VIRGINIA: Falls Church Rector Issues Statement on Upcoming Litigation

from VirtueOnline

VIRGINIA: Falls Church Rector Issues Statement on Upcoming Litigation

April 28, 2011

This is to remind you that our trial began this past Monday in the Fairfax County Circuit Court, before Judge Randy Bellows.

We are now in the first phase in which the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia present their case and call their witnesses. This will likely continue into next week, perhaps longer. After that comes the second phase, in which our church and the other churches present their case. We do not know precisely when we will begin. Because this case is based on Virginia property and contract law, each individual church must review its history and all deeds, etc., be examined, which will take several weeks. It is likely the trial will last till early June and then further likely that it will take Judge Bellows most of the summer to issue his rulings.

The Episcopal Church and Diocese of Virginia claim that the property and buildings belong to them and we have only been entrusted with the care and use of them on behalf of the denomination. Our position is, simply stated, that all things belong ultimately to God, but that because the deeds are in the name of our church and the property and buildings paid for by the members of the church, we have been entrusted by God with the stewardship of the property and no other claims to ownership are valid. In other states where similar cases have been held, judges have ruled sometimes for the denomination and sometimes for the local church.

Please remember in your prayers our legal team, especially Gordon Coffee, Jim Johnson, Paul Farquharson, Steffen Johnson, and Scott Ward. We will gather for another parish prayer night towards the end of the trial - the date is tentatively set for Wednesday, June 1. Visitors are allowed in the court during the trial, if you want to attend and be there praying in person.

Read the full story at www.VirtueOnline.org

Chaplain's Corner

By The Rev. Canon Phil Ashey, J.D. Chief Operating and Development Officer, American Anglican Council Canon Ashey Dear Friends in Christ, Today the American Anglican Council joined the Presbyterian Lay Committee in filing an Amicus ("friend of the court") Brief on behalf of Christ Church Savannah in their appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court. We will post a link to the brief on our website in the upcoming days. As an attorney, I realize that some people don't care about the intricacies of these kinds of legal procedures. I ask for your patience with me today because I feel that some details of this important case need to be highlighted. The American Anglican Council helped file this brief because we believe that the unique facts of the Christ Church case make it an especially compelling argument against "legalized larceny" by The Episcopal Church in seizing properties of departing Anglicans. Those unique facts include a land grant from English General James Oglethorpe to the Wardens and Vestry of Christ Church that pre-dated the Revolutionary War, the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia and the formation of the Episcopal Church as a denomination. This grant was affirmed by the newly-formed State of Georgia in December, 1789. As I have written elsewhere, judicial deference to The Episcopal Church's internal rules, specifically the 1979 Dennis Canon, violates the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause by recognizing a unilaterally imposed "implied trust" that finds no precedent or practice elsewhere other than by a "hierarchical" church - thereby favoring such a church, especially TEC, over any other person who wants to establish a trust under common law and state principles of trust law. Such deference also changes the neutral principles analysis required by the US Supreme Court in Jones v. Wolf into a de facto "deference to hierarchy" - the very opposite of what the court did in Jones! Among other things, we argue that: - The lower court misinterpreted the purpose and plain reading of the Georgia Trust statute as validating a non-owner's assertion of trust; - The lower court incorrectly used an implied trust to divest Christ Church, the title holder, of its ownership, contrary to Georgia Trust law; - Practical experience and Constitutional guarantees commend that civil courts use "neutral principles" to decide property disputes between religious organizations in order to avoid a state establishment of religion; - The Establishment Clause of the US Constitution requires the use of strictly "neutral principles" that provide no special preference to religious organizations or asserted hierarchies within them; and - By a strictly "neutral principles" analysis of the deeds, articles of incorporation, by-laws and amendments without any deference to a self-declared trust by TEC, the property rightfully remains with the Rector, Wardens and Vestry of Christ Church (Anglican) Savannah. So why all the fuss about this case? Where is the focus on mission? First, let me assure you that the clergy, leadership and people of Christ Church Christ Church Savannah Savannah are doing mission as you read this. You can find all they are doing at their website. Time and space do not permit me to describe their heartfelt attitude of surrender towards the buildings, and their willingness to relocate elsewhere if that is what the courts finally decide. They will continue to fulfill Christ's Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) wherever they land in Savannah. But they also recognize, as we do, that this case has ramifications far beyond the Georgia coastline. Because of the unique facts of this case, the Constitutional issues, the fundamental issues involving the nature and creation of trusts, and the history of church litigation in Georgia ending up in the United States Supreme Court, this case has the potential to impact denominations and churches all across Georgia. Beyond Georgia, this case has the potential to impact every case in litigation between departing Anglicans and TEC all across America. If Christ Church prevails and the US Supreme Court clarifies what a strictly "neutral principles" analysis must be without regard to any self-declared trust by a church or any asserted hierarchies therein, there will be good reason for all parties to sit down at the negotiating table and work out settlements that are fair and just. If TEC prevails, then it will be clear that a strict "neutral principles" analysis has gone by the wayside, that almost no set of facts will withstand the Dennis Canon, and that the best course of action for departing Anglicans is to leave their keys on the altar and joyfully take up mission elsewhere. But either way, there will be an end to litigation, and resources can be redirected toward mission. So please join me in praying for the Rector, Wardens, Vestry, leadership and people of Christ Church Savannah as they prepare to cross this important bridge. And please pray for their legal team as they prepare for oral argument before the Georgia Supreme Court on May 9. Yours in Christ, Phil+

