Monday, March 2, 2015

Anonymous - The Synod Minder - Is Really Corked.
When Someone Says, We Are Unified, He Is Eyeballing the Lifeboats

Anonymous Spider spends a lot of time on the Web,
drumming his feet to see what he is trapping in his silken trap.
http://welsdocument.blogspot.com/2015/03/synod-appeals-process-what-happens-when.html


  1. I wonder what disunity and animosity you refer to? I won't pretend that all 380,000+ individuals are always perfectly on exactly the same page at all times. Nor do I think anyone would claim that. But what great disunity has existed in the last decade? A temporary blog with some complaints doesn't prove disunity. It means somewhere between exactly 1 to maybe a couple dozen people had some issues at that particular moment. The thing that I would say that divided our church body was an issue of translation. It was brought up extensively and showed great disunity. Let's also fairly point out that it was a division only over translation. Should Isaiah 7:14 read "virgin" or "maiden." We were divided on issues like these. However, we were all unified on the fact that Isaiah 7:14 was a Messianic prophecy written by Isaiah himself about Mary who in a miraculous way would conceive the Son of God as a virgin. The only debate was about what was the best way to represent the Hebrew since two different words were obviously possible there. Compare this to church's who debate the inerrancy of the Word or the definition of marriage and I think you will find the WELS is very united.
    Even the "justification" "controversy" was really an example of unity. While there are a few people lurking on the internet but on the convention floors things were silent, and many districts studied the issue. You can claim they were frightened into timidity but then why not speak up as a group if there is so much disunity? Find a couple dozen people to approach the mic together if you are afraid. Certainly if there is as much disunity as is claimed by some you should be able to find others to speak with you?
    I really am curious; What is the disunity you speak of? Is there tangible evidence of it being brought forward by more than a dozen people on the internet? What great lingering fissures are out there that people are continuing to make public that our church body hasn't come to a consensus on?
    (Please don't say something like "Time of Grace" that was handled at the last convention to the satisfaction of all but a dozen people on the internet. A person's personal dissatisfaction with an outcome does not prove disunity within a group.)
    Reply
  2. I agree with 3:12! The "disunity" you see among the blogging community is a poor sample. Of course there's some disagreement (usually, but not always, practice rather than doctrine). But we would be hard-pressed to find a more unified group of believers this side of heaven. Praise the Lord for this blessing!
    Reply
  3. There was an outcry that DP Buchie would dignify the
    latest Jeske circus by being a worship leader,
    so Buchie dropped out - and endorse the fab event anyway.
    Many people follow Buchie - mostly out of curiosity.

  4. How was Time of Grace handled at the last convention?

    Eine arme Schaf
    Reply
  5. I would also add that disunity in practice is nothing to make light of especially since doctrine will sooner or later follow practice. Practice like an Evangelical and your doctrine will soon be Evangelical. What you describe as unity may in fact be indifference or quiet resignation that our Pastor leading the Synod will do as they please. Either way I would be hesitant to so loudly proclaim unity when in fact we may be whistling past the graveyard.

    Eine arme Schaf
***

GJ - Standard Operating Procedure for Synod-Minders: deny that anything is wrong. 

The language is pure sarcasm and synod worship. As I recall, he bragged about all his district and synod responsibilities, which means he is another robot trading synod-love for sects-appeal.

I will quote one of them, to show the low level of integrity and lack of faith - "I cannot disagree with the Circuit Pastor, because the Holy Spirit put him in that office. If I disagree, that would be arguing with God."

Well done, move up one square. You may now winter in the Caribbean and "visit missions" all over the world, saying, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?"


The number of blogs shut down by WELS suggests terror over the real issues being aired. That suggests polarization, not peace.

And we all know that false prophets say, "Peace, peace" where there is no peace.


Jeremiah 6:14 They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.
15 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith theLord.
16 Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
17 Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken.
18 Therefore hear, ye nations, and know, O congregation, what is among them.
19 Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it.
20 To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me.
21 Therefore thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will lay stumblingblocks before this people, and the fathers and the sons together shall fall upon them; the neighbour and his friend shall perish.

Synod Appeals Process: What happens when following the “proper channels” doesn’t work?
WELS Documented Blog

Just laugh - you are wasting your time -
LCMS, ELS, WELS, CLC (sic).
WELS Documented Blog

Monday, March 2, 2015


Synod Appeals Process: What happens when following the “proper channels” doesn’t work?


Synod Appeals Process

How would you answer these questions: 

If you disagree with something doctrinally at your church, and you follow all of the proper steps to resolve it, but the system still fails you, what should you do then, if you truly love your church?

Laypeople can only appeal as high as their district. If problems remain after that appeal, what should be their next course of action? Roll over and simply leave the Synod or keep pushing forward to preserve the integrity of the Synod?

What if a member was treated wrongly by their pastor and doesn't agree with how the district handled the matter? What should be their next course of action after the district level? Do they then have the right to go public looking for help if they can't get help within the "proper channels"? Why or Why not?

Are people going public with their cases only after the "proper channels" have let them down? Should the appeals process for laypeople be updated? And if so, how?

Where does one turn to in the Synod for help when following the "proper channels" doesn't work? 

Synod Board of Appeals 
The Synod Board of Appeals is composed of 10 members, a chairman (who must be a pastor), three pastors, three teachers and three laymen. Members' terms are six years; they may succeed themselves once. Members of the Board of Appeals may hold other elective or appointive offices. A five person Board of Appeals panel is formed to decide each appeal. The chairman or his designee plus four board members selected by the chairman make up a Board of Appeals panel. The decision of a Board of Appeals panel is the final disposition of any appeal. Read position descriptions for other WELS Boards

The average District President is not this smart
and not this useful. You can always hope.


Conference of Presidents
The Conference of Presidents (COP) is composed of the 12 district presidents, elected by their respective districts; the synod president; and the two synod vice presidents. The synod secretary, elected by the synod in convention, serves as a non-voting advisory member of the COP. The COP meets in person three times annually for regular meetings, as well as monthly via teleconference. The COP also meets twice in May in its role as the Assignment Committee of the synod.

The Conference of Presidents is responsible for the following areas:
  • Supervising, maintaining, and strengthening biblical doctrine and practice.
  • Overseeing the calling process by providing calling bodies with call lists for pastors, teachers, and staff ministers, as well as counsel and advice in the calling process.
  • Serving as the committee that assigns ministerial candidates to their first calls.
  • Working with congregations (often through the circuit pastors) to care and provide for the physical and spiritual.
  •  Encouraging congregations and individuals in their financial support of the synod, primarily through Congregation needs of called workers and their families.
  • Overseeing the work of the Ministry of Christian Giving, Communication Services, and the Congregation and Mission Offerings.
  • Promoting the synod's mission and ministry in the districts. Ministry Support Group.
  • Promoting the general welfare of the synod.
The Conference of Presidents spends significant time at each meeting discussing specific questions of doctrine and practice, as well as addressing practical issues that affect congregations and called workers. The group functions primarily as a "conference," with district presidents conferring with each other, both seeking and offering advice to one another for the good of the synod and its people. Source.

