . . . and again . . .

People may choose to do as they please.  They may write, or say, or agree to anything at all and there’s not much that anybody else can do about it.  It’s a free country.  But once somebody says or does *public things* they will be commented on, assessed, analyzed, and criticized sometimes.  I’m confident that the people of Truro are marvelous and deeply spiritual Christians.  Their being that doesn’t mean they can’t make bad mistakes, and I think this one is a bad mistake.

I just don’t get why Truro and possibly also Falls Church are rolling over now. I can understand why the smaller parishes would but I had always thought the two larger ones would fight for all by appealing to the Supreme Court.

This is beyond disappointing to me especially since several churches have already appealed to the Supremes. Without even knowing if the Court will uphold neutral principles or deny that a trust can be imposed unilaterally, these parishes decide that now is the time to give up?

And where was this negotiating fever before now? Oh that’s right. The breakaway parishes were negotiating in good faith until 815 decreed that it must stop. Then came the lawsuits. But I guess its easier to negotiate once you have broken the backs of those on the other side of the table.

I am just shocked at this sudden turn of events.

Well, StayinAnglican, I can see just saying “hey, we don’t want to fight for the property any more and we’re tired of the legal battles—let them have the property.”

But they didn’t just do that.

I can understand a parish *not* appealing to the Supreme Court—or even an under-court.  People aren’t mandated to engage in legal action to defend their property.

It’s the additions well beyond ceasing the legal battle that are so deeply disconcerting to me—and not just me, but plenty of other watching Anglicans and Episcopalians too.

I’m completely with you on the shock, though.  Just shocked over the bits beyond the ceasing the legal action.

I believe A. S. Haley explained this well in #30.

It seems there are two points of concern here.  The idea of a covenant being entered into and revulsion over calling the bishop of VA a “brother in Christ”.

Sometimes a covenant in the bible, as between Jacob & Laban (Genesis 31:43-50), is set up to keep people apart from one another.  I am not troubled by the use of “covenant” language when the purpose of this covenant is clearly to cover the use of the buildings and interactions of the congregations over the period of Truro’s continued use of the property.  I don’t think it would be binding past that.  What possible penalty could there be?

As for calling someone a “Brother in Christ” who is clearly revisionist, well that’s complicated.  I have former colleagues in TEC whose theology is wildly revisionist.  I would never let them teach in my parish and if they attended worship I would stay close to them in Coffee Hour to monitor their presence.  That said, I would be genuinely pleased to see them as I do like them.  Perhaps in a moment of relief or of genuine affection I might call them a “brother in Christ”.  I reject their theology, but do not reject them.

So instead of letting this happen way back when Bp. Lee/DioVA & the Anglican churches already had some kind of separation covenant worked out, the “national church” spent a bunch of money, cut a bunch of programs and staff and deposed lots of clergy (their brothers in Christ?) in order to wind up with…

the groups separated and, at least in this case, working under a covenant?

I remember some threads on SF waaaaaay back when, where people were putting out feelers about “gracious separation,” not just in VA but wherever the two gospels were unable to share the same tent.  Not being able to draw on New Testament values, the powers-that-appear-to-be went all worldly on us.

Now we have lots of empty churches, compromised relationships, busted budgets -  a manifestly dying denomination - for what exactly?  The question cuts both ways - as was asked upstream, if we’re all bros, why did the Anglicans leave?  And if covenants are OK, why did TEC sue?

Curmudgeon #30 goes to the Bible and the answer is plain.  We all lost.

Does this mean Bishop Johnston will need to support Truro’s recognition by the Anglican communion/ABC?

How about attending a sevice at Truro with his brothers in Christ? Around here it is prohibited.

A few thoughts on all of this:

1. At this point, the “covenant” is proposed, not yet drafted.  Thus it seems logical that one can express concern over what might be in the proposed covenant, but one cannot yet say “the covenant prohibits this” or ” the covenant mandates that”.  There is a huge difference between a covenant that mandates respectful dialogue vs. one that prohibits dialogue.  I would have no problem with a covenant that permits the speaking of truth, but requires that it be done in a respectful tone.  I would have a problem with a covenant that forbids speaking the truth.

2. I note the concern over the “brother in Christ” statement.  It seems to me that this phrase can have a pretty broad range of meaning.  Sarah, Matt and Gregg seem to interpret it one way, but others interpret it another way.  I am not sure what I think about it, but I do know that I have a high-school friend, turned pastor, turned liberal.  I know that he is a believer in Jesus, but I also know that he is a heretic and has compromised his faith such that liberal cultural attitudes are authoritative instead of Scripture and Tradition.  In one sense, I think of him as my heretical, and seriously mistaken “brother in Christ” but in another sense I can’t think of myself as being in Christian unity with someone who has sold out the Christian faith and so he is not a “brother in Christ”.  It’s complicated.

I see that the joint statement says this (the context of the “brother in Christ” remark):

Bishop Johnston and the Rev. Baucum have been meeting together for prayer and conversation for over a year. “Bishop Johnston and I have become friends,” said the Rev. Baucum. “In spite of our significant theological differences, we care for and are committed to each other as brothers in Christ.

Note two things: a) Baucum and Johnston have met and become friends, and b) Baucum prefaces the “brother in Christ” comment with the comment “in spite of our significant theological differences.”  It seems to me that Baucum is wrestling with what I bring up and is trying to say something like “Johnston is my friend and a seriously mistaken and heretical brother in Christ.”

3. While A.S. Haley is undoubtedly correct that this settlement is rather one-sided, I would point out the following line from the joint statement:

Under today’s settlement, however, the parties have agreed that Truro Anglican will maintain its affiliation with the Anglican Church of North America and its Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic.  Because the Diocese and Truro Anglican are part of different ecclesiastical bodies who share the Anglican tradition, they have agreed to follow a process during the term of the lease by which bishops may visit Truro Anglican with the permission of Bishop Johnston.

