But it's not response angry 'gay' activists demanded, apologizes for underestimating public sex problem
Posted: July 24, 2007
6:14 p.m. Eastern
WorldNetDaily.com
The Fort Lauderdale, Fla., mayor whose campaign against anonymous sex in public bathrooms has riled the homosexual community, issued an "apology" in front of City Hall this afternoon.
But "gay" activists are even angrier now after hearing Mayor Jim Naugle tell reporters he was apologizing for underestimating the problem, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported.
The paper captured the news conference on video.
Naugle said the problem of men having sex with men in bathrooms was much worse than he realized and urged citizens to call police when they witness it.
"I want to apologize to the children and parents of our community, for not being aware of the problem," the mayor said.
Naugle pointed to a website about "cruising for sex'' that recommends two city parks and asked "responsible members of the homosexual community'' to help him remove the facilities from the listing, the paper reported.
Broward County, which markets its tourist attractions to the "gay" community, leads the nation in the incidence of new AIDS cases involving men having sex with men, the mayor pointed out.
Homosexual activists began calling for a public apology from Naugle and for his resignation after the Sun-Sentinel reported the mayor contended his city had a problem with "homosexual activity" in public restrooms that could be curbed with robotic, or automated toilets that automatically open the door after a specified time.
Naugle also said he uses the term "homosexual'' rather than "gay,'' because gays are "unhappy."
The Sun-Sentinel said the mayor's stance led to formation of a group called Unite Fort Lauderdale, which planned to hold a rally later today featuring speeches from elected officials.
As lightning flashed during the press conference today, a minister standing with Naugle, Rev. O'Neal Dozier, raised his eyebrows to local homosexual activist Anthony Niedwiecki, whose partner, Waymon Hudson, leads Unite Fort Lauderdale, according to the Florida paper.
"It's raining on you!'' Niedwiecki shouted back
After Naugle turned from the microphones and walked back to the City Hall entrance, protesters shouted at him: "You should be ashamed," "Shame, shame," "Resign" and "You're an embarrassment to our city."
Two weeks ago, the homosexual activist group Equality Florida responded to Naugle's plan to install the automatic toilets by launching a drive to engulf city hall with toilet paper.
"We are encouraging people to mail either a roll or several sheets of toilet paper to the mayor at City Hall to help him to wipe his dirty mind clean," said group spokesman Brian Winfield.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
A message from The Rev. Canon David C. Anderson
A message from The Rev. Canon David C. Anderson
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
Beloved in Christ,
It was just a week ago that the Global South Steering Committee released a statement which touched on conditions in both the United States and the
global communion, and suggested that other meetings separate from the
Lambeth Conference might be called for. Some readers have raised questions about the form of the statement, particularly why it didn¹t have a "Pauline" salutation. I suspect that the form is the answer: it is not a letter, it is a statement. I also suspect that in this world of email, cell phones and faxes, those in attendance and those remotely located were able to communicate adequately in order to validate the content and force of resolve that the final message conveyed.
The Communiqué Compliance Office has released its fourth report on the state of the American Episcopal Church¹s compliance (or lack thereof) to the Tanzanian demands. A copy of the report is posted on the AAC website and may be downloaded. In electronic form the report has web links which take you to a copy of original texts cited. In print form you lose the electronic links.
With increased awareness of the scope of the strategic litigation that the
Episcopal Church is sponsoring against local church congregations, vestries,
and vestry members individually and personally, it raises several questions.
First, is it safe to serve on an Episcopal Church vestry, since the
Episcopal Church is disregarding both federal and state legal protection
granted to volunteer (unpaid) individuals who agree to serve on non-profit
boards of directors? This is doubly troublesome since a few important insurance companies, who purportedly issue Directors and Officers Liability Insurance which is routinely purchased by churches, are refusing to provide legal defense or coverage for the vestries and individuals once they are sued. The second major question is, "Where is all the money coming from to wage this litigation campaign by TEC?" Various possibilities have been suggested based on remarks made by some Episcopal Church officials, and speculation about the handling of TEC finances is not healthy for TEC itself. The American Anglican Council, representing many parishes, clergy and individuals still within TEC therefore calls on the Episcopal Church to make the funding for the litigations underway and the source of the funding open and transparent for all to see. To this end the AAC applauds the request that several TEC bishops have made to the administration of TEC for financial transparency with regard to the litigation efforts.
It was a great sorrow months ago to learn that the Presiding Bishop had
ruled against the Diocese of South Carolina pertaining to the form of their
Bishop Election Confirmation documents. The ruling cancelled the election
and has forced the diocese to rerun the process, although at an accelerated rate. Now we discover that the same Presiding Bishop has two sets of rules, one for her enemies and one for her friends. She doesn¹t like South Carolina (and the Chancellor David Booth Beers certainly doesn¹t either) so their election is null and void. Virginia, on the other hand, is considered a friend of the Presiding Bishop and the Chancellor, and when they use a non-canonical form to report the confirmations for their bishop-elect, no issue is made, all is wonderful, and the consecration of the new bishop is now history. It is sometimes said by those of the world that all is fair in love and war. Well, this certainly isn¹t love, so orthodox dioceses should be well advised.
