From the Stone of Witness blog

Editor's note: Obviously the writer of this piece is not a reader of this blog. I mentioned a few weeks ago about the Episcopal scavengers who have taken many of the items she mentions below. As for maintenance, we have received two calls at St. Andrew's Anglican Church from neighbors in our old neighborhood. They were complaining about the lack of basic care like lawn mowing. We directed them to the diocese. Properties "stolen by schismatics" is the kind of rhetoric that we have unfortunately come to expect from pecusa liberals. It is strange that those who have bought, paid for, and maintained properties are labeled thieves (by the same people who excoriate others for using labels, by the way). It is also interesting to be labeled schismatic by those who are walking apart from the Anglican Communion. What an interesting ecclesiastical world we live in today!

Monday, May 12, 2008

Custodial Responsibility

On several occasions Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori has said that the reason that the Episcopal Church (TEC) is initiating suits against those parishes which are leaving TEC is because we have a responsibility to those who have built the churches and given in the name of the Episcopal Church. TEC has a custodial responsibility for the buildings and their contents for the future of the Church.

It was with some dismay then that I heard from a colleague from another denomination about the condition of St. Andrew’s, Vestal. My friend and her church were looking at a property to buy. They were shown the St. Andrew’s property. It was as if the property had not even changed hands. Prayer books were still in the pews. Choir robes were still in the choir room. The property was up on the blocks, but it was as if there had been no care taken to assess the property and its contents.

Now, I am in no way supportive of St. Andrew’s and its policies of dis-communion. And in no way am I supportive of their leaving the Episcopal Church except that I know that the clergy are happier. But I do have to give them credit for having left the building and the property in healthy way and without damage. The concern I have, is the Diocese of Central New York doing what is necessary to maintain custodial responsibility for the property? There has been no cleaning up of the property. There is some question if the property inside the building has even been accounted for. What is to be done with Altar linens, prayer books, bibles and the lot?

There is no doubt that there are too many Episcopal congregations in Broome County given the wholesale depopulation that has gone on in the county over the past 10-15 years. To close a congregation like St. Andrews because there is no longer a viable congregation to inhabit the building seems to be a considered action. But is this the kind of custodial care that merits the kind of suit against Good Shepherd, a parish in a similar situation as St. Andrews? What will we do with yet another empty building? Certainly the real estate value is not that high given today’s economy.

In such places like Falls Church, VA where there is a viable congregation remaining in TEC and the various churches in San Joachin or Ft. Worth, I can see the need for suits to regain property that has been stolen by the schismatics. But in Central New York, I question the validity of such a suit just to close another church especially when the diocese is doing nothing to ensure the custodial responsibility of the property. Why don’t we just charge Good Shepherd rent?

Then comes the question, cui bono? Where does the money go when these properties are sold? Does it go into the coffers of the diocese to be used to pay for more legal fees or more diocesan meetings that produce nothing? Or does the sale of these properties go for the furtherance of the ministry of Jesus Christ in the Southern Tier?

Christians of the Diocese of Central New York need to be asking questions about the use of the property that the diocese owns. We need to be asking what is to be done with Thornfield, St. Andrew’s in the Valley, Syracuse, St. Andrew’s, Vestal and Good Shepherd, Binghamton before we spend more on legal fees.

PECUSA Violations of Canons

From the Anglican Curmudgeon:

Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Who Will Stand Up for What Is Right?

The matters discussed in this post will seem utterly fantastical to some and overly technical, or even irrelevant and incomprehensible, to others. I place this warning at the outset to save either group from having to struggle through what follows. But if you are one of those who is increasingly concerned by the lack of accountability on the part of the leadership of The Episcopal Church, then by all means read on. If you agree with the conclusions I draw, I would ask that you forward a copy of (or a link to) this post to your diocesan Bishop. And if you are one of the very few in a position actually to do something, it is my prayer that you will take what I say here to heart.

The recent publication of a memorandum analyzing the serious violations of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (and of the Diocese of San Joaquin!) by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, and the report of a simultaneous sabotage of the site where it was originally published, following denouncements of motives and demands by TEC loyalists for the name of the memorandum's author(s), has significantly raised the procedural ante within The Episcopal Church.

On the one side we have the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor, along with her Title IV Review Committee, who have charged the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh with having "abandoned the Communion of this Church" in supposed violation of Canon IV.9. (For a full analysis of why such charges against a Bishop like +Duncan, who has no intention of leaving the Anglican Communion, constitute an abuse of this Canon, see my earlier posts here and here.) Despite the fact that the three senior bishops of the Church refused to agree to the inhibition of Bishop Duncan, the Presiding Bishop has continued to say that she intends to bring a resolution before the House of Bishops at its next meeting to vote on his deposition.

On the other side we have the canon lawyers, who (with the exception of the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor David Booth Beers and his firm) have been unanimous in their opinion that Canon IV.9 cannot be read to allow a vote to depose a Bishop who has not first been inhibited. This result follows from the plain language of the Canon itself:

If a Bishop abandons the communion of this Church . . . it shall be the duty of the Review Committee, by a majority vote of All the Members, to certify the fact to the Presiding Bishop . . . The Presiding Bishop, with the consent of the three seniorBishops having jurisdiction in this Church, shall then inhibit the saidBishop until such time as the House of Bishops shall investigate the matter and act thereon. . . .

Sec. 2. The Presiding Bishop, or the presiding officer, shall forthwith give notice to the Bishop of the certification and Inhibition. Unless the inhibited Bishop, within two months, makes declaration by a Verified written statement to the Presiding Bishop, that the facts alleged in the certificate are false . . . the Bishop will be liable to Deposition. If the Presiding Bishop is reasonably satisfied that the statement [is in good faith], . . . the Presiding Bishop, with the advice and consent of a majority of the three senior Bishops consenting to Inhibition, [shall] terminate the Inhibition. Otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House. If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the Ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.

I have added the bolding in order to show the requirements of the Canon (i) that only a Bishop who has first been inhibited is "liable to Deposition"; (ii) that the inhibition is terminated if the inhibited Bishop makes a satisfactory statement of denial; and (iii) that otherwise, the Presiding Bishop brings the question of deposing the inhibited Bishop to the House for a vote. As the Memorandum referenced above argues, it makes nonsense of the Canon to argue that the sentence beginning "Otherwise . . ." applies to Bishops who have not been inhibited, because then the Canon would lack any provision for voting on a Bishop who has been inhibited.

I say "the canon lawyers have been unanimous" that Canon IV.9 must be so read, because every lawyer's opinion I have seen on the Web reads it that way, while I have yet to read a single legal opinion, signed or otherwise, either on the Web, or published elsewhere, that defends the Presiding Bishop's reading of the Canon (with the exception of her own recent letter to the House of Bishops, which was presumably written by, or with the help of, her Chancellor, but which she alone signed). There have been some differing opinions about the requirement in the Canon that a vote to depose be approved "by a majority of the whole number of the Bishops entitled to vote", but there has not been a single dissenting view expressed , with reasons and logic to back it up, that the Presiding Bishop is justified by the Canon in proceeding as she proposes to do.