This statement is clearly very carefully worded, and I am sure that the Dio.Va. thinks that it hasn’t given any legitimacy to ACNA, but I would disagree.  I see the requirement that Johnston give permission for other Anglican “bishops” to visit Truro to implicitly recognize the validity of those Anglican bishops.  Either they are, or they are not legitimate Anglican bishops.  If the former, then permission would seem to be an appropriate request.  If the latter, then why should Johnston fuss with this request?  Take note that for the longest time, TEC strenuously denied that ACNA bishops were actually bishops, and routinely referred to them as “Bob Duncan, former bishop” and the like.

Two very busy guys, litigation opponents and theological adversaries, praying together for a year—given the ferocity of the Anglican schism, this is hard for me to imagine except for a call from God. 
Jesus, the King of kings and Lord of lords, was called to dine with Pharisees and publicans alike.  His presence to sinners changed the world.  I thank God for His humility.
I find it entirely believable that Jesus called Shannon and Tory to stand side by side at the foot of the cross.  If so, I thank God that they humbled themselves and overcame the offense of His call (Lk 7:23).

I don’t find it believable at all that Jesus would call any of his disciples to call a heretic and a wolf a brother - apart from the wolf’s repentance and recantation of his soul destroying heresy.

For Jesus to do so he would need to decide that texts like Gal 1:6-9; 2 John 7-11 are no longer binding or relevant. He would need to decide that it really doesn’t matter that those who devour his sheep are granted the legitimacy of brotherhood in his Church.

Jamesw, thanks for commenting on the passage where Truro church agrees that bishops need +Johnston’s permission to visit them. I thought no-one was going to respond.  However, I am not sure your optimism about this passage is justified:

“This statement is clearly very carefully worded, and I am sure that the Dio.Va. thinks that it hasn’t given any legitimacy to ACNA, but I would disagree.  I see the requirement that Johnston give permission for other Anglican “bishops” to visit Truro to implicitly recognize the validity of those Anglican bishops.  Either they are, or they are not legitimate Anglican bishops.”

Hmmmm, firstly, the statement doesn’t refer to “Anglican bishops”, it refers to just “bishops”. It appears to put the ACNA ordinary into the same category as the local Roman Catholic bishop.

Secondly, being a bishop is one thing; having oversight or jurisdiction is another.  There are over 800 Anglican bishops in the world (more if you include the continuum) but generally only ONE of them has jurisdiction over a particular congregation.  Herein lies the problem: even if this passage recognises that the ACNA ordinary is a legitimate Anglican bishop, that just puts him in a category with 800+ others.  What does not appear to be in the passage, on any view, is recognition that the ACNA ordinary has any legitimate jurisdiction or oversight over the Truro church.

“Either they are, or they are not legitimate Anglican bishops.  If the former, then permission would seem to be an appropriate request.  If the latter, then why should Johnston fuss with this request?”

I can’t see anything in this which implies or even hints that permission should be given. In its terms it covers all bishops, including non-Anglican bishops and non Communion bishops (in any sense) such as continuum bishops.

But leaving aside what we might want to read into it about legitimacy (and after all, the liberals could equally read their own views about that into it) I was more concerned about a practical issue: Being Anglican means having a relationship with a bishop, and the bishop having both oversight and responsibility for the congregation. How can the ACNA ordinary do that if he is dependent on permission of a TEC bishop to visit the congregation?

The more I think this through, the harder it is to see what legitimate concern of Dio. Virginia this protects.

Jill at #54, that is a good point, but I just wonder on what basis they were “praying together for a year”?

Think of it like this: does it follow that if an Anglican pastor and a Mormon ruling elder prayed together for a year, that the Anglican pastor can look on benignly while the Mormon elder states: “Tory and I believe that this is an opening for a transformative witness to many across the worldwide Anglican Communion”?

I wouldn’t have a problem if this were certain other TEC bishops.  The obvious example would be +Lawrence of South Carolina (although there are others). But then, I have a strong suspicion that if +Lawrence had issued such a statement conjointly with a local ACNA pastor, there would be a concerted move by Katherine Schori and the TEC HOB to depose him.  Can you therefore see why this statement fills me with concern?

Bishop Johnston supports the ministry and authority of Katherine Jefferts Schori, the “bishop” who publicly declined in 2008 to state that Jesus was the only way to God, and who in 2009 claimed that it was “heresy” to believe that an individual’s prayer can achieve a saving relationship with God (a statement which has rightly been condemned as heresy by everyone on the Christian spectrum, from Roman Catholics to Congregationalists). Ms Schori has also stated that it is a “sin against the Holy Spirit” to deny that men like Mahatma Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and Thich Nhat Hanh have access to God.

How does the Truro church intend to engage in a “transformative witness to the Anglican Communion” in yoke together with people who teach this?

Bill Cool, at #41 above you took umbrage with Matt Kennedy’s references to Arius, Pelagius etc:

“Quite obviously, I did not enumerate each belief of the Nicene Creed and tick off whether Bishop Shannon gets a passing grade on such a quiz, but some of your examples are ridiculous….”

I appreciate that you said you have had enough of this debate.  Nevertheless, I want to add that I think your response missed the point. The problem lies back at #31 where you wrote:

“We continue to disagree with [Bishop Johnston] and TEC on how to understand the Bible and its call on our lives, but he and many others in the Diocese of Virginia do believe in the historical bodily resurrection of Jesus, and so we can still call them brothers, although with major theological divides between us and them.”