Laypeople can appeal as high as the District
The Northern Wisconsin District Board of Appeals exists to provide its congregations, members and called workers an opportunity to appeal a matter of discipline. Source - Since the NWD Convention in June of 2012, there were no appeals submitted. Source.

Appeals Discussion at WELS' 61st Biennial Convention:
Another resolution addressing a memorial that called for an appeal process when calls are terminated for elective reasons was sent back to the floor committee for further consideration. Sentiment expressed on the floor was that the resolution as presented did not adequately lay out the appeals process as the memorial proposed. “From what I’ve heard from the floor and off the floor is they understand there is no appeal process for terminating for elective reasons,” says Rev. Douglas Free, chairman of the COP committee, “but it seems as if people were terminated, and it wasn’t really made clear as to why and what their recourse was then.”

Appeals for Called Workers whose Calls are terminated
The COP considered the matter of developing a process of appeal for workers whose positions are eliminated for non-disciplinary reasons. The district presidents will be working proactively with congregations that face such decisions to ensure that the divine call is honored and that affected called workers are cared for in Christian love and concern. With that system in place, the COP determined that no special system of appeal will be necessary for such workers. Source.

Applicable Sections of the Synod Constitution
Section 8.10
Synod Board of Appeals
(a) The Synod Board of appeals shall be composed of 10 members: a chairman, three pastors, three teachers, and three laymen. The Synod Board of Appeals shall be elected by the synod in convention from a slate of candidates submitted by the synod’s Nominating Committee. The chairman shall be a pastor. Members’ terms shall be for six years and they may succeed themselves once. Terms shall be staggered. Members of the Synod Board of Appeals may hold other elective or appointive offices.
(b) A five person Board of Appeals panel shall be formed to decide each appeal. The chairman or his designee plus four board members selected by the chairman shall make up a Board of Appeals panel. Each panel must include at least one pastor, one teacher, and one lay member.
(c) All correspondence and documentary evidence relative to a disciplinary action together with a summary report shall be filed in the office of the president within 60 days after the appeal has been concluded. The decision of a Board of Appeals panel shall be the final disposition of an appeal.

Section 8.20
Jurisdiction and Procedure in Disciplinary Actions and Removal from Office at the District Level
(a) In cases of discipline among pastors, teachers, and congregations of both self-supporting and mission status, the district in which such pastors, teachers, and congregations hold membership shall exercise original jurisdiction. The Synod Board of Appeals shall exercise appellate jurisdiction.
(b) In cases of discipline among the faculties of the synodical schools or the area Lutheran high schools and administrators of synodical boards and commissions, the respective board or commission shall exercise original jurisdiction. The district in which the appellant is a member and the Synod Board of Appeals shall exercise appellate jurisdiction successively.
(c) The two district vice presidents with the concurrence of the district circuit pastors may suspend the district president from his office. The president shall have 60 days thereafter to appeal this suspension. If there is no appeal within 60 days, the action shall be final and the officer is removed from office. If he appeals, the appeal will be heard by the District Board of Appeals.
(d) In the case of district vice presidents and secretary,the president with the concurrence of the circuit pastors may suspend another officer. The district officer shall have 60 days thereafter to appeal this suspension. If there is no appeal within 60 days, the action shall be final and the officer if removed from office. If he appeals, the appeal will be heard by the District Board of Appeals.
(e) The conduct of review shall rest with the District Board of Appeals. The board shall have the right and power to examine all documentary evidence and correspondence and to require such testimony that in its judgment is relevant. The decision of the District Board of Appeals may be appealed to the Synod Board of Appeals. Upon the appeal, the Synod Board of Appeals may review the action of the District Board of Appeals.
(f) In the case of removal from office of district board, commission or committee members, the board, commission or committee may suspend a member from his position. He shall be notified in writing of this action within 30 days. The member shall have 60 days to appeal the suspension. If there is no appeal within 60 days, the action shall be final and the member is removed from office. If he appeals, the appeal will be heard by the District Board of Appeals. The decision of the District Board of Appeals may be appealed to the Synod Board of Appeals. Upon appeal, the Synod Board of Appeals may review the action of the District Board of Appeals.
(g) In cases of discipline among missionaries under the jurisdiction of the Board for World Missions, the respective administrative committee shall exercise original jurisdiction. The Board for World Missions, the District Board of Appeals and the Synod Board of Appeals shall exercise appellate jurisdiction successively.

Section 8.30
District Board of Appeals

(a) The District Board of Appeals shall be composed of 10 members: a chairman, three pastors, three teachers, and three laymen. It shall be elected by the district in convention from a slate of candidates submitted by the district’s nominating committee. The chairman shall be a pastor. Their term shall be for six years and they may succeed themselves once. Terms shall be staggered. Members of the District Board of Appeals may hold other elective or appointive offices.
(b) A five person Board of Appeals panel shall be formed to decide each appeal. The chairman or his designee plus four board members selected by the chairman shall make up a Board of Appeals panel. Each panel must include at least one pastor, one teacher, and one lay member.
(c) All correspondence and documentary evidence relative to a disciplinary action together with a summary report shall be filed in the office of the district president within 60 days after such action has been concluded. The decision of a Board of Appeals panel shall be the final disposition of an appeal unless, when possible, an appeal is made to the Synod Board of Appeals. The decision of the District Board of Appeals shall be respected by all the members of the Synod, even while an appeal may be made to the Synod Board of Appeals.

Section 8.40
Rights of the Disciplined Party

(a) Any person or congregation that has been disciplined under Section 8.30 shall be notified in writing by the district president of the right of appeal under Section 8.10 of the bylaws within 30 days of completion of the disciplinary action. A copy of these sections shall be included in the letter.
(b) They shall have 60 days to appeal the action. To exercise the right of appeal the disciplined party shall file notice of appeal with the Board of Appeals within 60 days of the notification of the right to appeal.

Section 8.50
Appeals by Laypersons

(a) A layperson who has been subject to a disciplinary action by a congregation shall have the right to appeal the action. Such appeal must be filed with the district president in writing, with a copy to the congregation, within 60 days of the notice of disciplinary action.
(b) Upon receipt of the appellant’s request, the district president shall notify the District Board of Appeals.
(c) The constitution for the districts affirms that “in intracongregational matters the district shall have purely advisory authority” (Article IX, Section 2). The review shall be conducted, therefore, to determine whether the process leading to the disciplinary action and the doctrinal basis of the disciplinary action were scriptural.
(d) The conduct of the review shall rest solely with the District Board of Appeals. The board shall have the right and power to examine all documentary evidence and to require such testimony that, in its judgment, is relevant.
(e) The District Board of Appeals shall submit its decision in writing to the appellant with a copy to the disciplining body, circuit pastor, and district president. The decision of the District Board of Appeals shall be the final disposition of the appeal.
(f) Within 30 days of the board’s decision, the complete records of the board shall be filed with the district president, who shall act, if necessary, in accordance with his responsibility for the district’s doctrine and practice.