The Presiding Bishop appears impervious to an argument based on the plain language of the Canon. As her letter to the House of Bishops indicates, her reading of it is entirely "concept-driven":

These [three senior] bishops who must consent to the temporary inhibition do not, however, have a veto over consideration of the merits of the deposition by the House of Bishops, any more than those who must consent to temporary inhibitions in other circumstances have a veto over consideration of the charges by a trial court.

In other words, the Presiding Bishop sees herself as both chief prosecutor and chief judge, and the refusal of the three senior bishops to go along with her program will not prevent its execution one whit: the language of the Canon to the contrary means not a thing in the face of what the Canon obviously intends conceptually.

This is truly a remarkable impasse. We have the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church announcing for months that she intends to take a manifestly uncanonical act---and while many lay persons in the blogosphere are speaking out against its legality, the vast majority of the clergy in the Church is acting as though nothing is wrong. Indeed, the silence from the House of Bishops (with the exception of Bishop Duncan himself) is deafening. It will be the purpose of this post to show how the Canons themselves could be used (nay, perhaps are being used now, without our knowledge) to bring a halt to this unlawfulness. They can be used at once, if the courage exists to apply them. The mechanisms are in place. Will any of the Bishops use them? Will any of them have the simple Christian courage to stand up for what is right, and do it?

The first thing to note is that the Presiding Bishop must step aside in any case in which she is a Respondent, that is, in which she has to answer to someone else's charges. (Canon IV.3.49.) The same Canon provides that the presiding officer of the House of Bishops takes over her role in any such matter, and if the presiding officer cannot so serve, the Secretary of the House of Bishops shall assume the role. The presiding officer (Vice President) of the House of Bishops is the retired Rt. Rev. Richard S. O. Chang, until 2007 the diocesan of Hawaii, whose term runs until General Convention 2009; the Secretary is the Rt. Rev. Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of Southern Ohio (toggle the link to page 2). In a case involving the Presiding Bishop, Bishop Chang would have to decide if he could act, and if not, the decisions would fall to Bishop Price.

Functioning in the role of the Presiding Bishop for such a case, either Bishop alone would have the power to act on the information at hand, without waiting for anything else to happen. Canon IV.3.23 (b) provides:

Whenever the Presiding Bishop has sufficient reason to believe that any Bishop has committed an Offense and the interests and good order and discipline of the Church require investigation by the Review Committee, the Presiding Bishop shall concisely and clearly inform the Review Committee in writing as to the nature and facts surrounding each alleged Offense but without judgment or comment upon the allegations, and the Review Committee shall proceed as if a Charge had been filed.

Thus whoever substituted for the Presiding Bishop in this case would have the power to proceed without waiting for a charges to be filed, as provided in Canon IV.3.23(a), by the required three bishops, or by at least ten clergy and laity (of whom at least seven---one priest and six lay persons---would have to be from the Diocese of Nevada, where the Presiding Bishop is still canonically resident). Moreover, to stop the unlawful proceeding against Bishop Duncan in its tracks, Bishop Chang (or Bishop Price, if in his stead) could issue a temporary inhibition against the Presiding Bishop forbidding her to introduce the resolution, if they felt that she could not be stopped from proceeding otherwise. Canon IV.1.5(a) provides:

If a Bishop is charged with an Offense or Offenses or serious acts are complained of to the Presiding Bishop that would constitute the grounds for a Charge of an Offense and, in the opinion of the Presiding Bishop, the Charge or complaint of serious acts is supported by sufficient facts, the Presiding Bishop may issue a Temporary Inhibition. The consent of a majority of All the Members of the Standing Committee is required for Bishops with jurisdiction.

The last sentence does not have any application to a case involving the Presiding Bishop, who is not a bishop with jurisdiction over any Diocese with a Standing Committee. (The Presiding Bishop does have jurisdiction over the Convocation of Anglican Churches in Europe, but that is not a Diocese, and it has no Standing Committee.) Thus the temporary inhibition, which Canon IV.1.5(c) says may be issued "without prior notice" to the Bishop involved, and which Canon IV.1.7 says "shall be used sparingly and limited to preventing immediate and irreparable harm to individuals or to the good order of the Church," could in this instance be issued by the acting Presiding Bishop alone. Because the bringing of Bishop Duncan before the House without consent having first been obtained to his inhibition would be an extraordinary violation of the Canons on its own, there is a good argument to be made that the high standard of Canon IV.1.7 could be met in this case---especially since the Presiding Bishop appears to have lowered the bar for such inhibitions by her own temporary inhibition of the elderly Bishop MacBurney, retired diocesan of the Diocese of Quincy, in Illinois, whom she at first thoughtlessly prohibited from taking any clerical role at his own son's funeral.

If this scenario sounds beyond belief, it simply illustrates the degree to which the Presiding Bishop's conduct in this matter is unprecedented, and dangerous for the future polity of the Church. Extraordinary dangers call for extraordinary countermeasures. If Bishops can be deposed by a simple majority vote of those present, and without first being inhibited (as the Presiding Bishop claims was proper in the case of Bishop Cox), then no member of the House of Bishops can feel safe. Today it is the orthodox Anglican wing of the House who are on the block, but once a precedent has been set, it could be used against the liberal wing in the future. Once the rules have been chucked overboard, as Robespierre learned in the French Revolution, no safeguards remain to protect those who advocated their abandonment.

No doubt the matter would not have to go beyond a temporary inhibition, and the Presiding Bishop, caught perhaps by surprise, would come to realize the error of her ways. But if she protested the inhibition to the Title IV Review Committee, as allowed by Canon IV.1.5(d), all of the members of that Committee would have to recuse themselves under Canon IV.14.13, because of their participation in issuing the charges against Bishop Duncan, and also because Bishop Jefferts Schori's letter to the House of Bishops discloses that she has consulted the members of the Review Committee on the propriety of her actions, and they apparently confirmed her improper reading of the Canon. Thus they cannot be impartial, and would have to recuse themselves. Bishop Chang (or Bishop Price) would have to select four Bishops to serve as replacements on the Committee. Because of the role that she played in supporting the Presiding Bishop's uncanonical actions in San Joaquin, Bonnie Anderson of the House of Deputies would probably also have to recuse herself from participating, and her Vice President, the Rev. Brian Prior, of Spokane, would select two priests and two lay persons to make up the eight members of the Committee. It would take a two-thirds majority of the Committee, or six votes, to dissolve or modify the temporary inhibition (Canon IV.1.5 (d)).

Meanwhile, the same substitute Review Committee would have sixty days to meet and consider the charges against the Presiding Bishop under Canon IV.3.40. If it decided to go forward (that is, if the Presiding Bishop was still maintaining she was right), it would transmit its version of the charges to the Church Attorney under the Canons, who is Larry White, Esq. of Philadelphia. (However, since he is handling the proceedings against Bishop MacBurney on behalf of the Presiding Bishop, he might also have to recuse himself. It should also be noted that the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor is excluded from acting for the Review Committee by Canon IV.14.18.)