You were the one who made belief in the bodily resurrection the touchstone, not Matt+. You can hardly blame him for his query.

You can also hardly blame Anglicans of all stripes for asking some very searching questions about what Truro church is doing in all of this.  I agree that having a TEC bishop as your landlord is no different to having the local council as your landlord. 

But agreeing to enter into “a transformative witness” together with the TEC bishop? That seems to be going much much further, and precisely because of Ms Schori’s public heretical statements - are you being linked with them?

MichaelA:  I am not sure that I would characterize what I wrote as “optimism”.  For sure, the liberals would deny that anything they said grants any legitimacy to ACNA bishops.  That said, 5 years ago, TEC would never have referred to them as “bishops.”  I suppose that what I think this signifies is a very small indication that TEC is beginning to accept the permanence of ACNA and the need to deal with that reality.

Regarding the permission issue more directly.  Here’s the thing - if this is supposed to be a “positive working relationship” - and all signs suggest that that is what it is being billed as, when would Johnston forbid Guernsey from visiting Truro?  Would that not transform a “positive working relationship” into the adversarial very quickly?  I doubt Johnston would do that (though it wouldn’t surprise me given what TEC has done in the past).  So if we assume that Johnston permits Guernsey to visit - knowing that Truro claims Guernsey as its ordinary bishop, then is not Johnston ipso facto acknowledging Truro’s right to recognize Guernsey as such?  In fact, I wouldn’t be that surprised if we would yet see howls of protest on this over at Naughton’s blog.

“How does the Truro church intend to engage in a “transformative witness to the Anglican Communion” in yoke together with people who teach this?

[57] Posted by MichaelA on 4-18-2012 at 05:00 PM · [top]”

Michael A- exactly what church is it that you belong to that is not in yoke together with TEC?  Have you left the Anglican Communion, or joined one of the GS Churches that formally broke with TEC in 2003?  Forgive me if I am mistaken, but as I recall, you are a member of the Church of Australia.  Is this correct, or am I mistaken?  Granted, if you are in Sydney, you can make a case that your bishop has distanced himself from TEC, but elsewise, you are in closer communion with TEC than anyone in Truro.  And if Sydney broke communion with Gippsland, or for that matter, New Hampshire, or Wales or New Zealand or other churches headed by heretics, I haven’t read about it.

James W- IF Johnson EVER allows Guernsey to visit, you might be right.  Wake me when that happens.  There is no point to speculation until it does.

One thing that is evident here is that the TEC bishops have, to some degree, put KJS in her place.  This settlement would not have been permitted 3 years ago. Of course, come summer at GC, when KJS can marshal her forces, they may pay for that.  Also clear is that the TEC strategy is to keep people in the church, and appear reasonable, for the next year, and then they hope that when the Anglican congregation leaves, most stay because they want to stay with the building.  They figure they will be more successful that way than if they throw everyone out now, and people are angry.

This sermon from Truro is even more worrisome:
http://www.trurochurch.org/uploads/Blessedarehungerandthirst.pdf

1. Encounter – I reached out to Bishop Shannon over a year ago.  He quickly and graciously reciprocated.  In our first meetings, we did not paper over the differences between us, but neither did we exaggerate them.  We began by accurately naming the cause(s) of division (i.e. it is more about anthropology than Christology) and restoring trust.

2. Repair – over the past year of meetings, we have identified some of the harm that has been done and we have begun, even before the litigation concluded, to take steps to make things right.  I have treated Bishop Shannon as a bishop of the Anglican Communion and with the respect that is due a fellow Christian.  I have opened up relationships and ministry opportunities to him in the CofE.  He has reciprocated by allowing me to minister in Episcopal parishes in the Diocese of Virginia as DOK Chaplain and has encouraged my relationship with VTS and Dean Ian Markham, who has invited me to teach a missions course there.  The old habit of trying to “displace” each other has been rejected as unworthy of disciples.  On the contrary, we are trying to help each other and bless each other where we can legitimately do so. 

3. Transformation - Though our relationship is being transformed, we are still waiting for our communities’ relationship to be affected.  I think we may be seeing the first-fruits of those efforts.”

So not only is Bishop Johnson a brother in Christ and here a “fellow Christian”. He is also, according to this sermon, someone whose ministry orthodox Christian leaders should promote. Fr. Baucum, “opened up relationships and ministry opportunities to him in the CofE…”

Now Bishop Johnson has been very clear about his heresy. Here’s a section from his 2011 convention address:

“Furthermore, you may remember that I have always affirmed that committed, monogamous same-gender relationships can indeed be faithful in the Christian life. Therefore, I plan also to begin working immediately with those congregations that want to establish the parameters for the “generous pastoral response” that the 2009 General Convention called for with respect to same-gender couples in Episcopal churches.  Personally, it is my hope that the 2012 General Convention will authorize the formal blessing of same-gender unions for those clergy in places that want to celebrate them.  Until then, we might not be able to do all that we would want to do but, in my judgment, it is right to do something and it is time to do what we can.”

http://www.thediocese.net/AnnualCouncil216/Pastoral/

And this is not merely an “anthropological problem” (which is bad enough). It is a bible problem. And that makes it a “Christological” problem since to take a position that discounts the biblical witness is to reject Christ’s commands and defy his authority.

So what I am having a terrible time understanding is how an orthodox leader could think it okay to promote the ministry of this heretic - and worse, call it “restorative justice”?

The NT is very clear about how heretics are to be dealt with - they are to be given no legitimacy, no quarter, no hospitality unless and until they repent and recant. http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/27329

Doing otherwise is not loving…it may be “nice” to the heretic…but it is hateful toward the people he leads away from Christ.

I was troubled originally when I read the joint statement above…now I am stunned.