Speaking of love and war, Trinity Church, Wall Street, probably the wealthiest church in the world, has decided to cooperate with the TEC plan
to use money to try to fracture the Global South unity. Trinity Church hosted a summit meeting in Madrid, Spain, inviting Global South bishops to
sit down with Episcopal Church leaders and talk about mission opportunities
in their dioceses. When the Israelites left Egypt, fleeing Pharaoh's army,
they took Egyptian gold with them. Although we would advise orthodox bishops against going to lunch with the spider, if you have any of the spider's gold, get out of the web as fast as you can.
The Archbishop of York, His Grace John Sentamu has publicly remarked that other than the sexual issues, there is really nothing wrong with the orthodoxy of the Episcopal Church. We are afraid he speaks of things he does not know about. Sexuality is a tertiary issue. The most dangerous issues are TEC's abandonment of orthodoxy concerning the person of Jesus Christ and the authority of Holy Scripture. In reality, if we lose Jesus and the Bible out of the Anglican faith, why would we care about the sexuality issue?
The issues which confront the American and Canadian churches are not isolated to North America, and the division is touching England itself. Reports coming to us from the UK indicate that up to ten orthodox diocesan and suffragan bishops may stay away from the Lambeth Conference unless the issues are satisfactorily dealt with.
As this Weekly Update goes to press, representatives of the Anglican
Communion Network are traveling to Bedford, Texas for an annual ACN Council meeting. A great deal has changed since the last meeting a year ago. The Council will take stock of the reality of the current landscape and chart a path forward for orthodoxy. Elections are scheduled for this meeting for both the Moderator and Secretary positions. We will bring you news next week of the progress reported at the Council meeting.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
Beloved in Christ,
It was just a week ago that the Global South Steering Committee released a statement which touched on conditions in both the United States and the
global communion, and suggested that other meetings separate from the
Lambeth Conference might be called for. Some readers have raised questions about the form of the statement, particularly why it didn¹t have a "Pauline" salutation. I suspect that the form is the answer: it is not a letter, it is a statement. I also suspect that in this world of email, cell phones and faxes, those in attendance and those remotely located were able to communicate adequately in order to validate the content and force of resolve that the final message conveyed.
The Communiqué Compliance Office has released its fourth report on the state of the American Episcopal Church¹s compliance (or lack thereof) to the Tanzanian demands. A copy of the report is posted on the AAC website and may be downloaded. In electronic form the report has web links which take you to a copy of original texts cited. In print form you lose the electronic links.
With increased awareness of the scope of the strategic litigation that the
Episcopal Church is sponsoring against local church congregations, vestries,
and vestry members individually and personally, it raises several questions.
First, is it safe to serve on an Episcopal Church vestry, since the
Episcopal Church is disregarding both federal and state legal protection
granted to volunteer (unpaid) individuals who agree to serve on non-profit
boards of directors? This is doubly troublesome since a few important insurance companies, who purportedly issue Directors and Officers Liability Insurance which is routinely purchased by churches, are refusing to provide legal defense or coverage for the vestries and individuals once they are sued. The second major question is, "Where is all the money coming from to wage this litigation campaign by TEC?" Various possibilities have been suggested based on remarks made by some Episcopal Church officials, and speculation about the handling of TEC finances is not healthy for TEC itself. The American Anglican Council, representing many parishes, clergy and individuals still within TEC therefore calls on the Episcopal Church to make the funding for the litigations underway and the source of the funding open and transparent for all to see. To this end the AAC applauds the request that several TEC bishops have made to the administration of TEC for financial transparency with regard to the litigation efforts.
It was a great sorrow months ago to learn that the Presiding Bishop had
ruled against the Diocese of South Carolina pertaining to the form of their
Bishop Election Confirmation documents. The ruling cancelled the election
and has forced the diocese to rerun the process, although at an accelerated rate. Now we discover that the same Presiding Bishop has two sets of rules, one for her enemies and one for her friends. She doesn¹t like South Carolina (and the Chancellor David Booth Beers certainly doesn¹t either) so their election is null and void. Virginia, on the other hand, is considered a friend of the Presiding Bishop and the Chancellor, and when they use a non-canonical form to report the confirmations for their bishop-elect, no issue is made, all is wonderful, and the consecration of the new bishop is now history. It is sometimes said by those of the world that all is fair in love and war. Well, this certainly isn¹t love, so orthodox dioceses should be well advised.
Speaking of love and war, Trinity Church, Wall Street, probably the wealthiest church in the world, has decided to cooperate with the TEC plan
to use money to try to fracture the Global South unity. Trinity Church hosted a summit meeting in Madrid, Spain, inviting Global South bishops to
sit down with Episcopal Church leaders and talk about mission opportunities
in their dioceses. When the Israelites left Egypt, fleeing Pharaoh's army,
they took Egyptian gold with them. Although we would advise orthodox bishops against going to lunch with the spider, if you have any of the spider's gold, get out of the web as fast as you can.
The Archbishop of York, His Grace John Sentamu has publicly remarked that other than the sexual issues, there is really nothing wrong with the orthodoxy of the Episcopal Church. We are afraid he speaks of things he does not know about. Sexuality is a tertiary issue. The most dangerous issues are TEC's abandonment of orthodoxy concerning the person of Jesus Christ and the authority of Holy Scripture. In reality, if we lose Jesus and the Bible out of the Anglican faith, why would we care about the sexuality issue?
The issues which confront the American and Canadian churches are not isolated to North America, and the division is touching England itself. Reports coming to us from the UK indicate that up to ten orthodox diocesan and suffragan bishops may stay away from the Lambeth Conference unless the issues are satisfactorily dealt with.