The Church Attorney in turn has 120 days in which to investigate and to report back to the Review Committee; then the Review Committee has a further 45 days in which to weigh his report and decide whether to go forward with a presentment (Canons IV.3.42 and IV.3.43). (In this work, the Review Committee would be assisted by up to three additional church attorneys whom it could appoint as Lay Assessors under Canon IV.3.35. A "Lay Assessor" is defined in Canon IV.15 as "a duly licensed attorney to advise in matters of law, procedure and evidence affecting a Court or Review Committee in its proceedings.") If it does vote to go forward, it is only then that the charges (in the form of a formal presentment) would be made public: up until that point, Canon IV.3.38 requires that all proceedings be kept confidential.

Thus Bishop Chang (or in his place, Bishop Price) could act in complete confidentiality throughout these entire proceedings I have described; if the Presiding Bishop backed down from her plans to have Bishop Duncan deposed, then the proceedings could be quietly dropped, and no one outside of those involved in the House of Bishops and on the Review Committee would ever know what had taken place. (By the same token, charges brought against the Presiding Bishop by three or more bishops, or by ten or more clergy and laity, could now be pending, and the public would not know of it unless and until a presentment was approved.)

I have saved the most fantastical point of all for the last. Under a little-known Canon, the Presiding Bishop herself could be the instrument of her own correction. Canon IV.3.23 (c) provides:

A Bishop who shall have reason to believe that there are in circulation rumors, reports, or allegations affecting such Bishop's personal or official character, may, acting in conformity with the written advice and consent of any two Bishops of this Church, demand in writing of the Presiding Bishop that investigation of said rumors, reports, and allegations be made. It shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to cause the matter to be investigated and report the results to the requesting Bishop.

Under this Canon, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori could in full confidentiality request two of her colleagues to join her in writing to Bishop Chang (or to Bishop Price, if Bishop Chang recused himself) and in asking that the propriety of bringing the resolution to depose Bishop Duncan be formally investigated. The Canon does not say, but presumably the investigation could be carried out by the replacement Review Committee and by the replacement Church Attorney, as just described. This process would ensure the professional and outside opinions of at least four knowledgeable church attorneys on the proper interpretation of Canon IV.9, would be entirely confidential, and if the attorneys involved are selected impartially for their knowledge and skill in church law, I am confident in predicting that the Presiding Bishop's mistaken reading of the Canon would be refuted. And all this could happen with no loss of face, and no damage to the Presiding Bishop's prestige, since the whole affair would be kept confidential.

Of course, the Presiding Bishop is undoubtedly free to obtain a second (or a third, or a fourth) opinion on her reading from outside counsel at any time herself. She apparently believes she has done so, at least in the cases of "an attorney who is an original member of the [Title IV Review] Committee, the chancellors of several dioceses who have been consulted, and the former Chair of both the Standing Commission on the Constitution and Canons and the Legislative Committee on the Canons at the General Convention." She has not, however, produced a signed legal opinion from any of these persons she describes as having consulted. The process I am pointing out in this post would, unlike the apparently informal and verbal opinions which she solicited from acquaintances and colleagues, result in full and formal written legal opinions authored by independently hired church attorneys, who would not be beholden to Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori for either their compensation or their thinking. If, as I predict, they read the Canon to prohibit its use for Bishop Duncan's deposition, the only persons who need find that out are Bishop Schori, Bishop Chang (or Price), and the replacement members of the Title IV Review Committee. The charges against Bishop Duncan would not be laid before the House in September, and the future of the Episcopal Church, while by no means rosy under its current leadership, would at least not be as grim as it looks now.

Scam Intended to Harm CANA

Please be aware that some who oppose CANA are apparently resorting to rather
vulgar tactics.  Earlier this week Bishop Bena was contacted by a landlord in
Minnesota who informed us that he had received a query from a supposedly
potential tenant who claimed to be from a St Lukes in Southampton England
and who claimed that he was coming to the States in order to work for Bishop
Minns, Bishop Bena, and CANA for about two years.  The tenant further told
the landlord that they were going to send a large check in excess of the
rent with the request that the landlord cash it and buy furniture for the
foreign tenant who would not be able to bring furnishings with them from
England.  Later this week another landlord from Florida called the CANA
Headquarters with the same scenario.

This is a hoax by those who oppose CANA.  CANA trustee Mr. Bill Brinkley,
who works in the banking sector, explained that foreign checks take perhaps
a week or so to clear and that a bank will allow a landlord to withdraw
funds of course up to whatever the landlord has in their bank account even
before the tenant's check clears or bounces.  If the landlord would purchase
the furniture immediately, the landlord will be inconvenienced at best and
shorted at worst once the check bounces -- and the landlord and the bank
will begin to think badly not only about the tenant but also CANA.

Thus, as Bishop David Anderson has explained to the CANA Headquarters,
"Since the sender isn't asking for the "cash back" it is not the typical
type of scheme.  It is a defamation scheme rather than a money-making
scheme."  Bishop Anderson said that by using CANA as a reference, the scam
is attempting to "create ill will and bad reference for CANA, because the
checks will bounce and then the landlord will be out the money and have
unwanted furniture."

Thankfully these two landlords had their wits about them and were able to
contact CANA in order to check the reference.  We pray that no other
landlord has been taken advantage of by this scam.


>>
> 

Graduation at Trinity School for Ministry

This year's graduating class includes the sons of Archbishops Peter Akinola and Mouneer Anis. Akinola is Archbishop of Nigeria and Anis is the Presiding Bishop of the Anglican province of Jerusalem and the Middle East. Akinola will be preaching at the graduation service.

A Comment on a Comment

A comment posted at Stand Firm in response to "The DCNY Way" (The DCNY Way is a DCNY blog editorial that was posted here on 5/8):

The measure of a ‘better’ strategy is inextricably linked to the ultimate goal. Perhaps a ‘better’ strategy could be found if the ultimate goal was to maximize financial return. But I suspect the ultimate goal is not to maximize financial return, but instead to raze Anglican othodoxy, and salt the ground where it stood. In this case, the measure of a successful strategy is the amount of destruction visited upon the orthodox enemy. Liberals are willing to spend vast amounts of money to see that goal achieved. Every action they take gives evidence to the truth of this assertion.

It’s not about the money. It’s about driving the orthodox into the wilderness, and scattering them to the winds.

Response: Churches are not in the business of maximizing financial return; they are in the business of bringing others to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. When funds are directed to other purposes (like lawsuits and paying for empty buildings) the church is failing in its mission.

If the objective of the DCNY is to destroy the orthodox, then the DCNY is not only failing but is also in violation of a number of explicit statements from our Lord Jesus Christ. For example, if we are the enemy, then the DCNY way is in direct conflict with our Lord's exhortation to love your enemy. If we are Christian brethren, then the DCNY way is in direct conflict with our Lord's exhortation to love one another. Again we find that the party that proclaims inclusive love transparently lives in contradiction to their rhetoric.

The strategy of destroying the orthodox in the DCNY has thus far resulted in not one, but two congregations of the orthodox in Syracuse (an AMIA parish and a CANA church plant), another in Vestal and a fourth in Binghamton. While the DCNY pays for two empty buildings in Vestal it will be receiving two more empty buildings in Syracuse and is suing for two more buildings in Binghamton. All the monies spent on legal fees and building expenses are lost to the mission of the church.

Instead of driving the orthodox into the wilderness the DCNY way has resulted in a half dozen or so front page stories in the local newspaper about the orthodox churches of St. Andrew's, Vestal and Good Shepherd in Binghamton. The DCNY has provided for our best publicity while giving themselves several black eyes in the process.