RE: “I have opened up relationships and ministry opportunities to him in the CofE.”

What?

Just in from some dog training and now I’ve gone from surprised and shocked to horrified.

So it’s a full-blown alliance with a priest and bishop who happily supports same sex blessings.  He’s ushering the priest and bishop into “ministry” opportunities so that this priest and bishop can promote his peculiar and dreadful heresy to a wider church, importing it further into the COE—and all with Father Baucum’s recommendations and introductions.

Why didn’t he do that for Bishop Robinson?

Whatever.

I had no idea that this kind of enabling, promoting, and alliance was going on between a priest in ACNA and a heretical bishop of TEC who is doing his best to avidly promote his particular gospel which is antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I guess with this as background it better explains how they’re friends, brothers in Christ, and willing to enter into covenants of being nice.  It certainly puts the settlement into context!

tjmcmahon - Actually, my suspicion about the changing policy in TEC re:letting congregations stay in their buildings is more due to finances.  Consider the transformation:
1) Congregations forced out so that Potemkin parishes could be planted.  Well this turned out to be major financial debacles everywhere they were tried.  And this building can’t be so easily sold.  If Truro’s congregation leaves, the Dio.Va. is on the hook for all the maintenance and upkeep costs.
2) So TEC changed course.  It permitted congregations to stay, but tried to destroy ACNA by requiring them to sign disaffiliation clauses.  My guess is that most congregations refused to sign them.  TEC dioceses would then face the steep maintenance costs for empty buildings again.
3) So TEC seems to have changed course again.  Let congregation stay in the building and pay the maintenance costs, while the Diocese can appear to be generous.

I would say this - if the Dio.Va. wants to extend Truro’s stay in their buildings, then I would hope that Truro would have the good sense to insist on a longer term lease on very good terms.  TEC may have won the litigation, but I suspect that on market terms, Truro’s congregation would have the stronger hand in negotiating a tenancy agreement.

Matt raises very serious concerns.  My thoughts;

1) I think that difference that exists between Baucum and Johnston are similar to the differences between myself and my high-school friend turned liberal Presby pastor.  I don’t doubt that either Johnston or my friend are “Christians”.  But I would not characterize our differences as simply “anthropological”.  Perhaps not christological either (though the case can be made).  Rather, I would say that the difference is that where Baucum and I and other orthodox Christians take God’s Word, as revealed in the Scriptures, Church Tradition and Reason as authoritative; my friend and Johnston have implicitly accepted liberal cultural norms as authoritative.  Thus Johnston and my friend will accept the Christian gospel to the extent that it is compatible with liberal cultural norms.  However, where there is an inconsistency, liberal cultural norms govern.

2) I actually have no problem with Baucum saying “have treated Bishop Shannon as a bishop of the Anglican Communion and with the respect that is due a fellow Christian.”  I think that even heretical Christians are due respect, as are Muslims, Jews and Buddhists.  And Johnston is obviously a bishop of the Anglican Communion, to which ACNA long argues it is also a part, even if not officially.

3) Baucom’s comment “I have opened up relationships and ministry opportunities to him in the CofE” is quite troubling.  Not so much the relationships part, but the ministry opportunities.  It would be as if I fired a carpenter for poor workmanship, but then recommending him to others.  It doesn’t make sense, unless the ministry opportunities are in known liberal contexts (i.e. Baucum knows that a liberal will be appointed, and so he is recommending Johnston as a “nice” liberal).

Tjmcmahon at #60,

1.  Most dioceses of the Anglican Church of Australia are in “impaired communion” with TEC, not just Sydney – even many “liberal” dioceses were very unhappy with the way TEC went about things in 2003.  And you are correct that ALL of us in Australia remain in some form of communion relationship with TEC, Sydney no less than the other dioceses.

Where I disagree, is with your attempt to conflate this communion relationship with being “yoked together” in ministry.  In my view, they are two different things.

The question I asked is how Truro church can be in a position where +Johnston says that he and rector Bauccum “believe that this is an opening for a transformative witness to many across the worldwide Anglican Communion”?  That surely goes further than just whether their respective dioceses or provinces have some sort of communion relationship (let alone a landlord/tenant relationship).  Rather, it sounds like the church and the bishop intend to work together actively in ministry. 

I do not agree that the impaired communion relationship which most of the Australian church has with TEC is relevant to the issue of Truro Church being yoked together with +Johnston.

2.  Like Sarah, my concerns are heightened by the sermon linked at #61.  I don’t mind this bit: “I have treated Bishop Shannon as a bishop of the Anglican Communion and with the respect that is due a fellow Christian.”  But the following sentence is a concern:  “I have opened up relationships and ministry opportunities to him in the CofE. …”

[I note since I started to write this, Jamesw has posted much the same thing, and I endorse his comments]

I hope I have made clear that the problem is not that +Johnston is in TEC.  +Lawrence is in TEC and I wouldn’t have an issue with Truro Church working together with him.  Rather, my concern is that +Johnston has never (so far as I am aware) done anything to distance himself from Katherine Schori’s heresy and indeed he appears to be at home with it.

3.  You wrote:

“One thing that is evident here is that the TEC bishops have, to some degree, put KJS in her place.  This settlement would not have been permitted 3 years ago.”

I agree that KJS would not have permitted this 3 years ago.  And perhaps she doesn’t agree with it now, but we don’t know that.  She might be fully in agreement with it.  That is my concern.

Hi Michael+,

I do disagree with you on one point. I have a very difficult time not only with promoting the ministry of a heretic like Johnson but also with this:

“I have treated Bishop Shannon as a bishop of the Anglican Communion and with the respect that is due a fellow Christian.”