Section 8.60
Appeals after Removal from Office

(a) A pastor or teacher who has been removed from office because of “established inability to perform the duties of his/her office” (Model Constitution and Bylaws for Congregations of the WELS, 1997, Article IX, Section 2) shall have the right to have the action reviewed by the District and Synod Board of Appeals successively. The request for review must be filed in writing within 60 days of the notice of removal from office. The request for review is to be addressed to the president of the synod who shall notify the appropriate Board of Appeals.
(b) The conduct of the review shall rest with the District Board of Appeals. The board shall have the right and power to examine all documentary evidence and to require such testimony that, in its judgment, is relevant to the case.
(c) If the board rules in favor of the pastor or teacher who has been removed, the pastor or teacher shall be restored to the official list of pastors and teachers and declared eligible for a call into the ministry.
(d) If the board rules against the pastor or teacher who has been removed, the pastor or teacher shall have the right to appeal to the Synod Board of Appeals within 60 days of notification of action by the District Board.
(e) Upon appeal of either party, the Synod Board of Appeals may review the action of the District Board of Appeals. The records of the district board’s proceedings shall be used as a basis for any review.
(f) The decision of the Synod Board of Appeals shall be the final disposition of the case.


3 comments:

  1. Let me suggest that again, this article gives away its position in the title. What do you mean the proper channels "don't work?" They always work, they may just not always agree with you. I would say the only way they wouldn't work is if these boards of appeals refuse to meet. Is anyone aware of this being the case? I am not.
    The boards of appeals always do what they are supposed to do. They give you an opportunity to be heard by a larger group of your brothers in Christ. Now if after your local group of brothers and sisters don't agree with you, and your larger group of brothers and sisters don't agree with you I suppose you have two options. Either realize that the problem is with you and heed their words to you. Or understand that you are no longer in a fellowship where you agree with your brothers and sisters and Scripture teaches there is only one thing to be done in this case. What you don't get to do is stay in a group and be a vocal minority over a matter that has been thoroughly heard and discussed. Scripture is plain on this matter.
    Finally, whatever your issue is, I respect your right to have that opinion. If you think every church needs to have a pastor is a white alb that is fine with me. You have every right to encourage that practice. What you don't have a right to do is accuse others of not being Lutheran for not following a standard that is not in our confessions nor in Scripture. If you want to start your own church where that is the standard, God be praised. If you want to stay here than understand our standards begin and ends with Scripture and the Confessions, not ones personal ideas.
    Reply

    Replies


    1. Anonymous 2:19, thank you for your input on the title! That never dawned on me; I was trying to get people "thinking" but I can see now how that title could definitely be seen as you stated. I always thought coming up with the content for a blog was the most difficult, but I'm starting to think it's the title that is the hardest! It really helps when people point stuff like that out so I can do it more impartial next time. I'm still relatively new to blogging, so keep pointing things out! It helps me learn!
      -WD1
  2. Anonymous at 2:19 - Not to be argumentative but your statement is erroneous. It is true that an appeals process always works in the mechanical sense. You make your case and the Appeals Board contemplates and gives you an answer. It just may not be the correct answer in all cases. There can be a multitude of reasons for why they reached the wrong conclusion but it can be wrong. If the appeals process always comes to the correct answer, then why (shifting to a judicial example) do we find people cleared of wrong doing after spending years in prison. The Appeals Board may be wrong and if they are do you do a disservice by leaving or would all involved benefit by additional review and yes by a person being a vocal minority crying out to their brothers in Christ.

    Of course one would only suggest the latter after thoughtful reflection and prayer.

    Eine arme Schaf
They run WELS.
They can do no wrong.
Get over it.

Gardening Addicts Want Their Daily Fix - As Do I



I get messages about writing more Creation gardening posts, and one reader chuckles that he got me on this topic. I enjoy writing them as much as others enjoy reading them, perhaps even more.

The slowdown in teaching did not materialize in January, but there is a slight lull now, so I am going to work on various book projects: Creation Gardening, justification by faith, and the apologetic mystery novel.



Like grading papers, nothing gets done until it gets started. My favorite practical writer, Kevin Leman, published a book on the frustrated perfectionist. The book described me well and helped me finish the project of the time. Frustrated perfectionists have trouble finishing their projects.

Oddly enough, visiting Melville's home in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, where I preached at Kelm's old church, gave me the impetus to finish Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant, which I am revising now for Amazon. Melville's home was next to the parsonage, but the current pastor had not visited it yet, because "I am waiting for the day, once a year, when it is free." That is a telling commentary on the intellectual curiosity of a typical WELS pastor. The tour cost us $3 each and we saw the image of a whale breaching the surface of the ocean that inspired Melville to write Moby Dick.

I am going to write the Creation Gardening book the same way as the posts - using the latest scientific information, Scriptures, and great gardening resources to connect Creation with all we see around us.




WELS Pastor Steve Spencer - on the WELS Documented Blog

"I will get back to you after I watch the
season finale of Downton Abbey."


WD1 & WD2 - You are to be commended, I believe, for trying very hard to do a blog for WELS people in a positive manner - at least to the best of your ability. The very evident disunity, even animosity, within the synod, on any number of topics, makes this very difficult. This blog, just as Bailing Water, Intrepid, Polluted WELS, before it, clearly serve to demonstrate that the "walking together" often touted in this church body, is somewhat loose at the very least. The emperor's clothes are thus seen for what they are - an illusion of the "tailors." This, of course, is quite embarrassing to our tailors, and more than a bit unsettling to those looking for a unified church body to which to belong. Therefore, I'm afraid your task will only become more difficult with time. As someone who has done this kind of work for much of my ministry, I can tell you it will become extremely wearisome sooner rather than later. If you last longer than the previously mentioned sites, I will be surprised. Time will tell. Again, your efforts are commendable. Deo Vindice!

***

GJ -

Either Aristotle or The Fonz said, "Patience and courage are so closely related one is other the sister or the mother of the other."

A better model is Luther, who simply taught the Word of God, knowing in faith that God would work His will through His Word. Gutenberg leveraged the Word with his converted wine press.

People risked their lives during the Reformation and afterwards to teach that Word. Luther's first hymn was written to commemorate the burning at the stake of two martyrs - "Flung to the Heedless Winds."

Now the clergy and laity are afraid of losing that choice appointment on the church camp committee or that trip to Europe via the Riviera. So they stifle their own thoughts and opinions  - and whisper low in Zion, lest the truth be heard on the streets of Gath.




Sunday, March 1, 2015

Alberta British Columbia District of the Lutheran Church Canada (LCMS - eh?) - Bankrupt

Costing cutting at district headquarters is our priority.


http://www.lccabc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Pastoral_Letter_ABC_District.pdf

January 19, 2015 Dear Members of the Alberta-British Columbia District, Two weeks ago Church Extension Fund Investors began to receive letters informing them that the Fund faced a sufficient cash shortage and that its assets were less than its obligations to its investors. 