As this Weekly Update goes to press, representatives of the Anglican
Communion Network are traveling to Bedford, Texas for an annual ACN Council meeting. A great deal has changed since the last meeting a year ago. The Council will take stock of the reality of the current landscape and chart a path forward for orthodoxy. Elections are scheduled for this meeting for both the Moderator and Secretary positions. We will bring you news next week of the progress reported at the Council meeting.
Defining Anglicanism in Today’s World
Thursday July 26th 2007, 11:05 am
Letter in the Church of England Newspaper July 26 2007
Dear Sir
Some recent statements have raised the question of what defines being an Anglican church. It is worth remembering that a number of Anglican churches have already pointed out that Anglican churches have from their beginnings seen themselves as part of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church. That is much more than a matter of formal conformity with a particular see or institution, or attendance at a specific gathering within the Communion, no matter how venerable. It is, rather, founded on a commitment to faithfulness to the scriptures as the supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct and the catholic creeds. That commitment requires agreement in faith, holiness of life, and biblically faithful teaching. Only thus can the leaders of our churches enable the Communion to remain part of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church, positioned for global mission.
Yours sincerely,
The Most Rev Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney
The Rt Rev Wallace Benn, Bishop of Lewes and President of the Church of England Evangelical Council
The Rt Rev Colin Bazley, Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Chester and former Primate of the Southern Cone
Canon Ben Enwuchola, Chaplain to the Nigerian Community in Britain
Letter in the Church of England Newspaper July 26 2007
Dear Sir
Some recent statements have raised the question of what defines being an Anglican church. It is worth remembering that a number of Anglican churches have already pointed out that Anglican churches have from their beginnings seen themselves as part of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church. That is much more than a matter of formal conformity with a particular see or institution, or attendance at a specific gathering within the Communion, no matter how venerable. It is, rather, founded on a commitment to faithfulness to the scriptures as the supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct and the catholic creeds. That commitment requires agreement in faith, holiness of life, and biblically faithful teaching. Only thus can the leaders of our churches enable the Communion to remain part of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church, positioned for global mission.
Yours sincerely,
The Most Rev Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney
The Rt Rev Wallace Benn, Bishop of Lewes and President of the Church of England Evangelical Council
The Rt Rev Colin Bazley, Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Chester and former Primate of the Southern Cone
Canon Ben Enwuchola, Chaplain to the Nigerian Community in Britain
Bishops threaten to boycott Lambeth Conference
Ruth Gledhill
The Times of London Religion Correspondent
Six out of ten senior Church of England bishops could boycott next year’s Lambeth Conference of more than 800 Anglican bishops and archbishops from around the world because of the row over gays.
Such a boycott would be unprecedented in the history of the Anglican Church and would be an indication of how deep the divisions go, in England as well as in the rest of the communion.
The fifth most senior bishop in the mother church of the Anglican Communion warns today that a majority of English diocesan bishops could consider a boycott if the US does not row back on its pro-gay agenda.
A UK boycott would confirm the gravity of the splits within even the Church of England, traditionally the model for Anglicanism’s “via media”. It would effectively spell the end of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s dream of maintaining unity.
Related Links
* Church stops schism with gay expulsion plan
* African bishops ready to boycott
* Gay bishop invited to Lambeth
The Bishop of Winchester, the Right Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, was speaking to tomorrow's Church of Ireland Gazette, the journal of the Anglican Church in Ireland.
He tells the Gazette that as many as six in ten diocesan bishops, from the Church’s evangelical and Anglican-Catholic wings, would be “constrained” in their protest by their loyalty to Dr Rowan Williams. Speaking to The Times he said later, "The point I was making was that they are having to think about it".
Dr Williams is currently on study leave but earlier this week the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, pleaded with archbishops and bishops from the Global South group of churches not to boycott the ten-yearly gathering, due to take place at Kent University next July.
Dr Williams issued his invitations to Lambeth earlier this year, leaving off eight bishops, including the openly gay Gene Robinson, whose consecration in 2003 sparked the current controversy. The Times has learned that Bishop Robinson is however to be invited as a guest in a non-voting capacity. The deadline for bishops tor respond to the invitations is the end of July, next Tuesday.
Bishop Scott-Joynt says in the Gazette that for a boycott not to take place, the bishops of The Episcopal Church must meet the demands of the recent Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam.
In their communique, the Primates gave the US bishops until September 30 to agree to “make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions” and “confirm that... a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion.”
The Primates warned that “if the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.”
Dr Williams will himself be attending the September meeting in the US as one of his first duties on returning from study leave. At an initial meeting in March, the US bishops rejected the Primates’ demands.
Bishop Scott-Joynt warns in the Gazette that if the bishops of The Episcopal Church do not meet the demands of the Dar es Salaam Primates’ Meeting by the 30 September deadline, and if the bishops of the Global South decline to attend next year’s Lambeth Conference, six in ten English bishops could stay away.
At a meeting in London last week, Global South leaders warned that they would be unable to take part in the Lambeth Conference without “discipline” and “reconciliation” in the Communion.
They said in a statement: “To be present but unable to participate in sacramental fellowship would all the more painfully demonstrate our brokenness.”
Several of the bishops who have not been invited have been consecrated by Global South leaders to serve traditionalist parishes in the US.
The Global South leaders said: “The polarization surrounding the Lambeth meeting has been exacerbated because we are also unable to take part in an event from which a number of our own bishops have been arbitrarily excluded while those whose actions have precipitated our current crisis are included.”