Put, say, your local Mormon bishop in Bishop Shannon’s place and see if you could say the same thing.

No one can determine anyone else’s eternal destiny but God. The Mormon Bishop and Bishop Johnston despite their teachings may at some point repent and turn to Jesus.

But to use the word “Christian” is to indicate that the person is a follower of the same Jesus Christ we follow. Both the Mormon and the revisionist Episcopalian in their professed teachings however do not follow this Jesus. Their teachings lead others away from him. They are those who Jesus would classify as wolves in sheep’s clothing

So I think it presumptuous to claim that, despite defiantly and unrepentant undermining the truth of Christ that these people are disciples of Christ.

And, moreover, such a claim legitimizes the idea that doctrine is not crucial to unity, encouraging the idea that we ought all to simply beat our swords into plowshares and gather round the Communion table with Schori and Robinson and let this smallish matter of human sexuality not stand between us.

Finally, it sends an unclear message to those who are struggling with their sexuality. Hey I can still have sex with my partner, as Bishop Johnston teaches that I may, and be a disciple of Christ. And the rector of Truro is fine with calling me that.

Is this not standing aside while the Lord’s little ones are being led into sin?

So without even getting into the question of making an alliance with Bishop Johnston to promote his ministry, already orthodoxy and heresy are set alongside one another as different shades of the same truth.

And finally another issue. Truro’s actions here undercut the Jerusalem Declaration in a significant way. The JD says:

“13.  We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.”

How does promoting the ministry of Bishop Johnston in the CofE and calling him a fellow Christian and praying with him in any way serve to “reject his authority”?

How does deciding not to work toward Bishop Johnston’s “displacement” - a decision Fr. Baucum said that he reached in his sermon, consistent at all with this article?

Ought not orthodox Christians seek always and everywhere to displace heretics, undermine their ministry, and thus protect the sheep from their poisonous influence?

This is not good.

Let’s keep in mind what witness our actions give to the onlooking-world. Will leaving angrily give a positive or a negative witness for the Gospel? We agree that TEC is heretical, but the average person doesn’t know anything about that. My concern would be that they might see the situation merely as “those Christians suing each other.” Why not rather be wronged for the sake of the Gospel than give a bad witness to the world?

May our Lord bless all those congregations that have to go through such difficult circumstances for the sake of the Gospel.

orthodoxy and heresy are set alongside one another as different shades of the same truth

Could not have put it better myself.

Let’s keep in mind what witness our actions give to the onlooking-world. Will leaving angrily give a positive or a negative witness for the Gospel?

No, it would not. But I don’t see anyone insisting that Truro should leave “angrily”. Making clear to the world that a wolf and heretic is a wolf a heretic is not in and of itself anger. Of course, one can do it in an angry way - or one can simply vacate the building, after deconsecrating it, and move to different premises. A couple of clear plain statements are all that is required.

No-one is arguing we should be leaving angry. But let’s not call a heretic a brother - because that’s actually something to get angry about.

“We agree that TEC is heretical, but the average person doesn’t know anything about that.”

Right. And the actions of Truro don’t help clarify the matter at all. In fact they make it worse.

“My concern would be that they might see the situation merely as “those Christians suing each other…”

Now they will see it as: those Christians getting along with each other despite their differences…hmmm I think I’ll give my local same sex blessing TEC congregation a try. It’s a Christian church after all.

Not to further muddy the waters, but where is +John Guernsey in all of this?  He is, is he not, the ACNA bishop with jurisdiction? (or is there a CANA bishop who takes precedence in this case until such and such a date? Or am I otherwise confused over who has jurisdiction- certainly possible.) Who must have been consulted before a rector under his jurisdiction signed a document governing the doctrine and discipline of a church in his jurisdiction.  Since the document clearly muddies doctrinal and ecclesial boundaries. 

On the other end of things, I occasionally wonder how TEC bishops like Johnson and Briedenthal see themselves now that they are viewed as the right wing of TEC for saying things like “Jesus rose from the dead.”

MichaelA, #57
We orthodox have been lied to so many times by church leaders, I can readily appreciate your concern that the statement “this is an opening for a transformative witness to many across the worldwide Anglican Communion” might be a propaganda vehicle for advancing the GLBT agenda.  If it is a statement promoting an amicable parting of the ways, I’ve no problem with it.  I believe that acrimonious litigation between Christians diminishes the Christian witness.
Whatever authority the PB has over a diocesan bishop, Bp Johnston is under that authority.  They share the same views on the GLBT agenda, but we don’t know Bp Johnston’s opinions of PB Schori or her theology.  Were it not for Schori aborting the Virginia protocol, Bp Johnston would not now have millions of dollars of debt for which he is responsible. 

This fascinating discussion reveals how the term ‘Christian’ carries different meaning for different people.

When we take offense at God’s instruction, it creates spiritual deafness and blindness.  The GLBT activists took offense at God’s teaching on sexuality, believing it wasn’t fair.  We orthodox frequently slipped into cold love, creating our own spiritual deafness and blindness. 
The New Testament teaches us that mercy triumphs over judgment.  Our call is to guard the truth and at the same time show mercy. 
I wouldn’t have agreed to everything Shannon and Tory agreed to.  On the other hand, I haven’t prayed with a theological adversary over an extended period of time.
I keep thinking of Helen Keller realizing that communication existed and was accessible while her teacher did sign language on her hand held under running water.  I still applaud their standing together at the foot of the cross, the blood running from Jesus’s hands and feet, the water running from His side.  May the Holy Spirit speak to them both.