The Fund was frozen and no further withdrawals would be honoured.

A source says:

"The President of LC-C (Bugbe) says many, many people will lose thousands and thousands of dollars.  The court is going to appoint a Chief Restructuring Officer -- so much for a District President."

---

Lutheran Church-Canada Alberta-B.C district still protected from bankruptcy


The Alberta B.C district of the Lutheran Church-Canada will continue to be protected from bankruptcy and legal proceedings after the church requested an extension under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.
The request was granted by the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta in Calgary on Friday.
The move will continue to protect the district from bankruptcy and from being sued until March 27, 2015, while giving the church time to draft a plan on how to restructure its investment funds. The church had wanted a 90-day extension, but was given a  30-day extension instead.
In early January, about 2,000 investors with one of the church’s investment funds were told their accounts had been suspended and the church would not be able to fully pay back the $95 million owed to them.
At the time, the district’s president, Don Schiemann, said he took responsibility for the financial crisis because it happened on his watch.
Since then, the financial mess facing the church has deepened and spread to another investment fund, District Investments Ltd. Accounts with that fund have also been frozen, affecting more than 900 investors who cannot withdraw money from their RRSPs, RRIFs and TFSAs. The deposits as of Nov.30, 2014, were $37 million.
A court-appointed monitor has been overseeing the finances of the Alberta-B.C district since the end of January.
In a statement posted on its website the church said it is working to get the “right people to the table” by hiring a chief restructuring officer, a new restructuring committee and a creditor committee.
Part of the church’s restructuring may mean it will be forced to sell off assets.
The current financial crisis facing the church has raised questions from the national office of the Lutheran Church-Canada over whether churches should be in the business of financing.
In January, the church’s national president, Rev. Robert Bugbee, called it a serious situation that warranted a review of how other Lutheran church districts administer their investment funds.
The church has set up an emergency fund for investors who rely on money from the investment funds to meet basic living expenses.
The investment fund began in 1921 as an internal savings and loan program, because banks at that time were not lending money to churches.
---

District Lutheran President says he 'bears responsibility' for financial mess, promises review


The president of the Alberta-British Columbia District of the Lutheran Church-Canada says he takes responsibility for the financial mess the church is now in, a situation that happened under his leadership.
“It happened on my watch,” Pastor Don Schiemann said during an interview in his Edmonton office.
He said he realized how serious the financial situation was about a year and a half ago. In March 2014, the investment fund at the centre of the problem stopped accepting deposits.
“I personally feel terrible for what’s happened and certainly, as I say, bear responsibility for it, because I’m president of this district.”
In a letter to about two thousand investors sent Jan. 5, Schiemannsaid the Church Extension Fund (CEF), an investment fund that has existed since 1921, has been suspended and is not able to fully pay back the $95 million owed to investors.
Two staff at the district office have been laid off, though one person left before being given a layoff notice. Schiemann isn’t ruling out more layoffs, saying “that’s on the table, if need be, we’re fully prepared to do that.”
Prince of Peace Manor
In 2012 the Prince of Peace Village development had a loan worth $70 million from the investment fund. (CBC)
​Sources close to the Alberta-B.C. district say the CEF ran into trouble when money from it was used to build the Prince of Peace Manor and Harbour east of Calgary in the 1990s.
“We made decisions in favour of ministry, and as a result there were some poor financial decisions,” said Schiemann, who has no regrets over the ministerial work done at the Prince of Peace development east of Calgary.

"Perfect storm" led to financial crisis

Schiemann said he’s still trying to understand how the district landed in such financial trouble. The financial crisis was caused by what he describes as a “perfect storm” of factors, including: investors withdrawing; outstanding loans, including the one to the Prince of Peace that in 2012, the last audit available, shows it was worth 70 million dollars; and, not having any other investments that could earn money.
The church must now start selling off assets. Investors are being asked to consider two options: liquidate the district’s assets immediately; or receive payments from Prince of Peace Manor and Harbour, while also selling off assets, such as sites purchased for new churches. There is no timeline for when a final decision will be made.
Prince of Peace Village
The Prince of Peace Village includes a church, a K-9 school an a supportive living facility. (Prince of Peace Christian Community)
​What is clear is that everything, even the building Schiemann currently works in, could eventually be up for sale.
“We’re not tied to a building," he said. "If this building needs to be sold, it’ll be sold, but we will continue to do our work as the Alberta - British Columbia district of Lutheran Church Canada."
Schiemann couldn’t say exactly how much the church’s assets are worth, but did say if investors choose the first option, of selling off the assets immediately, a return of up to 65 cents on the dollar is expected.
From November 2012 to November 2014, almost 13 million dollars was withdrawn from the CEF. In December, all withdrawals and all accounts were frozen.
Schiemann is adamant that anyone who knew about the financial situation did not make withdrawals.
“How could we stand in front of investors and say with inside information we took advantage of that and we saved our dollars but you’re stuck with what you’ve got? There’s no way we could do that."
Schiemann, who has served as district president for 15 years, doesn’t shy away from the gravity of the situation and said the church administration has a moral and ethical obligation to try to return as much of investors' money as possible.

A review will happen, says Schiemann

He agrees with the Lutheran Church Canada’s national president, Reverend Robert Bugbeethat the current precarious financial situation raises the question of whether church’s should be in the business of financing. Schiemann said the district intends to review how it has been running the investment fund with the goal of determining how it ended up in this financial mess, adding that some churches that have relied on fund may need to look at refinancing with the banks.
He confirmed the church has hired a public relations firm to help communicate with investors about what’s happening with their money.
Schiemann intends to retire from the position of president in May, a decision he said has nothing to do with the current financial crisis facing the district.
“I look at our church, and I look at our people and I look at our gracious God and we’ll pull through this. Our church may look somewhat different, and that may not be bad,” he said.

Litigation List - The Episcopal Church - From Virtue Online

Presiding Bishop Katie Schori is finishing her first
and last term in office.



http://www.virtueonline.org/annual-litigation-survey-episcopal-church-usa-2015

By A.S. HALEY
THE ANGLICAN CURMUDEON
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2015/02/annual-litigation-survey-for-episcopal.html
February 22, 2015

It is a fact well known to certain Episcopalians--both those who have left the Episcopal Church (USA) and those who have remained--that ECUSA and its dioceses have followed a pattern of suing any church that chooses to leave for another Anglican jurisdiction. But the full extent of the litigation that has ensued is not well known at all, either in the wider Church, or among the provinces of the Anglican Communion. (Otherwise -- one would think -- it would never have been deemed to be conduct to be rewarded by this honorary degree, rather than this one.)
Your Curmudgeon proposes to do what he can to rectify this situation, by publishing an annual update on this site of the current status of all past and present cases in which ECUSA or any of its dioceses has been or is involved, from 2000 to date. Feel free to link to this post, to email links to it to other Episcopalians, and to send it to your Bishop -- and feel free to post any updates or corrections in the comments. In another update to be posted as General Convention approaches, I will publish a revised total for all of the money spent by ECUSA and its Dioceses to date on prosecuting all of these lawsuits (and, in the case of the second group below, defending them).
The lawsuits initiated by ECUSA and its dioceses to date are first listed below. They far outnumber, as you can see, the second list of the eight cases begun by a diocese or parish against the Episcopal Church (or a diocese). The listing endeavors to be as complete as I can make it. The first 83 cases, generally grouped by the State in which they each originated, are the legal actions filed since 2000 (of which I am aware) where the Episcopal Church (USA) and/or one of its dioceses played the role of plaintiff--the party who initiates a case in court by filing a complaint to seize the assets and real property of any church choosing to leave ECUSA. Please note that wherever possible the actual citation of any published decision in the case has been given. Also, please note the dates for the later cases, which demonstrate the acceleration of litigation by ECUSA and its dioceses in defiant rejection of the Primates' call for a moratorium on litigation at the Dar es Salaam meeting.

