Now that the Honorable John P. Chupp of Tarrant County, Texas, has ruled that the attorneys for the Episcopal Church and the continuing diocese of Fort Worth cannot represent Bishop Iker and the people who left the diocese to join up with the Southern Cone, the battle for interpretation has begun.
As the Dallas Morning News Religion blog described this as “very preliminary ruling” and points to the differing interpretations.
Episcopal Life reports:
A Texas judge’s September 16 ruling established that attorneys for The Episcopal Church and the continuing Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth have a right to sue to determine who and what constitutes the legitimate Fort Worth diocese and for an accounting of church property and assets held by a breakaway group.
It was the only ruling issued by the Hon. John Chupp of the 141st District Court of Tarrant County during Wednesday’s hearing, according to Katie Sherrod, spokesperson for the continuing diocese.
The judge also set an October 15 date to hear additional arguments in what Bishop Edwin F. Gulick Jr. of Kentucky and provisional bishop of Fort Worth has called “a ministry of the recovery of identity and resources after the storm of schism.”
Sherrod said that Chupp’s ruling essentially sets the stage for attorneys for The Episcopal Church and the continuing diocese to present arguments that as a hierarchical church, diocesan property and assets are held in trust for the mission and ministry of the wider Episcopal Church.
“Essentially, the court … ruled that we had the right to continue to sue the defendants and establish our right to seek declarative judgment,” according to Sherrod. “The defendants lost on their main argument that we should not be able to sue the defendants because they are the rightful diocese. The court left that determination for a later hearing.”
The narrow language of the ruling itself has not stopped the breakaway diocese from trumpeting this as a “win” for their side.
Much of the hearing was taken up with Judge Chupp trying to understand from opposing counsel how the Episcopal Church is organized, how a diocese is connected to the wider church, and the nature of the Anglican Communion. The situation was not helped by the fact that the names the breakaway group uses and the names the continuing diocese uses are the same. For example:
THE COURT: Yeah. Let me ask you something, though.
MR. SHARPE: Sure.
THE COURT: Do you agree that this group of people prior to February 7th, 2009 voted to join the Southern Province?
MR. SHARPE: Disagree.
THE COURT: Okay. What did they do then?
MR. SHARPE: The defendants did nothing.
THE COURT: Okay. And I’m – – I’m not – –
MR. SHARPE: And let me explain the answer, because I see the confusion of the Court.
It was the convention in November , those individuals who made the vote, not the Bishop. The Bishop doesn’t even have a vote.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. SHARPE: Not the members of the board of trustees, they are elected by the convention. It was a convention that made this vote.
THE COURT: Okay. And that’s fine. So the convention did vote to – –
MR. SHARPE: Realign with another Anglican Communion.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. SHARPE: Your Honor, if you look at the preamble of the Episcopal Church, the preamble itself reflects its relationship to other members of the Anglican Community. It is, as was said by counsel, it is a confederation, basically, that comes about based on theological agreement.
THE COURT: Okay. Hold on. Now, if they are realigning with another Anglican Communion, who is that Communion they’re realigning with?
MR. SHARPE: Southern Cone.
Although cameras were not allowed in the courtroom, here is a re-enactment:
Since the bulk of the hearing was spent trying to help the judge understand Episcopal polity, his understanding (or lack of it) appears to be the real context for the judges ruling about who counsel can and cannot represent the breakaway group. For the breakaway dioceses spin on the ruling to make any sense, they must make everyone believe that the dialog attempting to describe Episcopal Church polity constitutes a much bigger ruling.