The DCNY talks about being the passionate presence of God, but all I've seen them passionate about is closing the diocesan camp and conference center, persecuting Fr. David Bollinger and suing orthodox parishes. The vast amounts of monies spent are not achieving even the despicable goals of pecusa, let alone godly ones.

The Realignment Continues to Grow

May 09, 2008

The ordinations of four North Shore residents by Bishop Bill Murdoch, dean of
the Network's New England Convocation and bishop in the Province of Kenya, as
well as the licensing of new congregations will be livestreamed on AnglicanTV
Saturday, May 10, beginning at 2 pm EST.

Go to http://www.anglicantv.org/ to watch live.

More information is also available at: http://www.allsaintsamesbury.org/

Archbishop Venables: He came, He saw, He conquered

News Analysis By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
5/6/2008

The Most Rev. Gregory Venables, Archbishop of the Southern Cone, is, at this moment of ecclesiastical history, probably the most revered orthodox Archbishop in the Anglican Communion... and the most reviled.

No Anglican Archbishop in modern history has dived into the turbulent North American ecclesiastical waters of Anglicanism and managed to "offend" not one, but two heads of the most liberal provinces of the Anglican Communion with one single aim - to rescue whole dioceses from the clutches of a decaying, poisonous and self-destructive liberalism.

When he appeared on Canadian soil recently to inaugurate what might, in time, become a rival Anglican Communion, he was greeted with derision and scorn by the ultra-liberal leader of the Anglican Church of Canada, Fred Hiltz who told him in no uncertain terms that he was not welcome in his country and to get lost.

"Stop interfering in the life of this province," Hiltz roared at Venables. Undeterred, Venables noted, in his address to some 400 members of the Anglican Network in Canada, that the Anglican Communion now has two gospels, and that Hiltz has hold of the wrong one.

Venables continued, "It is important that I come because the integrity of the gospel is at stake, and these particular Anglicans are no longer under your authority. This occasion here in Vancouver is momentous. I see a glorious future for Anglicanism in these wonderful men and women."

Whatever "bonds of affection" might have existed between the two men evaporated faster than a used Canadian tea bag. Catholic collegiality and provincial autonomy disappeared into Vancouver's fabled English Bay even while the "faith once for all delivered to the saints" was being upheld in a Baptist Church. Simultaneously, it was being deep-sixed by the poisonous liberal Anglican Bishop of the Diocese of New Westminster, one Michael Ingham.

Venables seized the moment and was not about to let it go for a mess of heretical ecclesiastical pottage which has only served to benefit liberal and revisionist bishops bent on destroying the last vestiges of orthodoxy in their dioceses.

All the nice talk about alternative ecclesiastical oversight, only partially hid a gloved tyrannical fist. The Anglican Church of Canada has become, in the words of the famous Eagles hit, "Hotel California", a place where "You can check out any time, but you can never leave."

From Vancouver, Venables flew to the Diocese of San Joaquin where he was joyfully received with open arms by the bishop of that diocese, John-David Schofield, but not before the interloper bishop Jerry Lamb, who has been force fed to the diocese by Mrs. Katharine Jefferts Schori, told Venables to stay out of the diocese. "I strongly protest your visit to this diocese without my invitation or permission," he wrote to Venables. "Your visit would violate the traditions of the ancient church as understood in the communion." Never mind that the "ancient church" would have severely protested the theology of Bishop Lamb and Mrs. Jefferts Schori. It would have held heresy trials to rid the church of their likes.

In blunt language, Episcopal interloper Lamb told the Argentine Archbishop to stay out the diocese and refrain from preaching and celebrating the Eucharist in St. James Cathedral. "I strongly urge that you cancel your meeting in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin... I also strongly urge you to refrain from interjecting yourself into the internal affairs of the Episcopal Church, the only Anglican Church in the United States."

Venables told VirtueOnline that he had no intention of canceling his trip and would "preach and celebrate the Eucharist" in what is now a diocese under his ecclesiastical authority. Again, the issue of cross-provincial actions was raised and ignored. From Venables' point of view, a defense of the faith is far more important than geographic boundaries. He no doubt sees it as a sort of reverse understanding of the parable of the lost sheep. The evangelical archbishop sallies forth to rescue saved sheep in order to protect them from false shepherds.

From San Joaquin, Venables flew to the Diocese of Ft. Worth, where he was met with open arms by Bishop Jack Leo Iker, but not before Mrs. Jefferts Schori chimed in calling Venables' visit an "invasion". She wrote to Venables saying that his visit to a special convocation of the diocese was "with the expressed purpose of describing removal to the Province of the Southern Cone is an unwarranted invasion of, and meddling in, the internal affairs of this Province."

Venables' message to the diocese was the same message he preached in Vancouver and San Joaquin, "doctrinal impurity leads to moral impurity," hence Bishop Gene Robinson. "But, I want you to know that the vast majority - 95% - of the people in the Anglican Communion believe that this book (holding up his Bible) is the word of God. If you choose to stand on this, you will be standing with the overwhelming majority. That doesn't make it all easy, but it will offer some comfort," he said to roaring approval by the overwhelmingly, predominantly Anglo-Catholic diocese.They couldn't have been happier.

Then Venables took off the gloves off and lit into The Episcopal Church. "In the Communion, 90% of the bishops gathered 10 years ago at Lambeth said what I just said. (Resolution I.10, where the vote was 527 for; 69 against.) The 10% who did not agree said, 'I don't agree with you and I don't care what you say.' The 10% cannot explain why they believe as they do. They will not or cannot tell us why they believe as they do. Believe me, I have asked. Many times. "

At every Primate's meeting, we produced a letter. Starting in Brazil, in the spring of 2003, when Gene Robinson was nominated in New Hampshire, we said, 'Don't do it.' In London after his election, we said, 'Don't do it.' In Dromantine in February of 2004, we said, 'Don't do it."'

"Your presiding bishop walked away from the meeting without telling us he did not agree and did it anyway. We said, 'Why didn't you talk to us about it Did you understand what we were saying to you'?

He responded, 'Yes, I did.'

We asked, 'Did you tell the people in the US what we said'

"He responded, 'No.'

"In Nottingham in 2006, we told your entire delegation that what they were doing was not right, especially with regard to gay marriage. It still continued. They have said that they don't care what we think and will do whatever they want anyway.

"Listening means talking to each other, not sending a small group out to lecture, like the Listening Process. Talking together and listening to each other. Jesus talked with his disciples and the tax collectors. He did this over food, just as we will talk over lunch in a few minutes. You can't listen to people who will not talk and cannot explain why they have adopted the path that they have. We must keep talking to each other today and speak with love and gentleness. Not all of us are in the same place on these issues and the challenge is to leave as friends, not enemies.

"In Tanzania one year ago, we requested alternative covering for the orthodox in the US and Canada. They said no. That's why we are where we are. The Orthodox tried to open the dialogue and they continually stonewalled us.

"In the Anglican Communion, we have no authority over us to resolve these issues. The Primates tried and were told they did not have the authority. The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that he is not a referee. In 1998, The Lambeth Conference spoke and we were ignored because the Communion system is run from the ideal of democratic inclusiveness. All ideas are equal and valid. This ideal is good for some things, but not in determining the Word of God."

