Bishop Lee agreed to this request and set up an official commission to examine all of the elements of the problem and return with a report to the governing bodies of the diocese. His six member team met for many months and submitted a unanimous report in September 2007 called 'A protocol for departing congregations'. The Protocol was 'received' unanimously by the Executive Board and 'by consensus' by the Standing Committee, without a single negative vote.

I was serving on the Executive Board at the time and remember the discussion and vote to receive the report. The clear intention of the Ex Board was to move forward with the recommendations of the protocol and allow parishes a graceful method of disengaging from the Diocese and TEC.

It cannot be argued by the diocese that the Protocol has no authority because the actions of the diocese in the next few weeks showed a resolve to implement the details of the protocol. This four page document was released to the diocese as the way forward for congregations who felt that in good conscience they might have to withdraw from TEC.

It is worth noting that one purpose of the protocol was to see how the separating congregations might continue 'in as close a relationship as possible' with the diocese. Meaning that although a division was inevitable there could be many areas of mutually agreed ministry in the future. You may read the protocol on our church website, but the basic points are that:-

* A congregation should go through at least a 30 day discernment process.
* Discernment materials would be provided by the diocese as well as from the congregations. Live presentations from the diocese would be made to the congregations.
* A congregational vote would be required and a 70% yes to depart vote would be needed, a super majority.
* A separate vote would also ask if a congregation wishes to retain its property in the event of a split. Again a 70% yes vote would be needed.
* Provisions would be made to continue partnerships with the diocese 'in as close a relationship as possible'.
* A process would be set up to resolve property issues 'amicably' between the parties.

In the fall, Church of the Word entered into the discernment process required by the protocol, resources from the diocese were made available in the parish and the date of the vote was rescheduled to allow for a live presentation from several leaders in the diocese. The vestry also met with the standing committee of the diocese to hear their thoughts.

The protocol, received, approved and recommended by the standing committee, executive board and Diocesan Bishop, stated that if a 70% majority voted to separate from the diocese and also voted to retain its property then the diocese would enter into good faith negotiations about a settlement of property issues. At the conclusion of this carefully followed process 96% of our members voted to withdraw from the diocese and retain our property.

Diocese of Virginia reneges on its agreement

I am shocked and even embarrassed to report that the diocese reneged on its written and verbal agreement in the protocol. It has initiated litigation against these 11 congregations, instead of entering into good faith negotiations as they promised.

I cannot believe that the diocese would make such detailed requirements of our churches and even promote the discernment process by supplying materials and people and then turn around and abandon the process. At the February primates meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, the leaders of the Anglican Communion called for a cessation of all litigation and a return to the negotiation table, but so far the diocese has refused to heed the call of the leaders of the Anglican Church.

I was privileged to serve on the executive board of the diocese in 2006 as a representative of region 7. I attended the meetings where the board was kept informed on the progress of the negations of the special committee which eventually presented the protocol. I attended the meeting where the executive board voted to receive the protocol and committed resources to help it work. At that meeting I asked Bishop Lee if he felt that the diocese could meet the requirement for in person presentations to the church from the diocese as required by the protocol. He said that with the help of the standing committee he saw no problem.

After we had voted to receive the protocol a discussion then ensued as to whether to 'receive' a report, was the same thing as to 'accept' or 'approve' one. The general sentiment expressed was that there was no practical differences in the use of the words receive, accept or approve and that the diocese was going to provide resources for its part of the agreement. The diocese then proved their de facto reception, adoption and approval of the protocol by implementing the details.

* The protocol was posted on the diocesan website and made available for distribution.
* Previously published material by Churchill Gibson was made available to the Churches as diocesan resource material for the discernment process as required by the protocol.
* A DVD of a speech by Bishop Lee was distributed to the parishes
* Arrangements were made to have live presentations by members of the standing committee to the congregations as required by the protocol.
* At some point in December when the discernment process was well under way there was a great deal of prevarication in the diocese about the official status of the protocol. However, Bishop Lee said that although it was not the only possible way to resolve differences within the diocese it was one acceptable method.
* After the votes were taken on December 17th one week before Christmas, the diocese set up a 'unity commission' and then quickly changed the name to a 'property commission' to begin negotiating a settlement with the churches as required by the protocol.

One issue raised very quickly by the diocese was the possibility of remnant congregations who wish to continue with TEC, to have worship opportunities on a Sunday. At this point all of the clergy leading these congregations were still bona fide Episcopal clergy. The request for separate worship space was referred to the negotiation team and had they continued to meet some accommodation could have been reached very quickly.

I wondered if this accommodation would work both ways, i.e. if only a minority voted to withdraw would they be allowed separate worship arrangements. It was the later diocesan action to abandon the negotiations, inhibit the clergy and initiate legal proceedings which spoiled the possibility of separate worship accommodation.

The example of All Saints Dale City

During 2005 and into 2006, the diocese had a separate series of meeting with All Saints, Dale City, about their desire to separate. During those negotiations both sides thought they had the stronger claim to local church property.