Bishop Katie is our best producer.
1. Against Christ Anglican Church in Mobile, Alabama (plaintiff was the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast---the suit settled in 2001 before trial, and Anglican congregation moved out; they built a brand-new church in 2005, while the historic Episcopal site became the cathedral of the Diocese that same year)
2.-4. Against St. John's Episcopal Church in Fallbrook, California (CA); St. Anne's, in Oceanside CA; and Holy Trinity, in Ocean Beach, CA (plaintiff in all three cases is the Diocese of San Diego -- trial court ruled against the two latter parishes following the decision by the California Supreme Court in the St. James Newport Beach case; parishes decided not to appeal)
5. New case by TEC against St. John's Episcopal Church in Fallbrook, CADale W. New, Richard L. Goodlake and the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego v. The Rev. Donald L. Kroeger, et al. (following its decision in the St. James case (No. 6 below), the California Supreme Court ordered republished the decision of the Fourth Appellate District [167 Cal.App.4th 800, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 464 (2008)], awarding the property to the plaintiff Diocese of San Diego; the defendants did not seek further review)
6-8. Against St. James Anglican Church, Newport Beach CA and two others; Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and ECUSA v. St. James (Newport Beach) et al. (lead case), Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and ECUSA v. All Saints (Long Beach) et al.,Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and ECUSA v. St. David's (North Hollywood) et al.; Episcopal Church Cases, S155094 (Diocese of Los Angeles is plaintiff, joined by ECUSA; following its decision overruling the defendants' demurrers and reversing the trial court's grant of a motion to strike [45 Cal.4th 467, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 275, 198 P.3d 66, cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 179 (2009)], the California Supreme Court subsequently reversed a judgment entered against St. James and ordered that the case go forward; trial court granted a questionable summary judgment which is now on appeal. Similar trial court rulings against the other two parishes are also on appeal.)
9. Against St. Luke's of the Mountains Anglican Church, et al, La Crescenta CAPatricia Huber, The Right Rev. Sergio Carranza, The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Los Angeles, The Right Rev. J. Jon Bruno, Bishop Diocesan of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles v. The Rev. Dr. Ronald W. Jackson, St. Luke's of the Mountains Anglican Church, et al. (Fourth Appellate District ruled in favor of Plaintiff Diocese of Los Angeles [175 Cal.App.4th 663, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 346]; parish decided not to appeal further)
10. Against St. John's Anglican Church in Petaluma, CAEpiscopal Diocese of Northern California v. St. John's Anglican Church, Petaluma (Sonoma County Superior Court; parties agreed to settle following California Supreme Court decision, parish moved to another location and is now a member of ACNA); (Diocese of Northern California was plaintiff)

"I have neither the heart of a king
nor the stomach of a king.
I am the Queen - hear me roar."
11. Against Bishop John David Schofield and the diocesan investment fund in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, CA (ACNA);Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, The Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb and The Episcopal Church v. Bishop John-David Schofield and The Episcopal Foundation of San Joaquin (Fresno Superior Court; case involves the Diocese of San Joaquin withdrawing from the Episcopal Church); (the TEC-established and -funded Diocese of San Joaquin is the Plaintiff); case went back to Superior Court after successful appeal by Bishop Schofield to the Fifth Appellate District [190 Cal.App.4th 154, 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 160]; trial court ruled that the Schofield decision dictated an outcome in favor of the Episcopal Diocese and ECUSA, and ordered the Anglican Diocese to turn over all its money and real property; case is once again on appeal to the Fifth Appellate District
12. Against St. Columba's Fresno, CA and its rector and its vestry members, in Fresno County Superior Court (2010); plaintiffs are the remnant diocese of San Joaquin and its bishop; case is stayed pending the outcome of No. 11 above
13. Against St. Francis Anglican Parish of Turlock, CA, its rector and its vestry members, in Stanislaus County Superior Court (2010); plaintiffs are the remnant diocese of San Joaquin and its bishop; case settled following the Kern County decisions (##14-15 below); the parish moved out to new premises
14-16. Against St. Michael's Anglican Parish of Ridgecrest, CA, its rector and its vestry members, in Kern County Superior Court (2010); against St. Paul's Anglican parish in Bakersfield, CA, its rector and its vestry members, in Kern County Superior Court (2010) (this was Bishop Mark Lawrence's parish before he went to South Carolina); and against the (nonexistent) Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of Redeemer Parish in Delano, CA, in Kern County Superior Court (2010); trial court granted summary judgment in the first two cases; the parishes decided not to appeal, and each moved to different premises (there was no effective congregation in Delano -- the property had been rented to another denomination, and it went to the plaintiffs by agreement with the Anglican Diocese)
17. Against the Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of St. John's Parish in Porterville, CA, in Tulare County Superior Court (2010); plaintiffs are the remnant diocese of San Joaquin and its bishop; case is stayed pending the outcome of No. 11 above
18. Against the Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of St. Paul's Parish in Visalia, CA, in Tulare County Superior Court (2010); plaintiffs are the remnant diocese of San Joaquin and its bishop; case is stayed pending the outcome of No. 11 above

"I can do cool too."