From the American Anglican Council

Hold Fast: An Urgent Call to the Western Church

Dr. Michael Nazir-Ali will address the triple threat to Christianity: Islamic extremism, Secularism, Multi-culturalism Dr. Michael Nazir-Ali, a Church of England Bishop, born in Pakistan, has shared the Gospel around the world despite countless challenges and threats. Christians from all denominations are invited to attend the Hold Fast tour May 18-25 and be encouraged to confidently live the Christian life in North America. They will learn why these issues pose such a threat to Christianity and hear firsthand accounts of how Christians around the world have held fast despite persecution in the face of these threats. Find event locations on the Hold Fast website.

From the Church of England Newspaper

New year sees no let up in Episcopal Church lawsuits

Posted by George Conger on Wednesday, January 12th, 2011 and filed under International news, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

The Rt. Rev. George Councell, Bishop of New Jersey

A new year has brought new twists and turns to the Episcopal Church’s legal wars. The national church beat back the secession of a West Texas congregation from the Diocese of the Rio Grande, saw reasons for optimism and gloom from Presbyterian property cases in Georgia, Indiana and Missouri, found its lawyer in the Fort Worth cases accused of professional misconduct, and witnessed the amicable settlement of a church property split in New Jersey.

On Dec 16 the 210 District Court of Texas issued judgment in favor of the Diocese of the Rio Grande against St Francis on-the-Hill Anglican Church in El Paso.

The congregation of St. Francis on-the-Hill Episcopal Church on Oct 21, 2008, voted to secede. Litigation commenced and on Feb 10, 2010 Judge Gonzalo Garcia granted summary judgment in favor of the diocese.

However, on Feb 26 the judge reconsidered his ruling and rescinded his order, asking for further pleadings. In his Dec 16 ruling, effectively reinstating his Feb 10 decision, the judge held that as the “Episcopal Church is a hierarchical church as a matter of law,” the congregation was subordinate to the diocese and did not have the power to alter its parish by-laws to withdraw from the diocese absent the diocese’s permission.

While the order gives possession of the multi-million dollar property to the diocese, the parish has thirty days to appeal the order.

The Indiana Court of Appeals in December struck down a lower court ruling that granted a Presbyterian congregation ownership of its property in a dispute with its presbytery. In 2006 the Olivet Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Evansville, Indiana withdrew from the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) to join the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). The Ohio Valley Presbytery declined to allow the congregation to leave with its property and litigation commenced. Earlier this year the trial court awarded ownership of the property to the congregation saying that under neutral principles of law, whereby the court looks only at the property deeds, the presbytery had no claim on the land.