When Venables finished, the diocese stood as one and applauded long and hard. There can be little doubt that The Episcopal Church contains and preaches two very different understandings of the Christian Faith, some might say two very different religions are at work; one orthodox, the other heterodox; one Trinitarian, the other fast approaching Unitarianism.

It is an intolerable situation, one that has seen one diocese leave TEC and has three more (Ft. Worth, Quincy and Pittsburgh) ready to leave after the Lambeth Conference in August. Any way the Episcopal Church continues to cut and spin its lies, using the 1% argument of Mrs. Jefferts Schori, the loss of four dioceses representing tens of thousands of dues paying Episcopalians is a loss from which the Episcopal Church will never, ever recover even if it wins all the property disputes. It will have to spends millions in legal fees to accomplish this.

The Episcopal Church has no compelling gospel and no message of saving faith. Rehashing secular UN Millennium Development Goals does not make parishes or dioceses grow. People want to hear more than the Metro section of the Sunday Times or the whine of pansexual behavior in church on a Sunday morning. They come to church to receive spiritual bread. Regrettably and sadly, all they get are stones.
END

Church Times: Conservative bishops head for Lambeth

by a staff reporter

IT IS becoming clear that the conservative case is going to be well represented at the forthcoming Lambeth Conference in Canterbury. At least two conservative bishops have confirmed that they will be attending, with the express purpose of promoting their cause.

One is the Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone, the Most Revd Greg Venables. He told The Times that he would attend both the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in June and the Lambeth Conference in July.

Bishop Venables has been censured in recent weeks for ministering to congregations in Canada and San Joaquin, in the US, without the permission of the Anglican leadership in those provinces, and in contravention of the Windsor process.

He told The Times: “It is clear the division is pretty final. Dialogue is the one thing that is lacking. I don’t think we are going to change people’s minds, but I think it would be wrong for us to get to a point where we acknowledge a division and try to organise it without being together and talking about it.”

The other conservative who has announced his intention to travel to Canterbury is the Bishop of Fort Worth, the Rt Revd Jack Iker. He said last week: “I stand in solidarity with all those bishops who have decided, as a matter of conscience, that they are unable to be at Lambeth. However, given the situation the diocese of Fort Worth finds itself in with the unfolding realignment that is taking place in Anglicanism, I think it is important for me to be there to make our case and to face our detractors.”

It is also understood that the Bishop of Pittsburgh, the Rt Revd Robert Duncan, also plans to be at Lambeth for at least part of the Conference.

The Bishop of New Hampshire, the Rt Revd Gene Robinson, reported last week that he would be unable to preach during his July visit to coincide with the Conference. Although there is no legal bar to his preaching, Bishop Robinson received a letter from the Archbishop’s office asking him not to (See comment). He says that he will do nothing to defy Dr Williams.

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the US, Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori, told a congregation in Dallas that the official church blessing of same-sex relationships would “certainly happen in our lifetimes”. She reported that the 2009 General Convention is likely reconsider the present moratorium.

In the mean time, the conservative Anglican Communion Institute has argued that Dr Jefferts Schori is liable to presentment because of what it says are her violations of the Church’s canons. In her attempts to depose three conservatives, Bishops Cox, Schofield, and Duncan, she had failed to observe the correct procedure, it says. For example, she did not gain consent from a majority in the House of Bishops for the deposition of Bishop Cox.

Williams faces historic choice, says Vatican cardinal

Editor's Note: This article is from The Catholic Herald which bills itself as "Britain's leading Catholic newspaper." Cardinal Kasper's call is one that this editor has addressed in relation to pecusa. It is obvious by the actions of the last forty years that pecusa has diliberately chosen a course that has most recently arrived at sectarian protestant liberalism. Whether this course will be chosen by the Anglican Communion is still to be determined.

By Anna Arco
6 May 2008

A Vatican cardinal has said that the time has come for the Anglican Church to choose between Protestantism and the ancient churches of Rome and Orthodoxy.

Speaking on the day that the Archbishop of Canterbury met Benedict XVI in Rome, Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council of Christian Unity, said it was time for Anglicanism to "clarify its identity".

He told the Catholic Herald: "Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong?

"Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions."

He said he hoped that the Lambeth conference, an event which brings the worldwide Anglican Communion together every 10 years, would be the deciding moment for Anglicanism.

Cardinal Kasper, who has been asked to speak at the Lambeth Conference by the Archbishop of Canterbury, said: "We hope that certain fundamental questions will be clarified at the conference so that dialogue will be possible.

"We shall work and pray that it is possible, but I think that it is not sustainable to keep pushing decision-making back because it only extends the crisis."

His comments will be interpreted as an attempt by Rome to put pressure on the Church of England not to proceed with the ordination women bishops or to sanction gay partnerships, both serious obstacles to unity.

They have come at an extremely sensitive time for the Anglican Communion, as cracks between different factions in the church are beginning to show ahead of the conference in July.

Dr Rowan Williams faces rebellion from conservative and liberal Anglicans over homosexuality and women bishops.

The Rt Rev Gene Robinson, the Anglican bishop of New Hampshire, whose attempts to enter into a civil union with his gay partner have angered conservative Anglicans, plans to attend the public events of the conference despite the fact that he has not been invited by Dr Williams.

On the other side of the spectrum, rebel conservative bishops, headed by Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, dismayed by the Archbishop of Canterbury's refusal to condemn homosexuality outright, plan a rival conference in the Holy Land in June.

Ecumenical dialogue between Rome and the Anglican Communion ground to a halt in 2006. Cardinal Kasper said at the time that a decision by the Church of England to consecrate women bishops would lead to "a serious and long lasting chill".

But last month the Church of England's Legislative Drafting Group published a report preparing the ground for women bishops, who are already ordained in several Anglican provinces.

The DCNY Way

It wasn't that long ago that Bishop Skip Adams talked about finding a positive way forward with dissident parishes in the DCNY that would be a model for pecusa. Instead, he and the other leadership of the DCNY settled for the conventional hostile approach of pecusa. In three cases, St. Andrew's, Syracuse, St. Andrew's, Vestal, and Good Shepherd, Binghamton, the Diocese has sued two parishes and is saddled with the expenses of two church buildings in Vestal (the one of the three not sued).

What does the diocese have to show for their efforts? They have the legal expenses from two lawsuits, one settled and one ongoing and the proceeds from the sale of the rectory in Vestal. Considering that the rectory sold for $145,000, the diocese is operating at a loss thus far from its hostile approach. The diocesan loss is both financial and in reputation. Of course, the diocese has been steadily losing reputation since at least the failed persecution of Fr. David Bollinger.

Legal expenses will mount up as the diocese prepares to wage legal war against Good Shepherd. In addition to these expenses, the DCNY has the mortgage payment for 400 Mirador Road in Vestal and the property expenses for 400 and 401 Mirador.

So much for finding a positive way forward. As the DCNY is finding out, the pecusa hostile approach is costly, but as the DCNY should know by now, there is not sufficient leadership in the diocese to chart a better way.

Note to the DCNY: How Christians Settle Disputes

This pertains to Trinity Church, Vero Beach, FL. ed.