19. Against St. James Church, Sonora, CA, its rector and its vestry members, in Tuolumne County Superior Court (2010); plaintiffs were the remnant diocese of San Joaquin and its bishop; Anglican Diocese agreed to turn over the property to the Episcopal Diocese after the church's rector and his wife were killed in an automobile collision
20. Against the Wardens and Vestry of St. John's, Stockton, and its rector and its vestry members, in San Joaquin County Superior Court (2010); plaintiffs are the remnant diocese of San Joaquin and its bishop; trial court granted summary judgment in April 2014 against the parish, which decided to move out and not appeal; parish is now St. Francis of Assisi Anglican
21-29. Against the rectors and vestry members of the same nine parishes in Nos. 12-20 above, in the same Superior Courts in CA, respectively (2011) (these were complaints in intervention filed by the Episcopal Church)
30. Against Trinity Anglican Church in Bristol, Connecticut (CT); plaintiff is the Diocese of Connecticut; case settled in 2008; congregation left property to the Diocese
31. Against The Rector and former vestry of Bishop Seabury Church in Groton, CT; plaintiff was the Diocese of Connecticut; parish lost decision in trial court, and Connecticut Supreme Court recently affirmed that decision (302 Conn. 408, 28 A.3d 302); parish's petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied in June 2012, along with a Presbyterian case from Georgia (132 Sup.Ct. 2773)
32. Against Redeemer Anglican Church in Jacksonville, FL; Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Florida v. Lebhar, Case No. 16-2006-CA-002361 (Duval Cnty. Fla. Cir Ct.); plaintiff was the Diocese of Florida; parish left property to go to other premises
33. Against St. Andrew's in the Pines Anglican Church, Fayette County, GA, Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2007-V0272C, October 2007; plaintiff was the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta; parish left its property behind and formed a CANA congregation
34. Against Christ Church in Savannah, Georgia, GABishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia, Inc., The Episcopal Church, et al. v. The Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church in Savannah, et al. (Civil Action No. CV07-2039KA, Superior Ct., Chatham County); plaintiffs Diocese of Georgia and ECUSA, joined subsequently by shadow congregation formed by the Diocese, won in Court of Appeal and recently in Georgia Supreme Court [290 Ga. 95, 718 S.E.2d 237]; congregation handed over keys to property on 12/12/2011, later dismissed petition to U.S. Supreme Court, has now moved into a newly built church
35. Against Bishop Alberto Morales, of the Anglican Diocese of Quincy, IL, members of the diocesan standing committee, and the rectors of fifteen parishes in the diocese, individually; plaintiffs are ECUSA and its Diocese of Chicago, into which the rump diocese merged on September 1, 2013; case is still pending, despite the successful outcome of the appeal in the case originally brought against ECUSA by the Anglican Diocese -- see case number 5 in the second group below; it should shortly be dismissed.
36. Against All Saints Church in Attleboro, MA; plaintiff was the Diocese of Massachusetts; the case settled in 2007
37. Against Church of the Good Shepherd, Town and Country, MO; plaintiffs were Bishop Wayne Smith of the Diocese of Missouri and ECUSA (joined as a necessary party, due to its claimed interest under the Dennis Canon); trial court awarded the church property to the Diocese on summary judgment in October 2004; majority of parish left to start AMiA parish at other premises; Episcopal congregation remains in possession
38. Against St. Barnabas Anglican Church, Omaha, NE; plaintiff is the Diocese of Nebraska; trial court denied parish's motion for summary judgment, and granted summary judgment to the Diocese; the case settled pending appeal, and the parish kept its building
39. Against the Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton, NYThe Diocese of Central New York v. The Rector, Church Wardens, and Vestrymen of the Church of the Good Shepherd, Index No. 2008-0980 (N.Y. Sup Ct. Broome Cnty.); plaintiff was the Diocese of Central New York, joined by TEC; trial court ruled in favor of Diocese, parish chose to move to other premises, and Diocese eventually sold church buildings to Muslim group for a mosque
40. Against St. Joseph's Anglican Church (formerly Trinity Church of East New York) in Brooklyn,NY, which originally separated from ECUSA in 1977, before the adoption of the Dennis Canon; plaintiff was the Diocese of Long Island, in a second action brought in 2005 after it lost its first suit, filed in the early 1980's---the case settled early in 2008, and St. Joseph's kept its property in exchange for a below-market value payment of $275,000
41. Against St. James Anglican Church in Elmhurst (Queens), NY; plaintiff was the Diocese of Long Island; summary judgment against the parish in March 2008 was not appealed
42. Against All Saints Protestant Episcopal Church in Rochester, NYEpiscopal Diocese of Rochester, et al. v. Harnish et al.,Index No. 2006-2669 (N.Y. Sup Ct. Monroe Cnty.); plaintiff was the Diocese of Rochester; N.Y. Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Diocese, based on NY statute giving effect to Dennis Canon (11 N.Y.3d 340, 899 N.E.2d 920 [2008])
43. Against St. Andrew's in Syracuse, NY; Diocese of Central New York, et al. v. St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, Index No. 2006-4606 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Onondaga Cnty.); plaintiff originally was the Diocese of Central New York, and TEC's Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society later intervened---Diocese refused to settle the lawsuit by leasing property to parish, so parish walked away in 2007
44. Against St. Andrew's Anglican Church in Morehead City, NC; plaintiff was the Diocese of East Carolina and those members of the parish who had not voted to join AMiA; following a jury mistrial, plaintiffs obtained summary judgment which was affirmed on appeal in Daniel v. Wray, 580 S.E.2d 711 [N.C. App. 2003])
45-49. Against St. Luke's Church in Akron, OH and four other northeast Ohio parishes; The Episcopal Diocese of Ohio, et al.v. Anglican Church of the Transfiguration, et al., Civil Action No CV 08 654973 (Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas); plaintiff is the Diocese of Ohio; trial court granted summary judgment in its favor, and parishes have left their properties
50. Against the Church of St. James the Less, Philadelphia, PA; In re Church of St. James the Less, 585 Pa. 428; 888 A.2d 795 (2005); (Plaintiff was the Diocese of Pennsylvania, and ultimately prevailed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2005; other than its use for a middle school, this historic church building remains still without a rector and a supporting local congregation as of 2015)
51-53. and ?? Against the 50+ churches of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican- Southern Cone), PA. Plaintiff is the TEC replacement Diocese of Pittsburgh, arising out of an earlier lawsuit initiated by Calvary Church, Pittsburgh against Bishop Duncan and the Diocese of Pittsburgh to prevent them from leaving TEC. The judgment by the trial court required the Anglican Diocese to turn over all of its property to the remnant Episcopal Diocese, was affirmed by the Commonwealth Court in early 2011, and review was later denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Two parishes have since settled with the remnant diocese, which demanded that the first (St. Philip's) disaffiliate from the Anglican Diocese, and that the second (Somerset Anglican Fellowship, which did not own any real property) return all of its personal property, and not support any litigation against the replacement diocese; a third parish (St. David's) moved out rather than agree to have to "repurchase" its property. Negotiations are ongoing to settle the claims of the remnant diocese against the properties of the other parishes.
54. Against Bishop Mark Lawrence personally, in Federal District Court in SC, on claims of trademark infringement; plaintiff was Provisional Bishop Charles G. vonRosenberg of the rump group established by ECUSA after the Diocese of SC withdrew; district judge's dismissal of the lawsuit on abstention grounds was appealed to the Fourth Circuit, and argued a few weeks ago; see also No. 7 in cases brought against ECUSA below
55. Against St. Andrew's Anglican Church, Nashville, TN; Plaintiffs were the Episcopal Diocese of Tennessee and Bishop Bauerschmidt; plaintiffs prevailed on summary judgment in the trial court, which was affirmed on appeal in an unreported decision in 2011; Tennessee Supreme Court recently denied review -- parish has vacated its prime property and associated nursery school, and Bishop Bauerschmidt has moved his diocesan headquarters there
56. Against Church of the Good Shepherd, San Angelo, TX; plaintiff is the Diocese of NW Texas; parish lost below and in the Court of Appeal, and after arguments in 2012, Texas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded for proceedings using "neutral principles" without reference to the Dennis Canon, which the Court held was ineffective in Texas to create a trust; Diocese and ECUSA's motions for rehearing and petitions for review in the U.S. Supreme Court were both denied, and case is back in trial court, awaiting summary judgment