However, the Indiana Appeals Court applied a different interpretation of neutral principles of law and ruled in favor of the presbytery. As the congregation accepted the benefits of being part of a national organization and acknowledged in its bylaws that it was bound by the national church constitution, which contains a clause providing all property titled to local congregations is held in trust for the benefit of the national church, the property of congregations were bound by the national church rules, even if there was no language of subordination found on the title deeds, the court concluded.

A Missouri court came to an opposite conclusion on the same legal principles in the case of Gashland Presbyterian Church and the Heartland Presbytery. A Clay County circuit court ruled the congregation was entitled to keep its property when it quit the PCUSA for the EPC in 2008 as Missouri church property cases were governed by the neutral principles of law, rather than the hierarchical-based argument that church property is held in trust for the denomination.

“The trust provision” in the PCUSA’s Book of Order was “insufficient as a declaration of trust under Missouri law” to give the national church control over local properties, the court held. “Mere participation and cooperation in denominational affairs alone does not demonstrate a church’s intent to be bound by a denominational trust clause,” Judge Lawrence Harmon found.

On Nov 30 a Georgia Court of Appeal reversed a lower court ruling that awarded the property of an Atlanta Presbyterian congregation to its presbytery. The appellate court found that Timber Ridge Presbyterian Church was free to leave the PCUSA with its property under the neutral principles of law theory. The absence of trust language in favor of the national church or presbytery in the property deeds and articles of incorporation defeated the national church’s arguments that an implied trust in the property was created by virtue of membership in the denomination.

“In applying neutral principles of law as required by the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Georgia, we cannot ignore relevant statutes, documents of the local body, or the actual language of the relevant deeds, in favor … of the rules of the national body,” the court held.

The Timber Ridge court came to the opposite conclusion of law from the appellate court that heard the case of Christ Church in Savannah, the Episcopal congregation that quit the Diocese of Georgia. Christ Church has appealed that ruling, and as the appellate courts in Georgia have now entered contradictory rulings on the same point of church property law the state’s Supreme Court will take up the issue. On Jan 14, the state supreme court said it would hear oral arguments on the Christ Church dispute in April.

Parish council president David Reeves said he was “gratified” the court would hear their appeal. “Since this case will have ramifications for all Georgia churches, regardless of denomination, we think it is appropriate for the highest court in our state to rule on these issues,” he said.

In the Fort Worth cases, attorneys for the majority faction led by Bishop Jack L. Iker filed pleadings on Jan 7 in opposition to the national church faction’s motions for partial summary judgment. A hearing on the issue was held on Jan 14. The court has taken the matter under advisement and is expected to rule shortly.

In its pleadings, Bishop Iker’s attorneys noted that the attorney for the national church faction, Jonathan Nelson, in 1993 had represented the Diocese of Fort Worth in a lawsuit with a congregation that had attempted to quit the diocese to join the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

Those pleadings and affidavits prepared for Bishop Iker and the diocese by Mr. Nelson were now being offered by Mr. Nelson on behalf of his new clients against the interests of his former clients.

“This is an unsavory attempt by an attorney to use words he drafted for a client against that very same client and in favor of a new one,” Bishop Iker’s attorneys said, adding that “having been paid [in 1993/1994] to draft documents for them, he now attempts to use his own words against those he used to represent.”

Bishop Iker’s attorneys stated the argument proffered by Mr. Nelson that the relationship of a parish to the diocese was akin to that of the diocese to the national church “takes a lot of nerve, as it is based on documents drafted by Plaintiffs’ counsel back when he was counsel for the Defendants.”

They further added that the legal conclusions drawn by Mr. Nelson from his 1993 legal work, did not favor the national church’s arguments but those of the diocese. They urged the court to strike the new claims.

The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and the Diocese of New Jersey have come to an amicable resolution of the status of a former Episcopal congregation that quit the diocese for the Convocation of Anglicans in North American (CANA).

On Nov 23 the diocese agreed to sell the property of St. George’s Episcopal Church in Helmetta, NJ to St. Georges Anglican Church. In Feb 2008, the congregation and its rector voted to secede from the Episcopal Church. Negotiations began over the fate of the congregations building in 2009 and a settlement satisfactory to both sides was reached late last year.