At an executive board meeting which I attended the diocesan team suggested that a good starting point would be a 50/50 split of the equity and have the church pay half the equity to the diocese as compensation for release of its claims on the property. This payment could be reduced if the burden of paying 50% would unduly hamper the future mission of the congregation. This payment could also be reduced if the property were more recently purchased by the congregation because it could be reasonably argued that the dollars of those in the pews had been invested into the property.

It is worth noting here that most of the property now subject to the lawsuit by the diocese was newly built or radically improved in recent years. It was also agreed that litigation was not a worthy option for Christians and that, in any case, litigations takes years, can be enormously expensive to both sides and that there is no guarantee of victory for the diocese. All Saints originally planned to sell their property to a Seventh Day Adventist congregation who where renting their facilities on a Saturday.

The cash from this sale would be used to pay the diocese and All Saints would rent from the SDA until they could build on their new land. Some people on the executive board baulked at this scenario. I noticed that there was another way to solve this problem and keep the dollar amount the same. I suggested that instead of selling to the SDA the diocese be given the old Church property, All Saints be given the new land and a contract to rent back for 5 years at 1$ per year. This suggestion was warmly appreciated by all sides and ultimately approved by the Diocese and All Saints.

In our case Church of the Word purchased our current 3 acre property in 1993, members have invested well over one million dollars in the property since then, whereas the diocese made a one time gift of only $25,000. Even though this is a gift, our vestry has expressed its willingness to return that gift with any others that might have been received in order to expedite a settlement.

Such an arrangement has been used effectively in other situations i.e. Swartz Creek Michigan which simply returned to the diocese any money invested by the diocese in the parish. Also worth noting is the settlement between Christ Church Plano Texas and Christ Church Overland Park, Kansas, who each gave a sum to their respective diocese equivalent to a multiple of their annual assessment (actually 100%, for the first year, then 80%, 60% 40% and 20%, usually this was paid in one lump sum). The principle at work here is that the parish continued in its ownership of the property but the diocese is compensated for the loss of revenue from that source.

I do not know what happened to cause the diocese to renege on its prior agreement. Some people suggest that they have come under last minute pressure from the national Church. I do believe that there are still good people at the center of the diocese administration and that common sense will return. There was no reason for the diocese to initiate legal proceedings against these congregations, or for the national church to insert itself into the negotiations.

So to answer the above question, Church of the Word, like the other congregations, acted honorably by first negotiating an agreed upon process for departing congregation with the diocese and then we followed the process faithfully. The diocese began honorably by negotiating and approving the same process but later reneged on this agreement, perhaps under threat or pressure from the national church. We pray that the diocese will keep its word and return to the protocol.

In order to help us move forward in a positive way, Church of the Word has incorporated as 'Church of the Word, Gainesville', a congregation in the Anglican District of Virginia which is a part of CANA. CANA stands for the Convocation of Anglicans in North America and is a branch of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, the largest Anglican province in the World.

Why did Church of the Word petition to move from mission to parish status in 2005 and then later choose to withdraw from the diocese?

I understand that there is some concern over this issue in some quarters of the diocese so I would like to take some time to explain the developments from our point of view.

First of all there was a long standing expectation that Church of the Word move to parish status. We were no longer financially dependant upon the diocese and were in fact a net contributor. We had been a mission for 18 years, too long, and had purchased our own property 8 years before. We could easily have taken parish status several years before we actually did.

Second, I had identified a piece of property on Route 29 which would be ideal for our new Church. I had asked the vestry to place a contract on this property and they agreed to do this, when we discovered the diocese had gone ahead and signed a contract on our behalf. We wanted to be able to manage our own development process and therefore felt that the time was right to take parish status and take trusteeship of both properties. Please note that some missions have trusteeship of properties and some parishes do not. These issues are not necessarily linked!

Third, though deeply grieved by the 2003 general convention our parish leadership had decided to wait out the review process and see what happened to the Windsor report and especially the 2006 general convention. We sent our 2004 contributions to specially identified funds within the diocese with the permission of the diocese even though it would have been easier for us to contribute the same dollars to the general fund and avoid controversy at our parish status hearings. There was genuine joy at Church of the Word at being given parish status and we became more active in diocesan concerns through 2005 and 2006. Our contributions for subsequent years were not restricted. We continued to negotiate with the diocese about the development of our properties.

Fourth, after general convention 2006 we felt that TEC rejected the Windsor report and became more entrenched in the theological innovations which had caused a division in the Anglican Communion. On the other hand the diocese had in the fall of 2006 graciously created a way out of the maze for us in the protocol and we were pleased to be able to avail ourselves of that opportunity. Our desire was to remain faithful to our Anglican heritage and the basic Christian gospel and remain in communion with our Anglican brethren across the globe. We decided to take up the offer of the diocese to engage in the discernment process following the agreed protocol.

Therefore our church has been open about our hopes and intensions. We are deeply disappointed that TEC missed the opportunity to reform. Had they done so, we would have been content to continue as active members of the Diocese of Virginia. Given the position of TEC we are grateful that our diocese allowed this procedure for a grace filled departure.

---The Rev. Robin T Adams is rector of Church of the Word in Gainesville, VA.