Mediation Settlement Agreement
April 22, 2008
On April 22, 2008, representatives of the two contingents at Trinity Episcopal Church met all day with Mediator John Upchurch, and came to
the following agreement:
1.Those among the congregation who desire to disaffiliate from The Episcopal Church (Leavers) will leave the historic Trinity property by
7/1/08.
2. Those remaining (Stayers) shall cause the sum of $700,000 to be paid to the Leavers with $200,000 being paid in cash upon departure and
the remainder being paid in $50,000 monthly installments. All payments under this paragraph are hereby guaranteed by the
Diocese.
3. The parties agree that they will not initiate any contact with any parishioner who to date has not indicated whether he or she wishes
to remain with Trinity or disaffiliate therefrom for the purpose of soliciting them to stay or leave.
4. The parties shall issue no media releases concerning the disaffiliation except what counsel for the Leavers and Stayers agree upon.
5. The Stayers shall not initiate contact of any kind with current Trinity employees, other than those who manifest their intent in writing to
remain employed by Trinity after the Leavers leave. A meeting, to be presided over by counsel for Leavers and Stayers, will be scheduled
as soon as practicable for the parties to address the staff and answer questions regarding employment.
6. Stayers will not interfere with the ministries and operations of Trinity prior to departure of Leavers.
7. Leavers shall have sole operational authority without interference until the point of departure. The Rector will work in good faith to arrange training and transition for employees of Stayers pending departure.
8. The Bishop or his designee (other than a person affiliated with the Leavers or the Stayers) may conduct any financial review as the Diocese might require to assure the integrity of the assets and accounts of Trinity Church.
9. The Leavers may take the Bell Carillon with them at their own cost for the removal and delivery, subject to the approval of the donor(s).
10. Should Stayers or their successors desire to sell, transfer, lease, or otherwise convey interest in the historic Trinity property, Leavers shall have the right of first offer. Leavers shall have 30 days to accept such offer. If not accepted, Stayers shall have the right to offer the property on the same terms for up to 6 months. If the Stayers desire to modify the terms, the right of first offer commences again. This term shall terminate 10 years from the date of this agreement.
11. Worship services and other ministries shall continue on the historic Trinity property as currently performed through date of departure.
12. Parties agree to waive any rights to any and all lawsuits against any and all parties, except for those concerning enforcement of this agreement.

The entire agreement and Frequently Asked Questions can be found here.

Fr. Tony Clavier: ISOLATIONISM

One of the sure signs that a dominant group in the church is suffering from hardening of the arteries is when it gets defensive and perhaps isolationist. A movement which was full of vigor, freshness and hope, breaking out of the proverbial box, and stretching minds and hearts gradually becomes narrow, legalistic and defensive of its turf.

Such a development is as much a part of our Anglican history as the "golden ages" some love to re-visit for strength and solace. One of the tasks of a historian is to dig into golden ages to reveal, as best one may, that they were perhaps not as golden as they seemed, as well as to examine so called "dead" periods to see just how lifeless they really were. When I was much younger the popular historical view was that the 18th Century church was as dead as the proverbial Dodo until the Evangelicals came along and woke it up. Today a perhaps more measured description is available.

Yet one only has to see just how cross, defensive and miserable, for instance, many Evangelicals became as they faced a triumphant Anglo-Catholicism in the mid-19th Century or note just how "precious" the heirs of the Tractarians became in the mid 20th Century when faced by the earlier Liberals, that is until the Roman Catholic Church pulled the rug from under Anglican Catholics with the reforms of Vatican 2. It is daunting to spent decades introducing rites and ceremonies only to see them undermined by one's heroes. Take a look at some of the writings of the Evangelical Bishop Ryle and the Anglo-Catholic Vernon Staley to see just how defensive church people can get when threatened by other views.

The 1979 American Prayer Book is often derided by conservatives. Its irony remains that in a sense it was the last great triumph of American Anglo-Catholicism at a time when that party was being marginalized by converts to Liberalism in the 60's and 70s. Ascendant parties in Anglicanism often "win" too late!

One only has to read some of the blog sites and list-serves of contemporary establishment Liberalism in our church to see just how institutionalized and defensive its aging adherents have become. Where once they broke the rules in the name of justice they now cling to the Canons and church structure to preserve their achievements. Hope and confidence are now replaced by fear and retrenchment. Perhaps it is not too naughty to detect a similar dynamic at work in our House of Bishops.

Indeed many now espouse an isolationism as stark as its political equivalent in the 1920s. The Anglican Communion, which after World War 2, thanks to great bishops like Stephen Bayne (the first secretary-general of a growing Anglican Communion, whose nurse-maid was the autocrat and conservative Archbishop Fisher of Canterbury who fostered Provincial autonomy in the "colonies" before independence was granted by Great Britain) the American Church took to the ideal of a world Communion and became its largest financial contributor. Now, threatened by the very Provinces which copied American ideas of self-government and autonomy, some American establishmentarians dream of breaking away from pesky foreigners who have the audacity to question Yankee theology and practice. "Who needs a Communion?"

Few are more isolationist, particularly in an attitude to ecumenism, than vocal converts from Roman Catholicism or Fundamentalism who retain their fear of that which they rebelled against and interpret Anglicanism in the light of their personal reaction. Their interpretation of the tradition they have now espoused is often dreadfully flawed and destructive. They see our tradition in almost as lurid terms as late -Reformation Anglicans viewed Rome or Restoration Anglicans viewed Puritanism. Prejudice may often assume the mantle of righteousness and even "justice".

At home the structures of TEC creak and groan under the weight of modern life and opportunity. Tiny dioceses created in the missionary era of our church, strain to support a bishop, diocesan staff and the minimum of program and project necessary for viable diocesan life. The ancient theology which demanded that a diocese have not only a valid bishop in communion with others but also minimal viability is forgotten while a questionable European 16th Century doctrine of a territorial, unitary national church is espoused with great passion. Henry VIII call home! Such a love affair with structure is not the product of vigor and growth. Rather it is espoused because it works for those in power. It preserves our present governing oligarchy. It may not work at parish, diocesan or "provincial" level. It may not even work in the structure of our national church. The problem is that it is "broke" and it needs fixing for the life of the church.

I am not suggesting that the same sort of isolationism and protectionism "writ large" isn't manifest in the not-so loyal opposition to 60s Liberalism and establishmentarianism among us. In fact it is. The solution offered by those "traditionalists" marginalized by an ascendant party which cheerfully broke many essential doctrinal standards and disciplinary practices in the name of "progress" is to break all the rules by wandering off into a hinterland of rival groups which daily grow into themselves as they occupy "safe-ground". In reaction those in authority who speak of inclusion and freedom now cling to church law with fervor. Their job is to protect the church. One remembers a High Priest who said something on those lines.