“Most dioceses of the Anglican Church of Australia are in “impaired
communion” with TEC, not just Sydney”
Can you quote a passage or 2 from a diocesan convention resolution so stating, or cite the Church of Australia synod in which that majority acted?  I sure it would have made the papers, or been posted on SF if such things had happened.  In what manner is this “impaired communion” manifested?  I am sure that there are individual bishops who check the credentials of TEC priests before licensing them, but that has always been true.  In what manner has the Church of Australia distanced itself?  Why has it not removed a primate and ACC delegation who have consistently and without reservation backed TEC in every Anglican meeting in the last decade, with the exception of the Primate’s meeting of 2003, when even Griswold voted to approve the statement that consecrating VGR would “tear the fabric of Communion” (ie- constitute schism). 

A full communion relationship (as exists between Australia and TEC) is in ecclesiological terms a closer relationship than currently exists between Truro and the TEC bishop of Virginia.

My point is simply that for those who are in TEC or those who remain in provinces of the Anglican Communion who are in full communion with TEC to complain that someone not in communion with TEC is not making that point with sufficient clarity is a bit confusing.

I also am troubled by Tory Baucum’s comment: “I have opened up relationships and ministry opportunities to him in the CofE” highlighted at #62 by Sarah and #64 by JameW.

Now if this means that Baucum has recommended that Johnston go on an Alpha Course at HTB or a Christianity Explored Course at All Souls, then all well and good; perhaps even HTB’s Bishops event.

However we already have considerable trouble being made in Liverpool by Virginia and Ian Markham of VTS through Rowan’s Continuing Indaba and various other propaganda initiatives for TEC and its inclusive scheming,    It is exactly this which its increasingly mad Bishop Jones is using to steer Liverpool off the deep edge - we don’t need others helping TEC and its way of decline to infiltrate us.

I would like to see some clarity on what exactly the Rector of Truro meant by what he said.

“The most exquisite folly is made of wisdom spun too fine”—Ben. Franklin

I agree that the Bishop is a heretic.  This just may be the best that the Rector could do.  If he’s practical at all, I’m sure he was thinking about all those young children and families and the other ministries.  When you start making parents and little kids move and upset their schooling before the school year is out, you get into alot of very practical issues for families that he may not have wanted to put them through.  There may be some Christianity in that.

He went overboard in his commentary about his Christian brother.  God will sort that one out.

This was a loss for all, and sometimes practical decisions have a bit of Christianity built into them.

Time to move on.  God will provide for them.  They are doing the best they can.  Maybe he did call a heretic a Christian brother.  Maybe God doesn’t consider the Bishop a heretic.  I don’t know. 

I think Jill has it right.

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/28691

Thanks to Jill Woodliff for her insightful comments in #73.  I think that her comment “This fascinating discussion reveals how the term ‘Christian’ carries different meaning for different people” is very perceptive.  This is part of the central issue and one I haven’t yet decided.

It seems to me that there are (at least) three levels of concern:
1) Someone who does wicked and immoral things.  Orthodox Christians often do wicked and immoral things.
2) Someone who seems to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God who died to save us from our sins (i.e. basic Gospel) but who erects an external thing as authoritative over and above Scripture, Tradition and Reason, thus undermining an important aspect of the Gospel.  This person might be termed a heretic.
3) Someone who may profess to still be a Christian, but who by word and deed clearly does not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died to save us from our sins (i.e. does not believe the basic Gospel).

So, I think that we could say, for example, that Chuck Murphy is guilty of #1.  Shannon Johnston seems to be guilty of #1 and 2.  Michael Ingham and KJS would appear to be guilty of #1 and #3.

I think that all would agree that a person falling under category #3 could most certainly not be considered and brother or sister in Christ.  Our problems come when dealing with people under categories 1 and 2 - especially when it is 1 AND 2.

My perspective on this is that people who come under point #2 are still Christians even though they are heretical Christians.  For me, the real issue arises when they are in Church leadership, because, then (as Matt makes clear) they are leading others - sheep under their care - into heresy.

That said, I think that Jill’s points are well worth thinking about:

We orthodox frequently slipped into cold love, creating our own spiritual deafness and blindness.  The New Testament teaches us that mercy triumphs over judgment.  Our call is to guard the truth and at the same time show mercy.

I think that I could understand Baucom referring to Johnston as a “brother in Christ” if it was made clear in the context that Baucom also believed that Johnston was in serious, theological error which made it impossible for him to stay in ecclesiastical union with him.  I would probably would not have used the “brother in Christ” language.  I do, however, understand the impulse towards charity and working together to the extent possible.

Pondering the settlement statement, and reading the various comments, including especially the quote from Rev. Baucom’s sermon, reminds me of something I learned at an orthodox Anglican conference I attended a couple years ago:  That which divides Anglicans today is NOT identical to those who believe and follow biblical authority and those who don’t.

It’s more complicated than that.

Some on “our” side (that of orthodox Christianity, and Anglicanism) are not as committed to biblical orthodoxy as others…  It’s a bit like the term “evangelical” these days…it can be all over the map.

Rob Bell says he’s evangelical, so does Clark Pinnock, and perhaps both may disapprove of homosexuality…(though I’m not sure about Bell…)but neither is anywhere near orthodox or biblical in their essential beliefs.

At the conference I mentioned, I met people, clergy even, who while strongly disapproving of homosexuality, weren’t quite so sure about say, the atonement….or…abortion, but none-the-less qualified themselves as “conservative” and “orthodox”(perhaps even “evangelical”). 

And of course on the sodomy issue they were.  Orthodoxy encompasses a lot more than orthodox sexual ethics though, and unfortunately—in practical terms, on the ground—THE issue that divides us now is too often ONLY sexual ethics….and many—even clergy—don’t see the connection to the rest of orthodoxy.

The leadership of the Church—in biblical education—has a lot of work to do.