The Times of London Religion Correspondent
Six out of ten senior Church of England bishops could boycott next year’s Lambeth Conference of more than 800 Anglican bishops and archbishops from around the world because of the row over gays.
Such a boycott would be unprecedented in the history of the Anglican Church and would be an indication of how deep the divisions go, in England as well as in the rest of the communion.
The fifth most senior bishop in the mother church of the Anglican Communion warns today that a majority of English diocesan bishops could consider a boycott if the US does not row back on its pro-gay agenda.
A UK boycott would confirm the gravity of the splits within even the Church of England, traditionally the model for Anglicanism’s “via media”. It would effectively spell the end of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s dream of maintaining unity.
Related Links
* Church stops schism with gay expulsion plan
* African bishops ready to boycott
* Gay bishop invited to Lambeth
The Bishop of Winchester, the Right Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, was speaking to tomorrow's Church of Ireland Gazette, the journal of the Anglican Church in Ireland.
He tells the Gazette that as many as six in ten diocesan bishops, from the Church’s evangelical and Anglican-Catholic wings, would be “constrained” in their protest by their loyalty to Dr Rowan Williams. Speaking to The Times he said later, "The point I was making was that they are having to think about it".
Dr Williams is currently on study leave but earlier this week the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, pleaded with archbishops and bishops from the Global South group of churches not to boycott the ten-yearly gathering, due to take place at Kent University next July.
Dr Williams issued his invitations to Lambeth earlier this year, leaving off eight bishops, including the openly gay Gene Robinson, whose consecration in 2003 sparked the current controversy. The Times has learned that Bishop Robinson is however to be invited as a guest in a non-voting capacity. The deadline for bishops tor respond to the invitations is the end of July, next Tuesday.
Bishop Scott-Joynt says in the Gazette that for a boycott not to take place, the bishops of The Episcopal Church must meet the demands of the recent Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam.
In their communique, the Primates gave the US bishops until September 30 to agree to “make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions” and “confirm that... a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion.”
The Primates warned that “if the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.”
Dr Williams will himself be attending the September meeting in the US as one of his first duties on returning from study leave. At an initial meeting in March, the US bishops rejected the Primates’ demands.
Bishop Scott-Joynt warns in the Gazette that if the bishops of The Episcopal Church do not meet the demands of the Dar es Salaam Primates’ Meeting by the 30 September deadline, and if the bishops of the Global South decline to attend next year’s Lambeth Conference, six in ten English bishops could stay away.
At a meeting in London last week, Global South leaders warned that they would be unable to take part in the Lambeth Conference without “discipline” and “reconciliation” in the Communion.
They said in a statement: “To be present but unable to participate in sacramental fellowship would all the more painfully demonstrate our brokenness.”
Several of the bishops who have not been invited have been consecrated by Global South leaders to serve traditionalist parishes in the US.
The Global South leaders said: “The polarization surrounding the Lambeth meeting has been exacerbated because we are also unable to take part in an event from which a number of our own bishops have been arbitrarily excluded while those whose actions have precipitated our current crisis are included.”
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Central New York Defends Its Defiance of Court Order
07/25/2007
The Diocese of Central New York has defended its decision not to comply with an ecclesiastical court order in the trial of the Rev. David Bollinger, former rector of St. Paul’s Church, Owego, who was facing presentment charges.
An ecclesiastical court exonerated Fr. Bollinger of all charges July 17 after the diocese was 13 days’ late filing its witness list and documentary evidence with the court as part of pre-trial discovery. The Rt. Rev. Gladstone B. Adams, Bishop of Central New York, has lifted the inhibition order against Fr. Bollinger, whose status becomes that of a retired priest canonically resident in good standing, according to the Rev. Canon Karen C. Lewis, canon to the ordinary.
Bishop Adams charged Fr. Bollinger with financial misconduct and disobedience and inhibited him in 2005. Fr. Bollinger maintained his innocence and contended that the charges were an attempt to punish him after he continued a public campaign for an investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against a priest who served as rector of St. Paul’s during the 1970s. That person voluntarily renounced his orders in 2006 after a diocesan review panel recommended that presentment charges be drawn up against him.
In an interview with The Living Church, Canon Lewis described the case as complex with numerous rulings and motions prior to the start. She said it was regrettable that during the trial the court refused to consider any of the more than 1,000 pages of documentary evidence against Fr. Bollinger that the church attorney had prepared. She defended the diocese’s decision to withhold what became known as the Shafer Report from the court, describing it as a “privileged piece of attorney-client work product.”
The Shafer Report is identified with the last name of a previous church attorney retained by the diocese after Fr. Bollinger accused the former financial controller for the diocese of improperly gaining access to his personal financial records. In a letter to clergy after completion of the investigation, the diocese quoted a paragraph from the report, but the report itself has not been made public and there are no plans to do so, Canon Lewis said.
Steve Waring
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion not available online, read The Living Church magazine each week. Call 1-800-211-2771 to start your subscription.
The Diocese of Central New York has defended its decision not to comply with an ecclesiastical court order in the trial of the Rev. David Bollinger, former rector of St. Paul’s Church, Owego, who was facing presentment charges.
An ecclesiastical court exonerated Fr. Bollinger of all charges July 17 after the diocese was 13 days’ late filing its witness list and documentary evidence with the court as part of pre-trial discovery. The Rt. Rev. Gladstone B. Adams, Bishop of Central New York, has lifted the inhibition order against Fr. Bollinger, whose status becomes that of a retired priest canonically resident in good standing, according to the Rev. Canon Karen C. Lewis, canon to the ordinary.