Yet the real threat to TEC, whatever the causes of a dwindling "membership" is not Africa or the Southern Cone, and certainly not the tiny rump of "traditionalism" within the church, but rather internal collapse through the weight of obsolete institutions. It is certainly true that this is a problem we've faced before. The Baptists got to the frontier first. They walked and were self-creating. Episcopalians and some Presbyterians waited until they could replicate establishment structure, although, thank God, there were enough creative people, full of missionary zeal, to extend the church from the eastern seaboard across the mountains. My own parish here was one of four original parishes planted by Bishop Jackson Kemper. He covered an enormous territory on horseback. Of course he had to create borders, standing committees and vestries, but these were unaccompanied by the weight of regulation and structure which abounds as our parishes and dioceses dwindle. We've possibly created more ecclesiastical law and regulation in the past thirty years than TEC did in the entire 19th Century. Indeed where there seems to be revival it is often because of a core of "extroverted: Christians in place to build and expand despite the system rather than because of the system.

Despite the decline obvious to anyone with an eye to the facts and to anecdotal experience, voices still tell us that "smaller is better" particularly if what results is more homogeneous, more unified, and more on message. Some products can be successful sold to a discreet and upscale market. If we are to confine ourselves to those like ourselves we shall succumb ironically to the sin of many first Christians secure in their heritage, who didn't want or need those pesky Gentiles. Who needs the poor, or the "conservative" or those who lack good taste? Of course we do as a "cause". But how about as a constituency?

Bishop Venables: Communion “Breaking Up Because Nobody is Leading”

From The Living Church:

Posted on: May 6, 2008

The work of amending the Constitution and Canons of the Southern Cone in order to regularize the admission of parishes and dioceses beyond South America is about to begin, according to Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables. The Primate of the Southern Cone made a visit to the Diocese of Fort Worth for a series of meetings with clergy and lay leaders May 2-4.

“The Anglican Communion in the United States has been hijacked,” Bishop Venables said, by an Episcopal Church leadership that doesn’t “mind what happens as long as they control it.

“I am astounded that in America, the land of the free, so many people have been robbed of their freedom,” he said.

Bishop Venables’ visit began with a private meeting of diocesan clergy at the Church of the Holy Apostles in Fort Worth on May 2. The following day, Bishop Venables met with a convocation of elected clergy and lay delegates to the diocesan convention. The convocation also included about 130 visitors who were granted seat, but not voice. There was no voting. On Sunday morning, Bishop Venables preached at St. Vincent’s Cathedral, Bedford, and again later during Evensong at St. Andrew’s, Fort Worth. At each stop on Sunday he answered questions from those present.

Bishop Venables visited the Diocese of Fort Worth at the invitation of its bishop, the Rt. Rev. Jack Iker. In late April, Bishop Venables also visited with Anglicans who have left the Anglican Church of Canada and with the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin in California. Prior to his arrival in Fort Worth, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori wrote a public letter to Bishop Venables. She asked him to cancel his visit in part because it was “an unprecedented and unwarranted invasion of, and meddling in, the internal affairs of this province,” and because it would prevent “needed reconciliation from proceeding” within The Episcopal Church.

“This is not about schism,” Bishop Venables said. “Schism is separation on secondary issues. This is [a question of] essentials.

“You [in the Diocese of Fort Worth] must decide whether or not you can stand with a group of people who have denied that Jesus is the Son of God and that the Bible is the Word of God.”

Should clergy and lay delegates to the annual convention in Fort Worth next November vote a second time to amend the diocesan articles of incorporation and leave The Episcopal Church, the Province of the Southern Cone has invited the diocese to affiliate on an “emergency and pastoral basis” despite the fact that the Southern Cone’s constitution currently limits member dioceses to those geographically located in the countries of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. Last December, the Province of the Southern Cone welcomed the Diocese of San Joaquin after its convention voted a second time to amend its bylaws and disaffiliate from The Episcopal Church.

Despite articles of incorporation which seem to prohibit welcoming overseas dioceses and licensing deposed clergy and bishops for ministry in other Anglican provinces, Bishop Venables said he felt compelled to act so that brother and sister Anglicans can “get on with their ministry.

“If we don’t do something,” he said, “we are complicit.”

This was the same motivation behind his recent decision to attend the Lambeth Conference in July, he said.

“Somebody’s got to go and say the house is on fire,” he said. “Things are breaking up because nobody is leading, and that really worries me.”

In each venue, Bishop Venables told those present that the troubles in Anglicanism can be traced to doubt of the word of God (beginning with the words of the serpent in Genesis 2) and doubt that Jesus is the Son of God (the tempter in the wilderness in Matthew 4).

“I believe that the division at the present moment is about how we define Christianity: that God has spoken, that [the Bible] is the word of God, that Jesus is the incarnate Word of God, and that he is the only means of reconciliation with God. That marks the foundational truth of true Christianity.”

Suzanne Gill

This Should Sound Vaguely Familiar

From National Review Online:

Saving Methodism
The struggle within reflects the struggles without.

By Mark Hemingway

The United Methodist Church is holding its general conference in Fort Worth, Texas, this week. Every four years, a representative delegation of the largest Methodist denomination in the United States meets to hash out theological issues and resolve political debates.

The General Conference is a source of much tension, because the United Methodists have for some time been on the verge of a split. Bible-oriented traditionalists find themselves opposing a leadership that is dragging the church in a direction defined by liberal political activism. The same schism is developing in a lot of Protestant church bodies.

While American conservatives have focused resources and talent on highlighting the alleged takeover of academic and political institutions by liberal activists since the 1960s, comparably little attention has been paid to the same development in churches.

When it comes to honestly assessing the problem of politicization, the liberal leadership of mainline church denominations lives in Bizarro World. In a 25-minute video produced just prior to the General Conference by the group Talk to Action, United Methodist Bishop Beverly Shamana claims that “They have targeted mainline denominations — Presbyterian, Episcopalian, UCCs, United Methodist Church. And they are vigilant at watching what we’re doing, undermining the work that we are doing and clearly their agenda and their mission is to dismantle our church — our denominations.”

Who is this “they,” you might ask? In the same video, Jim Naughton, the director of communications for the Washington D.C., Episcopal diocese, claims “we’re dealing with an attack funded by the same donors who have funded the establishment of the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, who fund The American Spectator magazine — the whole sort of intellectual infrastructure of the far right wing in this country has decided to target our mainline churches because it doesn’t like where they stand on social issues, on economic issues and to some extent on theological issues.”

Apparently, Naughton doesn’t pay much attention to the Episcopal Church’s own membership rolls: It’s not just the vast right wing conspiracy that has a problem with the politicization of these churches. It’s the laity that objects, and they’ve been voting with their feet. Nearly every one of these church bodies has been hemorrhaging members for decades now.

Case in point: the United Church of Christ, which has been grabbing headlines as the denomination of Barack Obama and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has lost some 40 percent of its membership over the last 40 years. When the Wright scandal broke, the church leadership vigorously defended Wright and his comments on the church's website and elsewhere. Is it any wonder that a church body that would embrace him is unpopular? The scandal with Wright isn't just that his views may represent a particular politician; it’s also that his identity politics and arrogance may reflect those of many denominational leaders.

However, some members of the laity are fighting back. Back in Fort Worth, a number of United Methodist groups are uniting to make sure their church body remains truer to John Wesley than Nancy Pelosi. These groups, such as Confessing Movement, Good News/Renew, Transforming Congregations, and UMAction, have united under the banner of the Renewal and Reform Coalition to organize against the liberal factions at the General Conference.