57. Against the Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker and the other trustees of the Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, in the 141st District Court of Tarrant County, TX; plaintiffs, the remnant diocese and its appointed bishop, were later joined by the Episcopal Church, and the lawsuit was subsequently broadened to include all individual parishes of the remnant diocese as cross-complainants, and all individual parishes of +Iker's Episcopal Diocese as cross-defendants; the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the remnant diocese and its bishop in early 2011 was appealed directly to the Texas Supreme Court, which reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for trial under "neutral principles"; Diocese and ECUSA's motions for rehearing and petitions for review in the U.S. Supreme Court were both denied, and case is back in trial court; hearing on cross-motions for summary judgment held Feb. 20, and decision expected soon
58. Against St. Andrew's Episcopal Church of Ft. Worth, in Hood County District Court, TX; plaintiff is the remnant diocese of Ft. Worth and Bishop Ohl, its provisional bishop; plaintiff seeks to have the proceeds of a trust fund left to St. Andrew's, which remains with Bishop Iker and his Diocese, turned over to the remnant group; the trial court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome in the case described in the previous paragraph
59. Against the Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker individually, for alleged trademark infringement, in federal district court in Ft. Worth, TX; plaintiffs are the remnant diocese and its bishop; court dismissed the case after the ruling by the TX Supreme Court in No. 57 above
60. Against The Rt. Rev. Jack Iker, individually, and unnamed agents and representatives acting with him as part of the Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth, in federal district court in Ft. Worth, TX; plaintiffs are privately supported members of the vestry of All Saints Episcopal Church, Ft. Worth, carrying through on their threat made in a letter of January 21, 2009 published by Stand Firm; the grounds alleged were very similar to those alleged in the suit described in the previous paragraph; the federal court dismissed the case following the ruling by the Texas Supreme Court; now, however, in the State court action (No. 57 above), Judge Chupp has severed the case of All Saints for a separate trial in March 2015 -- probably due to the fact that All Saints is a corporation with some parcels of property in its own name
61. Against Church of the Epiphany Herndon, VA; The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. Church of the Epiphany, Herndon, CL 2007-1235 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, VA); plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia; note that parish filed initial petition to confirm its vote to affiliate with CANA pursuant to a "standstill" agreement with the Diocese, in order to allow negotiations over purchase price for property, that Diocese shortly afterward revoked that agreement on instructions from the new Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and filed this lawsuit -- for its resolution, see news for cases 72-82 below
62. Against Truro Church Fairfax,VAThe Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. Truro Church, CL 2007-1236 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, VA); plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia; note that parish filed initial petition to confirm its vote to affiliate with CANA pursuant to a "standstill" agreement with the Diocese, in order to allow negotiations over purchase price for property, that Diocese shortly afterward revoked that agreement on instructions from the new Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and filed this lawsuit -- for its resolution, see news for cases 72-82 below
63. Against Christ the Redeemer Church, Chantilly VAThe Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. Christ the Redeemer Church, CL 2007-1237 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, VA); plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia; note that parish filed initial petition to confirm its vote to affiliate with CANA pursuant to a "standstill" agreement with the Diocese, in order to allow negotiations over purchase price for property, that Diocese shortly afterward revoked that agreement on instructions from the new Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and filed this lawsuit -- for its resolution, see news for cases 72-82 below
64. Against Church of the Apostles, Fairfax VAThe Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. Church of the Apostles, CL 2007-1238 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, VA); plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia; note that parish filed initial petition to confirm its vote to affiliate with CANA pursuant to a "standstill" agreement with the Diocese, in order to allow negotiations over purchase price for property, that Diocese shortly afterward revoked that agreement on instructions from the new Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and filed this lawsuit -- for its resolution, see news for cases 72-82 below
65. Against The Falls Church, Falls Church VAThe Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. The Church at The Falls -- The Falls Church, CL 2007-5250 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Va.)(formerly Case No. 07-125, Circuit Court for Arlington County, VA); plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia; note that parish filed initial petition to confirm its vote to affiliate with CANA pursuant to a "standstill" agreement with the Diocese, in order to allow negotiations over purchase price for property, that Diocese shortly afterward revoked that agreement on instructions from the new Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and filed this lawsuit -- for its resolution, see news for cases 72-82 below
66. Against Potomac Falls Church, Potomac Falls VAThe Protestant Episcopal Church in the Dioceses of Virginia v. Potomac Falls Church, CL 2007-5362 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Va.)(formerly Case No. 44149, Circuit Court for Loudoun County, VA); plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia; note that parish filed initial petition to confirm its vote to affiliate with CANA pursuant to a "standstill" agreement with the Diocese, in order to allow negotiations over purchase price for property, that Diocese shortly afterward revoked that agreement on instructions from the new Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and filed this lawsuit -- for its resolution, see news for cases 72-82 below
67. Against Church of Our Saviour, Oatlands, VA; The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. Church of Our Saviour at Oatlands, CL 2007-5364 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Va.) (formerly Case No. 44148, Circuit Court for Loudoun County, VA); plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia; note that parish filed initial petition to confirm its vote to affiliate with CANA pursuant to a "standstill" agreement with the Diocese, in order to allow negotiations over purchase price for property, that Diocese shortly afterward revoked that agreement on instructions from the new Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and filed this lawsuit -- parish agreed to settle with Diocese in 2011 for a five-year leaseback of its property, in exchange for its disaffiliation from CANA and agreement not to affiliate with any other Anglican entity so long as they occupy the premises
68. Against St. Margaret's Church, Woodbridge, VAThe Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. St. Margaret's Church, CL 2007-5682 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Va.) (formerly Case No. CL 73465, Circuit Court for Prince William Cnty., VA); plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia; note that parish filed initial petition to confirm its vote to affiliate with CANA pursuant to a "standstill" agreement with the Diocese, in order to allow negotiations over purchase price for property, that Diocese shortly afterward revoked that agreement on instructions from the new Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and filed this lawsuit -- for its resolution, see news for cases 72-82 below
69. Against St. Paul's Church, Haymarket, VA; The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. St. Paul's Church, Haymarket, Case No. CL 73466 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, VA); plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia; note that parish filed initial petition to confirm its vote to affiliate with CANA pursuant to a "standstill" agreement with the Diocese, in order to allow negotiations over purchase price for property, that Diocese shortly afterward revoked that agreement on instructions from the new Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and filed this lawsuit -- for its resolution, see news for cases 72-82 below
