After Truro and the Falls Church announce their decision to secede from the Episcopal Church tomorrow, much will be said about the laws regarding possession of church property. Many of the speakers won’t have the faintest idea what they are talking about. As one of their number, I intend to stay out of that fray. I did want to call attention, however, to one small fact, which is that if leadership of the two churches felt certain that they would maintain the property, they would not have made an ill-advised bid to get a sympathetic state legislator to change state law to ensure the desired outcome.
The story began last February after a bill favorable to the departing congregations was already well advanced in the Virginia Senate. The Washington Post’s story began:
“RICHMOND, Feb. 1 — A bill before the Virginia Senate has alarmed the Episcopal Church and other mainline Protestant denominations that are deeply torn over the ordination of gay ministers and the blessing of same-sex marriages because, they say, the measure would give local congregations unprecedented powers to break away from their national denominations.
Several major church groups on Tuesday urged lawmakers to reject the bill, which they said would entangle state government in church politics.”
The bill was introduced by Senator Bill Mims, a member of Holy Spirit in Ashburn.
The Post reported:
“Mims said the bill was not meant to target the Episcopal denomination or get involved in its internecine conflict. Though the laity in his own Episcopal congregation in Ashburn has discussed the issue, Mims said, there have been no official moves to split with the church.
He said the congregation, which objected to New Hampshire’s gay bishop and has joined the opposition Network of Anglican Communion Parishes, did not request that he introduce the bill.
The Rev. Clancy Nixon, vicar of Church of the Holy Spirit, Mims’s congregation, said he supports the measure.”
So, as it happens, did the American Anglican Council.
Fortunately, this was a bill so bad that it shriveled in sunlight. Newspapers around the region fell over themselves editorializing against it. The Post wrote:
“The bill is not explicitly directed at the Episcopalians, but it seems to respond directly to their current fight. And its result would be that conservative Virginia congregations could leave the Episcopal Church without becoming homeless.
Whether the Episcopal Church permits gay clergy is a matter for the church to decide, not the Virginia General Assembly. The First Amendment greatly restricts the power of government to interfere in questions of religious doctrine, and how a church allocates power and property between its central and regional authorities is a matter of canon law, not civil law. Consequently, courts have long deferred to the churches on such questions in the name of religious liberty. A bill that seeks to override churches’ own rules on such matters is not likely to survive constitutional scrutiny — nor should it. The General Assembly should not be taking sides in an argument among the faithful.”
The Falls Church News Press was blunter, calling the bill “a blatant, self-serving attempt to cause the state legislature to weigh in on behalf of dissidents within the Episcopal Church opposed to the recent consecration of an openly-gay bishop.”
The Hampton Roads Daily Press chimed in: “The bill comes from an unsavory source: a relentless, multi-front campaign to constrain the rights and protections of homosexuals. Does anyone believe that the General Assembly would be intervening if the decamping churches were in favor of gay rights?”
Mims withdrew the bill, the text of which is here. (Hat tip to Simon Sarmiento.)
As the Diocese of Virginia prepares to deal with the leadership of Truro, the Falls Church and the other breakaway congregations in its midst, it will be important to keep in mind how these folks play the game.