To increase its political power, the Renewal and Reform Coalition reached out to foreign Methodists. The United Methodists have approximately eight million members in the United States, making it one of the largest denominations here. But maybe not for long — that’s down from over 11 million in 1990.

Meanwhile, the United Methodist Church currently has some 3.5 million additional members worldwide. That’s up from 1.2 million in 1999, and except for a few hundred thousand members in the Philippines and Europe, they reside in Africa. As Ray Nothstine noted on the blog of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, “African Methodists are much more conservative and evangelical than America’s contemporary brand of Methodism. Denominational leaders in Africa are becoming more critical in their rebuke of United Methodist leaders in the U.S. Additionally, they are speaking refreshingly about the timeless truths of Evangelical Christianity and evangelism.”

Naturally, the Renewal and Reform Coalition saw the African delegation to the United Methodists’ General Conference as allies. “We calculated that even here, close to 30 percent of the delegates were U.S. evangelicals, and then internationals were close to 30 percent, so at least on paper [we had] a majority,” Mark Tooley, the United Methodist Action director at the Institute on Religion and Democracy and author of Taking Back the United Methodist Church, told National Review Online. “But since it’s a brand-new majority, you can’t really call it an effective working majority.”

In order to help the emerging majority work better toward its goals, the Renewal and Reform Coalition threw a reception for the members of the African delegation when they arrived in Ft. Worth. The coalition also provided leaders of the delegation with cell phones to use during their stay so the two groups could communicate at the General Conference.

How did the United Methodist leadership react to this burgeoning alliance? Incredibly, they accused the Renewal and Reform Coalition of racism. A member of the church’s Orwellian-sounding “joint monitoring team” from the Commission on the Status and Role of Women and the Commission on Religion and Race declared to the laughably biased United Methodist News Service that providing cell phones “is inappropriate behavior and it destroys community. We have gathered for Christian conferencing, which requires trust, honesty, openness and respect. Whenever there is an imbalance of power relationships with the expectation of reciprocity, this behavior gives the appearance of paternalism, manipulation, exploitation and of course, racism.”

Given that the African delegation has been quite outspoken in its theological and political views, the idea that they could be swayed so cheaply is absurd. Even more troubling than this amazingly patronizing attitude is that at past General Conferences, free meals, gift baskets, and other tokens have been offered by those supporting the political agenda of the church hierarchy to the international delegations. But the use of cell phones, provided by the reformers, is a bridge too far.

But hypocrisy is the least troublesome thing here, especially when church officials have the gall to accuse others of racism. Here at the General Conference, the church leaders gladly hide behind kangaroo “monitoring teams,” to claim there’s a speck in their opponent’s eye while ignoring the log in their own.

In recent years strife has also been centered on electing members to the United Methodists’ top court, which had become the primary enforcing mechanism for the church’s prohibitions against practicing gay clergy — which has been a major point of contention at every General Conference since 1972.

“We had the elections to the Judicial Council Monday and there had been a conservative majority on that court and the bishops and the liberal caucus groups supported an alternative slate, which excluded all Africans, and they won with that,” Tooley said. “It was revealing that they would not nominate anyone from where over 30 percent of the church now lives.” That this 30 percent happens to reside in Africa makes one wonder how these same groups have the temerity to run around calling others racist.

However, the Methodist leadership is right to worry about “imbalance of power” — it’s just not the Africans who are threatened. Given the African Methodists’ incredible growth and increasingly large delegation at a time when American Methodists are losing a thousand members a week, the balance of power is tilting in their favor. “By 2012 the internationals will probably be up to 40 percent of the church and certainly by then it will be a working majority,” notes Tooley. The Methodists’ current church leadership has every incentive to wield power and silence the Africans while they can.

Jeremiah Wright is still the big religion news story of the week. There’s nothing the chattering class enjoys more than decrying the negative effects of religion in our political debates. Meanwhile, not many people will care about or even notice the events in Fort Worth. But for those hardy Christians paying attention, it should serve as a powerful reminder that the problem of politics in our religious institutions is often far more destructive.

— Mark Hemingway is an NRO staff reporter.

— Mark Hemingway is a writer in Washington, D.C.

Addendum in light of the Presiding Bishop’s April 30, 2008 Letter to the House of Bishops

Written by Confidential to ACI
Tuesday, 06 May 2008

A defense now proffered by the Presiding Bishop and her supporters is that the same procedures were followed in the recent cases of Bishops Davies and Moreno. Past violations of the canon’s clear provisions are said to justify current ones. In considering this defense, it is necessary to distinguish three senses of “precedent” in legal usage. One is the well-known sense of precedent as a formal ruling on a legal issue by a competent juridical body. This is clearly not the case here as no one has suggested that the prior cases were determined to be canonical by any body reviewing the canonical issues. These cases are not offered as reasoned legal rulings, but as a fait accompli.


A second sense of precedent is that in which the actions of parties to a contract are used to interpret terms that are vague or ambiguous. In civil law this concept is referred to as “course of performance,” and this type of precedent is often used as an aid to interpretation for vague or ambiguous contractual terms such as those relating to timeliness or quality. For example, terms like “promptly” or “standard grade” are ones that can sometimes be interpreted by the parties’ performance. The applicability of this principle can be seen in the present context by noting that the meaning of the vague term “forthwith” in Canon IV.9 is given meaning by the Presiding Bishop’s own action in giving notice to Bishop Schofield within 48 hours of receiving the certification from the Review Committee. But the requirements of inhibition in IV.9 and for consent by a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote are not vague or ambiguous terms. They are expressed in mandatory language using precise terms that are clearly defined and used elsewhere in the canons. Express terms control when in conflict with arguable interpretations based on prior actions.

The third type of precedent is one that is often encountered in commercial litigation and corporate law. This is when clear contractual or legal duties are repeatedly violated. Here the past misconduct is to no avail absent an explicit waiver. Especially relevant to the current context is a pattern familiar to any corporate lawyer: that of a closely-held corporation that does not follow its own bylaws. Such corporations, owned by one or a small number of shareholders, have many of the same duties in terms of corporate formalities and procedural regularity as public corporations traded on national stock exchanges. Corporate law requires that proper procedures be followed in order for an enterprise to receive legal recognition and protection as a corporation. Often the sole shareholder of a corporation pays no attention to these formalities or the requirements of the corporate bylaws. The business is simply run as the shareholder sees fit.

But when the litigation arises and a hostile party asks the court to disregard the corporate form and permit a suit directly against the shareholder, those past “precedents” of ignoring the corporate rules are to no avail. In fact, the naked “we’ve done it this way before” becomes evidence for the other side, the primary evidence that the corporate form is a sham. The frequent result in such cases is that the law disregards the corporate form --it “pierces the corporate veil”-- and the shareholder’s assets are no longer protected as intended by the corporation. Corporations that seek the law’s recognition must follow the legal requirements and their own rules. Past malfeasance is not a defense; to the contrary it is proof of a pattern of abuse that exacerbates the current violation. It is a supreme irony that Bishop Lamb is now petitioning the California courts to defer to TEC’s polity and recognize him as the bishop of San Joaquin when the clear provisions of TEC’s canons indicate Bishop Schofield has not been lawfully deposed.

From: The Anglican Communion Institute