The decision to sell the church buildings to the breakaway group by the diocese places it at odds with the wishes of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who has called for a ban on sales of parish properties to breakaway groups. Testifying in the Virginia cases in 2007, Bishop Jefferts Schori stated that had the buildings of breakaway congregati0ons been offered to sale to Methodist or Baptist groups, she would not object, but “the Episcopal Church, for matters of its own integrity, cannot encourage other parts of the Anglican Communion to set up shop within its jurisdiction.”

Hat tip: A.S. Haley

How Not to Take a Christian to Court

from Anglican Curmudgeon by A. S. Haley

A new lawsuit involving the parish of St. Francis on the Hill in El Paso, Texas was filed on Tuesday, April 26 in the local district court (34th Judicial District). The suit marks another low point in the desultory annals of litigation brought by dioceses of the Episcopal Church (USA) against their former parishes, vestries and rectors. Coming literally on the heels of a final judgment entered in that same court on March 11, which awarded all of the Anglican parish's real and personal property to the Diocese of Rio Grande, the new lawsuit was filed even though that prior judgment has since been appealed to the Eighth Court of Appeals in El Paso.

(The prior proceedings in this tangled lawsuit were well described by the Rev. George Conger in this article. Note that in the new lawsuit, the roles are reversed: the former plaintiffs are the new defendants, and vice versa.)

What is particularly despicable about this latest lawsuit is not just that it seeks to embroil the parties who are appealing the trial court's judgment in brand-new litigation pending that appeal, but it also seeks punitive damages (in addition to other relief) against them. The complaint asks for

exemplary damages in an amount up to the greater of the following: (a) $200,000; or (b) two times the amount of economic damages plus the amount of non-economic damages that do not exceed $750,000

from each of the defendants: the parish of St. Francis itself (a Texas non-profit corporation), its rector, Dr. Felix Orgi (recently elected a bishop in CANA), and the three individual trustees of a related non-profit corporation, called the "Foundation for Los Robles Church."

And just what is this egregious conduct that is the occasion for an award of punitive damages? Why those named defendants, you see, had the temerity to continue to operate as a church during the earlier pending lawsuit, and in doing so they collected money, transfered it to various accounts, and otherwise made the money and property no longer available for turnover now to the plaintiffs in accordance with the terms of the March 11 judgment -- which is being appealed.

The very idea!

Perhaps the pleader has even more dastardly conduct in mind, but if so, he does not spell it out. Here are his so-called "factual allegations", taken word-for-word from the new complaint:

17. Some of the Property [ordered to be transferred by the March 2011 judgment] was transferred by St. Francis to Los Robles in the past. Upon information and belief, Los Robles was formed by the Individual Defendants and others associated with St. Francis.

18. Some of the Property has been otherwise dissipated, diverted or expended by St. Francis and the Individual Defendants in ways contrary to applicable canon and other laws, and in contravention of the rights and interest of Plaintiffs.

19. Despite demand, Defendants have refused to return the Property to Plaintiffs. In addition, monies made payable to St. Francis in October 28, 2008 have been diverted and transferred by St. Francis and the Individual Defendants to Los Robles in contravention of rights of Plaintiffs.

And that's it -- that is it. The complaint never gets any more "factual" than that. The rest of its ten-page length, and its 54 repetitive paragraphs, are used for legal boilerplate that charges the parish of St. Francis, its rector, and the Los Robles Foundation trustees with every tort or other actionable claim a first-year law student might be able to think of: (1) conversion; (2) "money had and received"; (3) fraudulent transfers for inadequate value, resulting in St. Francis' "insolvency"; (4) breach of "fiduciary duty" (never mind that the plaintiffs in a law suit are generally not in any kind of fiduciary relationship with the defendants while the lawsuit is going on); (5) breach of the "duty of good faith and fair dealing" (such a duty can arise only out of a contract between two parties, and there was no "contract" between these plaintiffs and these defendants); (6) constructive fraud (i.e., not real fraud, but again arising out of a [nonexistent] "duty"); (7) civil conspiracy (which in California, at least, is not even a separate cause of action, but only a theory of joint liability); and (8) constructive trust (i.e., St. Francis and its rector -- a non-profit entity and its leader -- have somehow unjustly been "enriched" at the plaintiffs' expense).

