On "Disturbing the Peace and Unity of the Church"

By David Trimble at Still on Patrol:

May 30, 2008

Have you ever watched how an earthworm will wriggle when it finds itself on a hot sidewalk in the sun? I can only imagine that's how Williams Hurd, attorney for the Diocese of Virginia, must have felt when being questioned by Judge Randy Bellows in Fairfax (VA) Circuit Court this past Wednesday. Judge Bellows was pressing Mr. Hurd on why, if the Dennis Canon vested property ownership in the Diocese, the Diocese had not insisted on changing the actual title deeds to the property to Diocesan ownership instead of the deeds remaining vested in the elected leadership of each individual parish.

Mr. Hurd's response? According to the The Living Church, Hurd "said that asking churches, some of which were incorporated before the Diocese of Virginia existed, to put title in the name of the bishop would be tantamount to saying that The Episcopal Church no longer trusts the local leadership and “would disturb the peace and unity of the church.”"

I see. So breaking a stand still agreement with the Virginia Eleven doesn't disturb the peace and unity of the church ? Breaking off what had been peaceful negotiations doesn't disturb the peace and unity of the church ? Bringing a lawsuit costing both sides millions of dollars doesn't disturb the peace and unity of the church ? Oh, and discarding some of the most basic tenets of Christianity doesn't disturb the peace and unity of the church ?

Locked_gate And what of the Dennis Canon itself? Was it not borne of a lack of trust of local church leadership? Was it not one of the first steps in the long revisionist campaign to usurp the Episcopal Church? Was it not done with the foresight that at some point in the liberal/revisionist agenda the church would reach a breaking point where orthodox parishes would seek to continue to walk the road to salvation through what Jesus Christ has taught us, as opposed to signing on to the "innovations" that were ahead? Was it not done in anticipation that it could be used as powerful leverage to hold parishes within TEO who could not stomach the prospect of leaving their buildings and forging a new path? Of course it was, on all counts. Or else, why was the Dennis Canon passed when it was passed?

Such cynical piety is revolting. That any representative of TEO or a litigating Diocese suing the orthodox faithful could have the temerity to stand before anyone, much less a Court of Law, and claim that his clients acted so as to not disturb the peace and unity of the church is patently absurd. The liberal leadership of TEO has done little else but disturb the peace and unity of the church for a very long time, and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future unless some definitive action is taken either from within TEO (presentment of the P.O.), or from without (discipline by the Anglican Communion). We all know the odds of either of those happening.