Bishop Adams charged Fr. Bollinger with financial misconduct and disobedience and inhibited him in 2005. Fr. Bollinger maintained his innocence and contended that the charges were an attempt to punish him after he continued a public campaign for an investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against a priest who served as rector of St. Paul’s during the 1970s. That person voluntarily renounced his orders in 2006 after a diocesan review panel recommended that presentment charges be drawn up against him.
In an interview with The Living Church, Canon Lewis described the case as complex with numerous rulings and motions prior to the start. She said it was regrettable that during the trial the court refused to consider any of the more than 1,000 pages of documentary evidence against Fr. Bollinger that the church attorney had prepared. She defended the diocese’s decision to withhold what became known as the Shafer Report from the court, describing it as a “privileged piece of attorney-client work product.”
The Shafer Report is identified with the last name of a previous church attorney retained by the diocese after Fr. Bollinger accused the former financial controller for the diocese of improperly gaining access to his personal financial records. In a letter to clergy after completion of the investigation, the diocese quoted a paragraph from the report, but the report itself has not been made public and there are no plans to do so, Canon Lewis said.
Steve Waring
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion not available online, read The Living Church magazine each week. Call 1-800-211-2771 to start your subscription.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Membership of the Anglican Communion
England 44 Dioceses 26,000.000 Nominal Figure
Nigeria: 100+ Dioceses 17,500,000
Uganda 32 Dioceses 9,600,000 Updated from the office of the Archbishop of Uganda, July 2007
Australia 23 Dioceses 3,998,444
Kenya 28 Dioceses 2,500,000
USA 111 Dioceses 2,400,000 Update 100 dioceses. 800,000 practicing Episcopalians.
South India 21 Dioceses 2,000,000
Southern Africa 23 Dioceses 2,000,000
Sudan 24 Dioceses 2,000,000
Tanzania 17 Dioceses 1,379,366
North India 26 Dioceses 1,250,000
England 44 Dioceses 1,200,000 Realistic figure
Rwanda 9 Dioceses 1,000,000
West Africa 12 Dioceses 1,000,000
Pakistan 8 Dioceses 800,000
West Indies 8 Dioceses 770,000
Canada 29 Dioceses 740,262 Update 641,845 members in 2001 and 227,000 identifiable givers in 1999.
Central Africa 12 Dioceses 600,000
Burundi 5 Dioceses 425,000
Ireland 12 Dioceses 410,000
Congo 6 Dioceses 300,000
Papua New Guinea 5 Dioceses 246,000
Aotearoa/New Zealand
and Polynesia 9 Dioceses 220,659
SE Asia 4 Dioceses 168,079
Melanesia 8 Dioceses 163,884
Philippines 5 Dioceses 118,187
Brazil 7 Dioceses 103,021 Total since foundation of the Province
Brazil current 40,000 Baptised, 25,000 Confirmed, 8000 communicants, 10,000 regular members. Updated from Brazil July 2007
Wales 6 Dioceses 93,721
Indian Ocean 5 Dioceses 90,486
Japan 11 Dioceses 57,273
Scotland 7 Dioceses 53,553
Sri Lanka 1 Dioceses 52,500
Myanmar 6 Dioceses 49,257
Bermuda 1 Diocese 24,800
Hong Kong 3 Dioceses 29,000
Mexico 5 Dioceses 25,000
Southern Cone
Of Latin America 7 Dioceses 22,490
Korea 3 Dioceses 14,558
Central American
Region 5 dioceses 13,409
Bangladesh 2 Dioceses 12,500
Jerusalem and
The Middle East 4 Dioceses 10,000
Lusitanian Church 1 Diocese 5,000
Spanish Reformed
Episcopal Church 1 Diocese 5,000
Cuba 1 Diocese 3,000
Figures are estimates based on a survey by the Anglican Communion Office in 1997, and published in The Essential Guide to the Anglican Communion compiled by James Rosenthal and available from Morehouse Publishing.
Nigeria: 100+ Dioceses 17,500,000
Uganda 32 Dioceses 9,600,000 Updated from the office of the Archbishop of Uganda, July 2007
Australia 23 Dioceses 3,998,444
Kenya 28 Dioceses 2,500,000
USA 111 Dioceses 2,400,000 Update 100 dioceses. 800,000 practicing Episcopalians.
South India 21 Dioceses 2,000,000
Southern Africa 23 Dioceses 2,000,000
Sudan 24 Dioceses 2,000,000
Tanzania 17 Dioceses 1,379,366
North India 26 Dioceses 1,250,000
England 44 Dioceses 1,200,000 Realistic figure
Rwanda 9 Dioceses 1,000,000
West Africa 12 Dioceses 1,000,000
Pakistan 8 Dioceses 800,000
West Indies 8 Dioceses 770,000
Canada 29 Dioceses 740,262 Update 641,845 members in 2001 and 227,000 identifiable givers in 1999.