Father Baucom has a history of being with the Eastern Orthodox for a few years…and I wonder if this ecumenical experience dulled some of his senses about real orthodoxy, so he, like many, is a bit blurry & confused about heresy and orthodoxy, and the difference.

Only then do his statements make sense.

One other thought about this.  Back when it was still in existence, I commented over at the “Covenant” site.  Back before Rowan Williams totally undermined the conservative position in the Anglican Communion, there were a number of liberals who posted on Covenant.  It struck me that there was a very clear thread that went through all of their arguments, and it was this - “You can be personally opposed to same-sex blessings and the normalization of homosexual behavior, but you must agree that advocating these things does not disqualify one from being an orthodox Christian” - in other words “you should agree to disagree”.

Clever argument, because to accept it, one implicitly accepts the entire liberal argument.  Clever also, because it boxes conservatives in and makes them appear not willing to even discuss the issue on a level playing field.

I think that Baucum may have fallen into this trap.

That said, you have to be clever to counter this tactic.  You don’t want to appear to be legalistic or cold-hearted or without mercy.  That counts as a win for the revisionists.  Rather, you need to craft a way that shows mercy and love, but which, nevertheless, denies legitimacy to the other position.  It’s not easy.

When it comes to Truro Church and the rector, Tory Baucum, I guess I’m of several different minds.

(1). Part of me agrees with Matt. My former church in Texas is one of the ones being unjustly sued by 815 activists, and Truro’s decision to stop was a little disappointing to me and has to be a little discouraging to them as they have to worship every Sunday with the knowledge that the wrong judge could (and has tried to) throw them out on the street of their own building in a matter of months. Also, as Jill points out, the people who are pushing all of these lawsuits are the same ones who have misrepresented their intentions too often.

(2). However,  one of Rev. Baucum’s pastoral concerns has got to be to keep his church family together through this trying time. I am a layperson, not an ordained minister, so for the sake of his flock rather than for love of Bishop Johnston, maybe he needed this 12 month grace period.

(3). As part of their settlement, I wish Truro and Baucum could have gotten Johnston to admit that this whole lawsuit was political and nothing else. I rather regret they didn’t try to get him to say something such as, “This has been too costly…this has been a Pyrrhic victory for the Diocese of VA,” etc. The CANA suit was never about the merits of the law. This was about one thing: post-2003 General Convention politics. This wasn’t about the fiduciary duties of the bishop or about some vague notion of ‘leaving the Episcopal church’ (whatever that is supposed to mean since Ms. Schori, in her own statements to Windsor and others, is unable to clearly articulate what ‘being Episcopal’ in the United States really means). The Diocese of VA was negotiating a settlement with CANA in good faith until Ms. Schori’s rabid bunch bloodsuckers moved in, all because they wanted to (1) punish the CANA churches and (2) they didn’t want an alternative Anglican group competing with the TEC General Convention. (All of this was pre-ACNA, so TEC GC has really failed to crush the competition…they can play ‘Taps’ to that evil dream tonight). 

I think it’s safe to say that Schori’s goal to crush the creation of any alternative Anglican group has failed…that bus left the station. So why shouldn’t Johnston admit now that all this was political? If he wanted a deal with Truro, it would have cost him nothing.

What does it matter at this point?

Some pastors are just too….pastoral.

After reading the transcript of the sermon I better understand some of the criticism here.  However, I am still sympathetic to the need for Truro to reach a practical settlement to avoid a sudden eviction. 

In my experience, we often get in trouble when they put themselves in a situation, whether it’s a lawsuit, debt, or ill advised personal relationship, that we cannot afford to lose or from which we cannot simply walk away.  When that happens, we face enormous pressure to compromise principles in order to avoid or delay a bad result.  This is one reason so many people have compromised in this battle within the church, whether to preserve their jobs, pensions, buildings or friendships.  We’ve all done it. 

As with all major litigation, the opportunity cost of the northern Virginia litigation has been high.  Had the congregations simply walked in 2003, some would likely be doing very well in new permanent locations and would not be giving TEC, or it’s Bishop, much thought.  Instead, they made a prayerful judgment that the likelihood that they would be successful in the litigation and keep their property outweighed the cost. Now, at the losing end of a long, protracted, expensive fight they must figure out how to start over.  There are no good options. The likelihood of success with a cert petition is very low. Continuing uncertainty over the liability of the congregational bodies and individual defendants to the Diocese would greatly complicate future planning and the job of securing capital for new facilities.  There is a need at this stage to cut their losses and move on, but to do so the parishes must reach closure with the Diocese.  Truro cut the best financial deal it could.  In doing so, it has made statements which seem to undercut its rationale for leaving TEC in the first place.  However, Truro isn’t perfect, nor is our civil justice system.  The church deserves love and support as it tries to extricate itself from this mess.

@Going Home: I understand the desire to move on, and I do not condemn it. But I think I need to reassert one position here maybe (I’m not sure) for your sake: It was their property—they had the deeds, they paid for the upkeep of the buildings and properties…no lawyer, judge, or clever legal language changes that fact. Truro and others shouldn’t have had to fight for anything, and their vestry members and clergy should certainly not have been sued personally. That’s why I hoped they would go to SCOTUS…I’m pretty sure the high court would be interested in a national organization fabricating a ‘trust’ that favors them at the expense of the other party, and without informing the other party or without their consent. In other property cases that have nothing to do with churches, there would be no question who was the victim and who was the villain in these cases.

Tjmcmahon wrote at #74,

“My point is simply that for those who are in TEC or those who remain in provinces of the Anglican Communion who are in full communion with TEC to complain that someone not in communion with TEC is not making that point with sufficient clarity is a bit confusing.”

You have argued a good deal more than that, and on the basis of wrong facts.