70. Against Church of the Word, Gainesville, VA: The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. Church of the Word, CL 2007-5684 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Va. )(formerly Case No. CL 73464, Circuit Court for Prince William County, VA); plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia; note that parish filed initial petition to confirm its vote to affiliate with CANA pursuant to a "standstill" agreement with the Diocese, in order to allow negotiations over purchase price for property, that Diocese shortly afterward revoked that agreement on instructions from the new Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and filed this lawsuit; parish agreed to settle with the Diocese in early 2011 on terms similar to those with the Church of Our Savior, Oatlands, but retained possession of its (reduced) property by assigning to the Diocese the lion's share of a condemnation award from the State of Virginia
71. Against St. Stephen's Church, Heathsville, VA; The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. St. Stephen's Church, CL 2007-5902 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Va.) (formerly Case No. CL 07-16, Circuit Court for Northumberland County, VA); plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia; note that parish filed initial petition to confirm its vote to affiliate with CANA pursuant to a "standstill" agreement with the Diocese, in order to allow negotiations over purchase price for property, that Diocese shortly afterward revoked that agreement on instructions from the new Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and filed this lawsuit -- for its resolution, see news for cases 72-82 below
72-82. Against Truro Church and all of the Virginia Anglican churches affiliating with CANA above, Plaintiff is the Episcopal Church (USA); The Episcopal Church v. Truro Church, et al., CL 2007-1625 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, VA; case was tried again in Circuit Court in 2011 following reversal by Virginia Supreme Court in 2010 of trial court's earlier decision in favor of parishes; trial court ruled this time in favor of Diocese; all but one defendant have surrendered their property to the Diocese, with Truro leasing theirs back for a limited time; only The Falls Church appealed to the Va. Supreme Court, which ruled against it on a strange "implied trust" theory in 2013; petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied after being held over to four different conferences)
83. Against St. Edmunds Anglican Church, Elm Grove, WI; plaintiff is the Diocese of Milwaukee; trial court granted summary judgment against parish in 2011; parish later vacated the property, which remains vacant
As a matter of fairness, I also list the number of cases where the Episcopal Church (USA) or one of its dioceses is the defendant and not the plaintiff. There are only eight instances, as shown below. But in all but the first, it was the diocese (or ECUSA) which triggered the filing of a lawsuit by moving to take control of the individual church's assets, and the legal actions that followed were essentially a defensive response against those moves.
1. The earliest instance of a parish starting a lawsuit was in 2000, after a dispute arose between All Saints Parish, Pawley's Island, South Carolina (SC), the Diocese of South Carolina, and TEC in connection with the formation of the Anglican Mission in America. The suit eventually found its way to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which in September 2009 issued a decision finding that the Dennis Canon did not create any kind of a trust interest in parish property under South Carolina law, and ruling that the property remained with the parish despite its disaffiliation from the Episcopal Church (385 S.C. 428, 685 S.E.2d 163).
2. An action was brought in 2005 in federal district court by six parishes and their rectors (the "Connecticut Six") against the Diocese of Connecticut, whose bishop had suspended the priests in question and taken over some of the church properties. The court dismissed the lawsuit the next year, and the diocese has since brought the actions listed as Nos. 30 and 31 above.
3. Grace Church & St. Stephens, Colorado Springs, CO, sought declaratory judgment against the Bishop and the Diocese of Colorado. However, in that suit, the plaintiff church sought a simple declaration that the diocese had no right, title or interest in its property, in response to an attempt by the diocese to freeze the church's bank accounts. The response of the diocese was to file a counterclaim against the church, its rector and 17 of its vestry and leading parishioners seeking millions of dollars in damages. The trial court granted judgment for the Diocese following a trial in 2009, and the parish chose not to appeal, but to move from the property to a new location.
4. The Diocese of the Rio Grande and St. Francis on the Hill (El Paso, TX): St. Francis began the suit with a claim for declaratory relief in response to the threat of suit by the diocese to take their property. Eventually the trial court granted summary judgment to the Diocese, and the parish left its property.
5. The Diocese of Quincy (IL) sued the Episcopal Church in 2009 for declaratory relief after the latter had asked the diocese's bank to freeze its accounts. The trial court rendered a decision in the Diocese's favor in September 2013, finding that there was no provision in ECUSA's governing documents that kept a diocese from amending its constitution to remove the accession clause; ECUSA filed an appeal, in which its request was denied to join the Diocese of Chicago, into which the rump diocese of Quincy merged in September 2013; appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision in all respects in July 2014, and ECUSA's bid to have the Illinois Supreme Court review the case was denied in November 2014; ECUSA continued to try to freeze some of the Diocese's funds even after losing, and was severely chastised and sanctioned by the trial court in February 2015.
6. The parish of St. Paul's in Groton, CT last year filed a petition with a local court for a declaration that its property was free and clear of any trust interest under the Dennis Canon. The parish remains in the Diocese of Connecticut pending the outcome of the lawsuit (note: news of the lawsuit would be welcome in the comments).
7. The Diocese of South Carolina sued the Episcopal Church in January 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas for Dorchester County after the Church began "abandonment of Communion" proceedings against the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence, which action triggered the Diocese's immediate withdrawal. The suit was filed before TEC could fulfill its announced intention to sue the Bishop and the Diocesan trustees for the Diocese's property and bank accounts, once it reorganized a new Episcopal diocese at a special convention in January 2013. The court entered a restraining order against anyone but Bishop Lawrence and his agents using the name and marks of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, which ECUSA and later the rump diocese agreed could become a preliminary injunction pending the trial or further notice. Then the rump diocese removed the case to Federal District Court, which after eight months remanded the case to the Court of Common Pleas. That court denied the rump diocese's motion to compel production of all emails and correspondence between Bishop Lawrence and his Chancellor, which order the rump diocese immediately appealed, without success. The case went to a fourteen-day trial in July 2014. On February 3, 2015 the trial court filed a 46-page decision ruling in favor of Bishop Lawrence and his parishes; ECUSA and the rump group have filed a motion for reconsideration as a prerequisite to appealing the decision later this year.
8. The small parish of the Church of the Ascension in Middle River, MD filed suit against the Diocese of Maryland in April 2013 after it had declared the parish "imperiled", conducted a final service there, and then locked the congregation out. Although the parish could not support a full-time rector, it had $27,000 in the bank and income from a rental on the church property when the Diocese closed it down. The suit seeks a return of the property to the incorporated parish, which it says Bishop Sutton signed over to the Diocese without any authority. The Diocese's defense is based on the Dennis Canon--which ironically states that it shall "shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Parish, Mission or Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons." To your Curmudgeon's knowledge, this is the first time that the Dennis Canon has been used in reverse: to take over the property of a parish that remains in the Diocese, instead of trying to leave it, by first declaring it "imperiled" and then by closing it down.
Suffragen Bishop Cook demonstrated how much she could drink
before texting and driving - all at the same time.
PB Katie knew and went ahead with the consecration.

END