While such theories of liability are all covered in the first year of most law schools, the case is rare in the extreme in which all of them can be said to apply to the facts at one and the same time. (In nearly forty years of practice, for example, I have never encountered one.) Parties are entitled to plead alternative theories when they are uncertain as to the one on which they believe they might prevail ("The defendant stole the plaintiff's watch, or picked it up where it had dropped in the street, and walked off with it"), but the latest El Paso complaint, with its puffed-up allegations of first-year torts and "civil conspiracy", ought to serve as an example in law schools of hownot to put such first-year knowledge to use.

It would be more humorous if it were not so serious, however. Real, hard-earned money is going to have to be devoted to defending against this nonsense. And I note from the complaint that the new Bishop of Rio Grande, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Michael L. Vono, does not even allow his name to appear in the pleading (he is right to be ashamed to do so, if he is in fact so ashamed): throughout the pleading, he is described solely by his title, as in this paragraph:

4. The Bishop of the Diocese of the Rio Grande is a natural person residing in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Bishop is the ecclesiastical authority of the Diocese.

Something has come seriously unhinged in the Diocese of Rio Grande, and I hope it has nothing to do with the arrival of a new sheriff in town. In researching this article, I came across this story about the earlier lawsuit, while it was pending in 2010:

Two years ago, the parish of St. Francis voted to leave the Episcopal Church, but said it intended to remain right where it was — on the hill overlooking El Paso’s Westside. The parish also changed its name, from St. Francis Episcopal Church to St. Francis Anglican.

And to head off efforts by the denomination to evict them, members took the unusual step of suing the national church and the regional diocese, the Diocese of the Rio Grande, based in Albuquerque, N.M.

Since then St. Francis and the Episcopal Church have been battling it out in the 210th Judicial Court before Judge Gonzalo Garcia.

On Feb. 10, St. Francis Church lost the first round in its legal fight to stay in the church complex on Los Robles Drive when Garcia ruled in favor of the Episcopal denomination and the Rio Grande Diocese.

But St. Francis is in no immediate danger of eviction. The two sides are working out an agreement that would let the St. Francis parish remain in the church property, at least until the conclusion of an appeal to the Texas 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in El Paso.

“We are certainly not going to tell them to move out,” said Canon Colin Kelly, who serves as the president of the Standing Committee of the diocese. The diocese is searching for a new bishop, and the committee makes administrative decisions in the meantime. The diocese expects to elect a new bishop April 24 at a gathering at the cathedral in Albuquerque, N.M.

“At some point we will want to have occupancy, but we are sensitive to their feelings and thoughts,” Kelly said.

"Sensitive to their feelings and thoughts"? Does suing individuals for hundreds of thousands of dollars in punitive damages constitute being "sensitive to them"? It does not -- not in the sense in which most people understand that word. So what happened between early 2010 and early 2011? After all, the Rev. Canon Dr. Colin Kelly is still on the diocesan Standing Committee.

Christians fighting Christians in the secular courts -- I have to say -- set perhaps the worst contemporary example of their faith for the secular culture in which we live. It is bad enough that the bulk of those Christians fighting in the courts today call themselves -- or used to call themselves -- Episcopalians. But when Episcopalians go after the garden-variety, day-to-day acts of practicing the faith by operating a church and paying its bills, and try to make those the equivalent of Bernie Madoff's fraud and deception, we have hit a new low. The Dennis Canon, and the Church which spawned it, are now engaged in what I would call a Satanic embrace.

Whether Episcopal or Anglican, please pray for your Church. At this rate, it may only get worse before it gets better.

Archbishop John Sentamu—Royal wedding: Marriage is an institution for a good reason

from TitusOneNine by Kendall Harmon

The millions around the world who will be watching the royal wedding tomorrow may not notice the wording of the promises Kate Middleton and Prince William make to each other. As with every other couple, each will be asked first if they will “love, comfort, honour and protect…” their spouse. The answer to this is “I will”. It will not be “I do”. We take it for granted that the bride and groom love each other on their wedding day, so there is no need to ask them if they do. It is what follows that counts.