But regardless, I don’t regard even your position as stated above as tenable.  Essentially it amounts to, “MichaelA cannot criticise Truro because the Australian church is in a communion relation with TEC. Neither can anyone who is a member of TEC criticise Truro, nor can anyone who belongs to a church or province in a communion relationship with TEC”.

What the ??????

I am not defending the Australian church (or Sydney for that matter) because I don’t need to.  The issue on this thread is Truro church and the relationship it has chosen to pursue with Bishop Shannon Johnston.  For some reason you have been trying to make it into an issue about the Anglican Church of Australia.  And yes, a number of your facts and assumptions are incorrect, but I can see that if I keep trying to correct them, this thread is going to leap 10,000 miles from Virginia to Sydney (which seems to be your intention).

From St. Thomas More, prior to his execution-

Almighty God, have mercy on (N.), and on all that bear me evil will, and would do me harm, and their faults and mine together by such easy, tender, merciful means as Thine infinite wisdom best can devise, vouchsafe to amend and redress and make us saved souls in heaven together, where we may ever live and love together with Thee and Thy blessed saints, O glorious Trinity, for the bitter passion of our sweet Savior Christ. Amen.

I know Tory very well.  He is a brother in Christ.  I know that he is a prayerful man who has had the interest of the Gospel, his parish and people, and the future of Anglicanism in North America at heart.  I am quite saddened by the scourging he has received on this blog.

Each rector is in a unique situation defined by their own circumstance.  He did not start this litigation…nor did the bishop for that matter.  He accepted the call during the fight.  But he clearly felt, after prayer and counsel with his vestry, that this would be the best end to it.  I assume the local bishop (Guernsey) was in the know.  The arrangement buys time for the parish to look for another place, remain where they are, pay no rent, and live to build another plant somewhere else.  It also gets 815 to come off their heavy-handed non-compete mentality.

Have we set up a circular firing squad.

I know Tory very well.  He is a brother in Christ.  I know that he is a prayerful man who has had the interest of the Gospel, his parish and people, and the future of Anglicanism in North America at heart.  I am quite saddened by the scourging he has received on this blog.

Each rector is in a unique situation defined by their own circumstance.  He did not start this litigation…nor did the bishop for that matter.  He accepted the call during the fight.  But he clearly felt, after prayer and counsel with his vestry, that this would be the best end to it.  I assume the local bishop (Guernsey) was in the know.  The arrangement buys time for the parish to look for another place, remain where they are, pay no rent, and live to build another plant somewhere else.  It also gets 815 to come off their heavy-handed non-compete mentality.

Have we set up a circular firing squad?

“But he clearly felt, after prayer and counsel with his vestry, that this would be the best end to it.”

DHR respectfully, what is the relevance of this? Objective questions have been asked about why Truro Church has entered into specific relationships - and your only answer is: “The rector is a godly man and he thinks its the best way to go”??? Being a godly man doesn’t mean he can’t be wrong. Same for his vestry. 

“I assume the local bishop (Guernsey) was in the know.”

You assume… Do you have any objective reason for your assumption?

“The arrangement buys time for the parish to look for another place, remain where they are, pay no rent, and live to build another plant somewhere else.”

Of course.  Those are all good things.  But what about the real issue on this thread? What about Truro Church’s unexplained decision to actively pursue joint ministry with a liberal bishop who wants same-sex blessings to become de rigeur throughout the whole church?

“It also gets 815 to come off their heavy-handed non-compete mentality.”

If that only comes at the expense of entering into joint ministry with heretics, why did you leave in the first place?  815 cannot stop you competing - unless you let them.  That appears to be the problem.

“Have we set up a circular firing squad?”

No, don’t blame others for what is essentially the failure of Truro Church’s leadership.  They have failed (so far) to give any real explanation for why their church has gone way beyond treating +Johnston charitably or renting the church from him, and instead is entering into active ministry with him.

“I assume the local bishop (Guernsey) was in the know.”

You assume… Do you have any objective reason for your assumption?

Michael A,
While I agree with you on your points, I cannot imagine that a decision such as this was reached without +Guernsey’s knowledge.  I have met the man.  The reason I met him was that I was part of a tiny congregation (I think we counted 14 or 17 at the time), 1000+ miles from +Guernsey’s home, when he was the bishop with oversight of the Ugandan congregations in the US.  He came to visit is in the middle of nowhere for a Sunday Eucharist, and sat down with me personally for discussion on where I thought the parish was headed, and my own personal theological outlook (and while I was influential in that congregation, and occasional lay reader or preacher, I was not part of the formal leadership).  I cannot imagine that he is not in frequent contact with the rector and vestry of a parish the size of Truro, and that their decision making is not on his radar.  Under the ecclesiology of ACNA (or for that matter, CANA), I cannot see an individual parish taking such a theological leap without consulting the bishop.  But particularly under +John Guernsey.  He is radically low church by my Anglo Catholic standards, but I cannot see him being characterized as either uninvolved or out of the know.
If this did happen without his knowledge, then a statement to that effect, is warranted.  And if doing something like this without the bishop’s knowledge is remotely allowable under current canons, the ACNA has better things to do at its convention than listen to speeches by AMiA bishops.

Tj, thank you. I agree with your points. I think all that can be done is ask the questions and see what emerges.

I have been expecting for some time that ultra-liberals would hold out some sort of olive branch to ACNA, and that then they would attempt to infiltrate and suborn ACNA.  Which is not to say that that is what is happening here, necessarily. But it pays for everyone to be on their guard.

Your comments about +Guernsey are encouraging. My impression is that ACNA has been very blessed with the quality of its bishops, whether they come from anglo-catholic or evangelical background.