Central Africa 12 Dioceses 600,000
Burundi 5 Dioceses 425,000
Ireland 12 Dioceses 410,000
Congo 6 Dioceses 300,000
Papua New Guinea 5 Dioceses 246,000
Aotearoa/New Zealand
and Polynesia 9 Dioceses 220,659
SE Asia 4 Dioceses 168,079
Melanesia 8 Dioceses 163,884
Philippines 5 Dioceses 118,187
Brazil 7 Dioceses 103,021 Total since foundation of the Province
Brazil current 40,000 Baptised, 25,000 Confirmed, 8000 communicants, 10,000 regular members. Updated from Brazil July 2007
Wales 6 Dioceses 93,721
Indian Ocean 5 Dioceses 90,486
Japan 11 Dioceses 57,273
Scotland 7 Dioceses 53,553
Sri Lanka 1 Dioceses 52,500
Myanmar 6 Dioceses 49,257
Bermuda 1 Diocese 24,800
Hong Kong 3 Dioceses 29,000
Mexico 5 Dioceses 25,000
Southern Cone
Of Latin America 7 Dioceses 22,490
Korea 3 Dioceses 14,558
Central American
Region 5 dioceses 13,409
Bangladesh 2 Dioceses 12,500
Jerusalem and
The Middle East 4 Dioceses 10,000
Lusitanian Church 1 Diocese 5,000
Spanish Reformed
Episcopal Church 1 Diocese 5,000
Cuba 1 Diocese 3,000
Figures are estimates based on a survey by the Anglican Communion Office in 1997, and published in The Essential Guide to the Anglican Communion compiled by James Rosenthal and available from Morehouse Publishing.
Friday, July 20, 2007
This is a critical time - A Statement from the Global South Steering Committee
London, July 16-18, 2007
1. We are grateful for the prayers and witness of the millions of Anglicans around the world who live out their Christian faith in complex and sometimes hostile situations. Their lives and witness offer hope to a world that is in desperate need and we have been greatly encouraged by their testimony. Their commitment to the ‘faith once and for all delivered to the saints’ deepens our determination to stay true to the biblical revelation and our historic tradition.
2. We reaffirm our dedication to the vision of the church that has a passion to reach all those who have not yet come to a saving knowledge of Christ and one that is truly good news for the poor and freedom for those who are oppressed. We are saddened that the actions of a small part of our Communion family have caused such division, confusion and pain and we are grieved that our witness to the oneness of Christ and his Church has been sorely compromised.
3. We in the Global South remain committed to the underlying principles and recommendations of the Windsor Report and the various Communiqués that we have issued, especially the statement that was produced during the most recent Primates’ meeting in Dar es Salaam. It was the result of enormous effort and heart-felt prayer and we remain convinced that it offers the best way forward for our beloved Communion. In particular, we are hopeful that the development and endorsement of an Anglican Covenant will help us move past this debilitating season into a new focus of growth and missionary zeal.
4. We were distressed by the initial response of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church USA issued on March 20th, 2007, reaffirmed by the Executive Council on June 14th, 2007, in which they rejected the underlying principles and requests of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué. We urge them, once again, to reconsider their position because it is their rejection of the clear teaching of the Church and their continuing intransigence that have divided the Church and has brought our beloved Communion to the breaking point. Without heartfelt repentance and genuine change there can be no restoration of the communion that we all earnestly desire and which is our Lord’s clear intent.
5. We have also been pained to hear of the continuing and growing resort to civil litigation by The Episcopal Church against congregations and individuals which wish to remain Anglican but are unable to do so within TEC. This is in defiance of the urgent plea agreed to by all of the Primates in the Dar es Salaam Communiqué. This approach to use power and coercion to resolve our current dispute is both enormously costly and doomed to failure and again, we urge the immediate suspension of all such activities and a return to biblical practices of prayer, reconciliation and mediation.
6. Because of the categorical rejection of the unanimously agreed Pastoral Scheme and the urgent needs of the growing number of congregations now linked to various Provinces in the Global South, we have had no choice but to provide additional episcopal oversight from the concerned Provinces. We believe that failure to do so would have resulted in many individuals and congregations lost to the Anglican Communion. The rejection of the proposed Pastoral Scheme has also had a profound impact on those dioceses that had requested alternative primatial oversight. We are aware that they are exploring various ways in which they can maintain their Anglican identity apart from The Episcopal Church. We are encouraged by this and also that they are working together within the Common Cause Partnership to avoid unnecessary fragmentation. We recognize that this is a temporary measure and look forward to the time when it is either no longer necessary or they are all part of a new ecclesiastical structure in the USA.
7. We are aware of the anticipated visit by the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the ACC to the September meeting of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church USA. Sadly we are convinced that this decision, made jointly by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chair of the ACC, undermines the integrity of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué. We believe that the Primates Meeting, which initiated the request to the TEC House of Bishops, must make any determination as to the adequacy of their response. We strongly urge the scheduling of a Primates’ Meeting for this purpose at the earliest possible moment.
8. We have also noted the decisions of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada and are dismayed by their unilateral declaration that ‘same-sex blessing is not core doctrine’. While we were grateful for the temporary restraint shown in not proceeding with any further authorization, we have observed that a number of the bishops are continuing to defy the recommendations of the Windsor process. We are exploring the possibility of additional pastoral provisions for those who want to remain faithful to Communion teaching and have been affected by the continuing actions of their own bishops.
9. We are concerned for the future of our Communion as a truly global fellowship and our witness before the world as a respected ecclesial family within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. In regards to the proposed Lambeth Conference in 2008, we are concerned that the publicly stated expectations for participation have changed its character and function. It is now difficult to see it either as an instrument of unity or communion. At a time when the world needs a vision of reconciliation and unity, our failure to restore the ‘torn fabric’ of our Communion threatens to show the world a contrary example.