At the outset, the couple is asked to make a commitment, an act of will, for the future. Theirs is a resolution to love, comfort, honour and protect, whatever the circumstances. Someone joked that love is blind, but marriage is a real eye-opener. There are bound to be times in the future when the romance thermometer will barely register a reading; those who have said “I will” and meant it, know only too well that feelings can wobble and are untrustworthy tests of authenticity, anyway. Long-lasting marriages rely on mutual understanding and forbearance. Maturity discards rose-tinted spectacles in favour of seeing things as they really are.

Discovering the depth and enduring meaning of love is the goal and prize of every relationship.

Read it all.

David Wilkerson RIP

from TitusOneNine by Kendall Harmon

The founder of Teen Challenge and Times Square Church in New York City died in a head on collision in Texas on Wednesday.

The Rev David Wilkerson, 79, was killed when the car he was driving went into the opposite lane and collided with an oncoming truck.

His wife, who was a passenger in the car with him, was rushed to hospital where she remains in a critical condition. The truck driver was also taken to hospital.

Read it all--one of the truly bright lights in his generation; KSH.

The Hubris of Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori

from VirtueOnline

The Hubris of Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori

News Analysis

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
April 28, 2011

When Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori visited Pittsburgh last week, she made the following comments about Anglican unity, given the high tension between some of the provinces, the Episcopal Church and Canterbury.

Ann Rodgers of the "Pittsburgh Post-Gazette" garnered these answers from questions she asked the Presiding Bishop.

Q. Do you think the Anglican Communion will hold together?

A. Yes. It's stronger than it was 10 years ago. There are more missional partnerships and more relationships and they are deeper than they were 10 or 15 years ago. People go back and forth between different part of the communion to serve God's mission and they are learning more about each other's s contexts. They are learning what it's like to be a Christian in Pakistan and Bangladesh and what it's like to be a Christian in Los Angeles or New York or Western Kansas. That is how we come to know each other and how we come to be more effective parts of the same body of Christ.

Read the full story at www.VirtueOnline.org

Do Fries Come with that Whopper? The Absurd Reality of the Episcopal Church

from VirtueOnline

Do Fries Come with that Whopper? The Absurd Reality of the Episcopal Church

By Ladson Mills
Special to Virtueonline.org
April 28, 2011

Reflecting back over the last decade of the Episcopal Church's "hi jinks and bloopers" I am reminded of the quote by an old and dear friend of mine. Whenever he thought the situation absurd or that others were not being appropriately forthcoming he would ask, "do fries come with that whopper?" This might be the opportune time for us to ask the same question of the Episcopal Church.

Many believe that the current crisis in the church resulted from the General Convention of 2003. I believe that it had it roots beginning on September 11, 2001 when the fear and raw emotions from which we were not fully recovered contributed to the unwillingness to act with any restraint. The Episcopal Church has adopted a revisionist agenda and nothing, nor anyone, will be allowed to stand in its way. The conservatives have long tired of broken promises and our leadership's perfection of the concept of "cheat and retreat" that would make Saddam Hussein blush. It was a perfect storm.

Read the full story at www.VirtueOnline.org

Via the American Anglican Council

New Chairman for GAFCON Primates Council

Source: Global Anglican Future Conference

April 28, 2011

Statement from the Most Rev’d Eliud Wabukala, Primate of the Anglican Church of Kenya and newly elected Chairman of the GAFCON Primates Council.

Praise the Lord! It is a great joy to greet all of you as we celebrate the Feast of the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. The resurrection of Christ was an event that changed the course of history for good and as a result, my life and the lives of millions of others have been changed for eternity.

Yesterday I was elected Chairman of the GAFCON Primates Council and I am honored to accept this call to serve the Anglican Communion in this special way. Together with 1200 bishops and leaders from around the Anglican Communion, I was privileged to spend a life-changing week in Jerusalem in 2008 as part of the Global Anglican Future Conference.

It reminds me of my roots in the East African Revival when the renewing Spirit of God permeated the Church leading to a confession of sins, a thirst for God’s Word filling the converts with humility, a simple lifestyle and an unquestionable desire for evangelism. It is these qualities that have kept the Church in our region faithful to the Gospel. It is my conviction that this same Spirit is at work in GAFCON.

