The Rev. John Yates Updates The Falls Church

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 • 8:55 pm

Via email:

April 4, 2007

TO THE FAMILY OF THE FALLS CHURCH:

If you read the local paper, you know that there have been regular articles featuring the group of TFC parishioners who felt they could not go along with our decision to sever our ties with The Episcopal Church. You might be interested in my most recent letter to Bill Fetsch regarding the request they made of me to have use of the Historic Church, several classrooms and fellowship space for a portion of Sunday mornings. I’ve attached that letter.

As you probab ly know, at a recent Tanzanian gathering of all Anglican Primates, they asked TEC (The Episcopal Church) to place a moratorium on rites blessing persons living in same sex unions and on any further consecrations of non-celibate gay bishops - both of which violate Anglican teaching - or lose its standing in the Communion. The Primates also asked for an end to lawsuits against parishes that have left TEC to come under the shepherding of Anglican bishops in Africa and South America.

At a March meeting in Texas of Episcopal bishops, these requests were rejected. The bishops expressed their desire to remain in the Anglican Communion, but said they were unable to make the decision requested by the Primates. They asked for a meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Attached also is a summary of the statement of the House of Bishops, as reported in the Living Church magazine. The full text is available on our website.

I also wanted to briefly update you about the lawsuits filed in the Virginia courts by the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia and by The Episcopal Church against The Falls Church, our sister churches in the Anglican District of Virginia, and members of our vestries and other individuals.

First, on February 22, and again on March 8, our lawyers wrote to the lawyers for The Episcopal Church and for the Diocese, asking that everyone agree to suspend all pending actions in law and other legal proceedings until after September 30, just as the Primates of the Anglican Communion directed in their February 19 Tanzania Communique. Both TEC and the Diocese rejected this request and indicated that they intend to proceed with their lawsuits. Copies of this correspondence have been posted on our web site at www.TheFallsChurch.org.

Second, on March 23, a three-judge panel appointed by the Virginia Supreme Court conducted a telephone conference with lawyers for our church, for our sister ADV churches, for the Diocese, and for TEC. The panel indicated that it would grant the applications filed by our lawyers and those filed by the Diocese and TEC to consolidate all of the legal proceedings pending in various Virginia county courts into a single case in the Fairfax County courts. We expect that an order regarding consolidation will be issued by the panel sometime in the next several weeks, and that a single judge from Fairfax County will then be designated to hear consolidated cases.

Third, on March 12, lawyers for our church and for our sister churches filed with the Virginia courts our responses to the lawsuits filed by the Diocese. These responses asked that the courts dismiss the lawsuits for a variety of legal reasons and also that, even if the lawsuits were to go forward, that the vestry members and others named as individual defendants be dismissed because there is no valid legal reason for suing them. No schedule for arguing these matters in the courts has yet been set, but we expect this will occur after these cases are all consolidated in Fairfax County. Copies of these court filings have also been posted on our web site.

Finally, lawyers for The Episcopal Church have indicated that they intend to proceed with their lawsuit in Fairfax County against our church, our ADV sister churches, and more than 200 individuals, named and unnamed (primarily vestry members and trustees of these churches). They and our counsel have agreed that our responses to these lawsuits will be due in mid-April.

Please continu e to keep all of these matters in your prayers. Please pray for the appointment of a wise judge who will rule justly and for godly wisdom and grace for our leadership and our lawyers. Most of all, please pray that God will resolve all of these disagreements in a way that honors Him and His word and that draws people to our risen and redeeming savior Jesus Christ.

In the family,

John Yates

10 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments • Share on Facebook

Comments:

Greg—Where’s his attached letter to the Episcopal malcontents?

[1] Posted by Ralinda on 04-04-2007 at 10:12 PM • top

Ralinda,

Post updated - check the link in Yates’ mention of it.

[2] Posted by Greg Griffith on 04-04-2007 at 11:18 PM • top

The suggestions in the letter to Mr. Fetsch are very generous, provided +Lee goes along with them..

[3] Posted by James Manley on 04-04-2007 at 11:24 PM • top

Greg,

Oh dear, Fr. Yates will need to get a new cell phone no.
Assuming he authorized release of this private communication, maybe he forgot the no. was in there.
r.w.