10. We remain committed to the convictions expressed in the CAPA report “The Road to Lambeth” and urge immediate reconsideration of the current Lambeth plans. It is impossible for us to see how, without discipline in the Communion and without the reconciliation that we urge, we can participate in the proposed conference; to be present but unable to participate in sacramental fellowship would all the more painfully demonstrate our brokenness. The polarization surrounding the Lambeth meeting has been exacerbated because we are also unable to take part in an event from which a number of our own bishops have been arbitrarily excluded while those whose actions have precipitated our current crisis are included.
11. We have received requests from around the Communion to call a gathering of Anglican Communion leaders. We expect to call a Fourth Global South Encounter to bring together faithful Anglican leaders across the Communion to renew our focus on the apostolic faith and our common mission.
12. This is a critical time for the Anglican Communion and one that will shape our future for many years to come. We are praying for all those in leadership that the decisions made and the actions taken will bring glory to God and encouragement to all God’s people. We are hopeful for the future because our confidence is not in ourselves but in Jesus the Christ who gave his life that we might have life. (see John 10:10)
1. We are grateful for the prayers and witness of the millions of Anglicans around the world who live out their Christian faith in complex and sometimes hostile situations. Their lives and witness offer hope to a world that is in desperate need and we have been greatly encouraged by their testimony. Their commitment to the ‘faith once and for all delivered to the saints’ deepens our determination to stay true to the biblical revelation and our historic tradition.
2. We reaffirm our dedication to the vision of the church that has a passion to reach all those who have not yet come to a saving knowledge of Christ and one that is truly good news for the poor and freedom for those who are oppressed. We are saddened that the actions of a small part of our Communion family have caused such division, confusion and pain and we are grieved that our witness to the oneness of Christ and his Church has been sorely compromised.
3. We in the Global South remain committed to the underlying principles and recommendations of the Windsor Report and the various Communiqués that we have issued, especially the statement that was produced during the most recent Primates’ meeting in Dar es Salaam. It was the result of enormous effort and heart-felt prayer and we remain convinced that it offers the best way forward for our beloved Communion. In particular, we are hopeful that the development and endorsement of an Anglican Covenant will help us move past this debilitating season into a new focus of growth and missionary zeal.
4. We were distressed by the initial response of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church USA issued on March 20th, 2007, reaffirmed by the Executive Council on June 14th, 2007, in which they rejected the underlying principles and requests of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué. We urge them, once again, to reconsider their position because it is their rejection of the clear teaching of the Church and their continuing intransigence that have divided the Church and has brought our beloved Communion to the breaking point. Without heartfelt repentance and genuine change there can be no restoration of the communion that we all earnestly desire and which is our Lord’s clear intent.
5. We have also been pained to hear of the continuing and growing resort to civil litigation by The Episcopal Church against congregations and individuals which wish to remain Anglican but are unable to do so within TEC. This is in defiance of the urgent plea agreed to by all of the Primates in the Dar es Salaam Communiqué. This approach to use power and coercion to resolve our current dispute is both enormously costly and doomed to failure and again, we urge the immediate suspension of all such activities and a return to biblical practices of prayer, reconciliation and mediation.
6. Because of the categorical rejection of the unanimously agreed Pastoral Scheme and the urgent needs of the growing number of congregations now linked to various Provinces in the Global South, we have had no choice but to provide additional episcopal oversight from the concerned Provinces. We believe that failure to do so would have resulted in many individuals and congregations lost to the Anglican Communion. The rejection of the proposed Pastoral Scheme has also had a profound impact on those dioceses that had requested alternative primatial oversight. We are aware that they are exploring various ways in which they can maintain their Anglican identity apart from The Episcopal Church. We are encouraged by this and also that they are working together within the Common Cause Partnership to avoid unnecessary fragmentation. We recognize that this is a temporary measure and look forward to the time when it is either no longer necessary or they are all part of a new ecclesiastical structure in the USA.
7. We are aware of the anticipated visit by the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the ACC to the September meeting of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church USA. Sadly we are convinced that this decision, made jointly by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chair of the ACC, undermines the integrity of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué. We believe that the Primates Meeting, which initiated the request to the TEC House of Bishops, must make any determination as to the adequacy of their response. We strongly urge the scheduling of a Primates’ Meeting for this purpose at the earliest possible moment.
8. We have also noted the decisions of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada and are dismayed by their unilateral declaration that ‘same-sex blessing is not core doctrine’. While we were grateful for the temporary restraint shown in not proceeding with any further authorization, we have observed that a number of the bishops are continuing to defy the recommendations of the Windsor process. We are exploring the possibility of additional pastoral provisions for those who want to remain faithful to Communion teaching and have been affected by the continuing actions of their own bishops.
9. We are concerned for the future of our Communion as a truly global fellowship and our witness before the world as a respected ecclesial family within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. In regards to the proposed Lambeth Conference in 2008, we are concerned that the publicly stated expectations for participation have changed its character and function. It is now difficult to see it either as an instrument of unity or communion. At a time when the world needs a vision of reconciliation and unity, our failure to restore the ‘torn fabric’ of our Communion threatens to show the world a contrary example.
10. We remain committed to the convictions expressed in the CAPA report “The Road to Lambeth” and urge immediate reconsideration of the current Lambeth plans. It is impossible for us to see how, without discipline in the Communion and without the reconciliation that we urge, we can participate in the proposed conference; to be present but unable to participate in sacramental fellowship would all the more painfully demonstrate our brokenness. The polarization surrounding the Lambeth meeting has been exacerbated because we are also unable to take part in an event from which a number of our own bishops have been arbitrarily excluded while those whose actions have precipitated our current crisis are included.