I am honored, therefore, to join my colleagues in helping lead this movement forward and am humbled by their trust. It is a delight to welcome two new Primates to the Council, the Most Rev’d Tito Zavala, Bishop of Chile and Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone, and also the Most Rev’d Onesphore Rwaje, Primate of the Anglican Church of Rwanda.

GAFCON is made up of Anglican archbishops, bishops, clergy and laity from around the world. We include Provinces that contain the majority of the active membership of the Anglican Communion. We joyfully acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus Christ, believe in the trustworthiness of God’s Word and the transforming power of God’s Spirit.

• At the heart of GAFCON is the Jerusalem Declaration that gives a theological and historical framework to our faith as Anglican Christians

• GAFCON is committed to the work of reforming, reshaping and renewing global Anglicanism.

• We are determined to strengthen and support orthodox Anglican Bishops, Dioceses and Provinces in their witness to Jesus Christ and the transforming power of His Spirit.

• We will work to recognize and encourage faithful Anglicans in regions of the world where there is no biblical Anglican voice or presence.

• We are developing theological and other resources to help grow our Anglican family in Biblical faithfulness and practical concern, and

• We are building a global partnership of faithful Anglican churches who are committed to Biblical faith as described in the Jerusalem Declaration.

I recognize that we have set ourselves a truly monumental task but we serve God for whom nothing, not even overcoming death itself, is impossible.

Pray for us. Pray that we will all be faithful to God’s Call.

Alleluia, Christ is Risen!

Nairobi, 28th April, 2011

Hearing Tomorrow in Fort Worth on Appeal Bond Issues

from Anglican Curmudgeon by A. S. Haley

A hearing will take place tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m. in front of Judge John Chupp, the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth has announced:

At 2 p.m. tomorrow, April 28, Judge John Chupp will determine to what extent he will permit the local minority group aligned with TEC to conduct discovery with regard to the Motion to Set Supersedeas Bond* that has been filed by our attorneys. We are asking Judge Chupp to permit the Diocese and our 48 congregations to continue to have possession of the property while the case is being appealed, without the necessity of posting a large bond. The local minority group wants to take depositions and conduct other discovery, including inspections of the property, ostensibly for the purpose of developing evidence to support their argument that a substantial bond should be required as a condition for the continued possession of the property by the Diocese and its congregations during the appeal.

According to David Weaver, who is representing our congregations, "Since the plaintiffs likely will not prevail on the bond issue, they are attempting a flanking maneuver by seeking permission from the Court to allow them to engage in expensive discovery procedures."

Please keep the hearing in your prayers, and, if possible, plan to attend. The 141st District Court is located on the fourth floor of the Family Law Center on Weatherford Street in Fort Worth.

----

*A supersedeas bond is a deposit made during an appeal process when the case involves property and the party making the appeal wishes to delay full payment until the process concludes.

The group led by Bishop Ohl has tried every maneuver in the book to push up the costs for Bishop Iker and his diocese. They are not interested in getting the case decided by the Texas Supreme Court as quickly as possible; they want to drag out the proceedings below by having court-ordered "inspections" of each individual church property, and depositions of church rectors and treasurers. Then they want to use any financial information so gathered as a means to argue that Bishop Iker's diocese should have to post a huge bond pending the appeal.

Bishop Iker and his diocese are not going anywhere. Nor are they engaged in running down their properties, or in selling off the altar cloths, or in recycling hymnals and prayer books. Were Bishop Ohl and his group to take over all the properties from this day forward, they would not be able to keep all of them staffed and maintained -- they would immediately have to offer a lot of them for sale, in a difficult market. They are far better off getting the free services of the properties' current occupants to keep them well-run and maintained while the appeal runs its course. Thus it is cynical at best, and harassment at worst, to request that the court drive up the costs of the defendants still more.

One can hope that Judge Chupp is beginning, through all of this extraneous maneuvering, to get the flavor, as we say, of those to whom he awarded the property -- and of where their hearts really lie.