[4] Posted by r.w. on 04-05-2007 at 12:04 AM • top

r.w.,

I noticed that moments after I uploaded the PDF, so I pulled it. Then I thought - this was a letter to the “Falls Church Family,” which I assume means the whole parish, which is too large a group to be called “private,” so I re-uploaded it.

I don’t mean to cause Fr. Yates any trouble. Had it been an editable PDF, I would have X’ed it out, but it’s an image scan, so I couldn’t.

[5] Posted by Greg Griffith on 04-05-2007 at 12:09 AM • top

Hey, you don’t want phone calls, don’t post your cell phone number on the internet.

Good call, Greg.

[6] Posted by James Manley on 04-05-2007 at 12:36 AM • top

Does anyone have a link to the court filings of the churches mentioned by Yates+ as being on the website?

[7] Posted by SCVJefe on 04-05-2007 at 07:39 AM • top

It seems to me that Bill Fetch’s request to use the church and some of the rooms is an effort to slip the thin end of a wedge into Fall Church’s departure from TEC with its property in order to add some legitimacy to the Dio Va’s efforts to regain the property. I could just see Bill Fetch arriving with about 300 or 400 ‘new’ borrowed ‘parishioners’ to stake a claim. What do they say about 9/10s of the law! I though that John Yates’ reply was gracious and charming ... and very, very careful.

[8] Posted by Bill C on 04-05-2007 at 09:17 AM • top

perhaps someone who knows Yates+ can call his cell and get the letter redacted?

[9] Posted by Chris on 04-05-2007 at 09:38 AM • top

Here’s one of the letters referenced in the post above:

March 23, 2007
William B. Fetsch
P.O. Box 4612
Falls Church, VA 22044

Dear Bill:

I’ve been completely caught up in matters here these last few days since being out of the country, and am only just now getting to your letter of March 6. In view of our many conversations over the years, writing letters to you seems out of place, but as you asked, I’m answering you in writing.

As you know, Bill, it has always been the case, at least while I have been Rector, that all persons are invited to worship at The Falls Church and will be warmly welcomed and embraced with the love of Christ. This is especially true for you and for anyone who has worshipped with us at The Falls Church in the past but may have been absent for a time.

No one has ever been excluded from worship or fellowship at TFC, and I find it hard to imagine that occurring in the future. Since our congregational vote in December, there have been no essential changes to our services, our schedule, or our accommodations at The Falls Church – this is the same worship that you previously enjoyed as a parishioner and a Vestry member.

In this spirit, on February 28, I sent a letter to Bishop Lee, asking that he withdraw Nicholas Lubelfeld’s inhibition and allow him to officiate at a service that would provide a place for any members of The Falls Church who prefer a priest still in the Episcopal Church. We made arrangements for Nicholas to officiate at our 8:00 a.m. Sunday service, with this arrangement to persist until at least the September 30 date given in the Dar es Salaam Communique. (As you know, we had begun making similar arrangements back in January, but, literally as we were about to press “send” on a letter to the entire congregation regarding these arrangements, we received word that Bishop Lee had inhibited Nicholas, despite Nicholas’ desire to remain an Episcopal priest.)

Bishop Lee replied to my letter that he was willing to consider some possibility for Nicholas and would take up the matter with advisors. We are waiting for a further response from Bishop Lee, but we are mindful of how busy he must be at this challenging time. Until Bishop Lee has a chance to respond to what I have proposed, it would be premature to make a decision regarding your request to use the historic church. We continue to pray that he will respond to our proposal in the same pastoral spirit that gave rise to it. Your request that we vacate the historic church and several other rooms on Sunday mornings is simply not workable given the strains already present on our space which is fully occupied.

I will be in touch with you after I hear back from Bishop Lee regarding my letter. In the meantime, I continue to pray for you and those walking with you, and I continue to hope that someday we will be welcoming you back home to the congregation of The Falls Church.

Devotedly,

John Yates

[10] Posted by ExEpiscop on 04-11-2007 at 03:03 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.