11. We have received requests from around the Communion to call a gathering of Anglican Communion leaders. We expect to call a Fourth Global South Encounter to bring together faithful Anglican leaders across the Communion to renew our focus on the apostolic faith and our common mission.
12. This is a critical time for the Anglican Communion and one that will shape our future for many years to come. We are praying for all those in leadership that the decisions made and the actions taken will bring glory to God and encouragement to all God’s people. We are hopeful for the future because our confidence is not in ourselves but in Jesus the Christ who gave his life that we might have life. (see John 10:10)
Thursday, July 19, 2007
How Doug Marlette mixed faith and humor
By TERRY MATTINGLY
Scripps Howard News Service
2007-07-18
Cartoonist Doug Marlette got used to hearing people mix comments about his humor with references to Almighty God.
After all, one of the main characters in his syndicated comic strip "Kudzu" was the Rev. Will B. Dunn, a deep-fried Southern preacher who always remained optimistic, even as he battled with the insanity of modern life (especially trendy Bible translations).
Meanwhile, Marlette's political cartoons often inspired readers to barrage editors with the kind of God talk that cannot be printed in family newspapers.
There was, for example, his caricature of Pope John Paul II wearing a "No Women Priests" button. The caption said, "Upon this Rock I will build my church'' and Marlette drew an arrow pointing at the pope's head.
Another infamous cartoon showed an Arab terrorist driving a truck containing a nuclear bomb. The caption: "What Would Mohammed Drive?" A cartoon on my office wall -- a gift from Marlette as I left the Charlotte Observer -- shows PTL televangelist Jim Bakker kneeling before a dollar sign that towers over a stone altar framed with candles. Bakker proclaims, with his boyish grin, "Gimme that old time religion!" The cartoonist knew he was playing with holy fire. You can't draw Jesus climbing Calvary on Good Friday -- carrying an electric chair -- and not expect people to react.
Marlette insisted that his goal was to remind his fellow believers to practice what they preach.
"As I look back through my work, I'm always amazed by how much of what I do just comes out of having gone to Sunday school," he said, taking a break in his cluttered Observer office in the mid-1980s. "The perspective, the viewpoint, comes out of that. They don't teach subversive ideas in the Magnolia Street Baptist Church in Laurel, Mississippi."
Marlette, 57, was back in Mississippi recently when he died in a single-vehicle crash on a rain-swept highway while on the way to help a high school perform his musical, "Kudzu." A true gadfly, he rattled cages for more than three decades and died with more than his share of faithful friends and fierce critics.
A native of North Carolina, the cartoonist and writer burst into print after studying at Florida State University, where he tried to study art but ended up majoring in philosophy. He took classes in New Testament and ethics but also, as he loved to note, classes in sports officiating.
Marlette won a Pulitzer Prize in 1988 for his work at the Observer and the Atlanta Constitution. He wrote two novels and, in 2001, became a distinguished visiting professor of journalism at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Marlette had a better grasp of the power of religion than most journalists, noted former Observer editor Rich Oppel, who led the newsroom during the PTL era. The cartoonist was a provocateur and, at his best, a prophet.
"After 10 years of our reporting, televangelist Bakker resigned from PTL and was later convicted of fraud and sentenced to federal prison," noted Oppel, in his editor's column at the Austin American-Statesman. "Bakker's handpicked successor was Jerry Falwell, who came in to see me and 'make peace.' "From a corner, Marlette cast a gimlet eye on Falwell as the minister did his best Sunday school number on me. Marlette then retreated to his lair to pen a cartoon of the preacher as a serpent in the Garden of Eden.
Falwell refused to talk to me again."
When it came to religion, Marlette thought of himself as a Baptist's Baptist, a fierce believer in the "priesthood of the believer," the authority of human experience and the separation of church and state.
There are, he told me, people who become cynical about religion and he was determined not to yield to that temptation -- very often. But there were many times when he preferred laughing, instead of crying.
While he took the Christian faith seriously, he also thought it was futile to obsess over details. There were times when he felt like a church of one.
"It's my own church, my own perspective. It certainly doesn't deserve to be institutionalized or taken more seriously than other people's," said Marlette.
"It's not infallible. It's skewed. It's mine. ... It's kind of like dissecting a frog. Once you get the thing cut up and taken apart, it's not really a frog anymore. Something dies in the process."
Terry Mattingly (www.tmatt.net) directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities.
Scripps Howard News Service
2007-07-18
Cartoonist Doug Marlette got used to hearing people mix comments about his humor with references to Almighty God.
After all, one of the main characters in his syndicated comic strip "Kudzu" was the Rev. Will B. Dunn, a deep-fried Southern preacher who always remained optimistic, even as he battled with the insanity of modern life (especially trendy Bible translations).
Meanwhile, Marlette's political cartoons often inspired readers to barrage editors with the kind of God talk that cannot be printed in family newspapers.
There was, for example, his caricature of Pope John Paul II wearing a "No Women Priests" button. The caption said, "Upon this Rock I will build my church'' and Marlette drew an arrow pointing at the pope's head.
Another infamous cartoon showed an Arab terrorist driving a truck containing a nuclear bomb. The caption: "What Would Mohammed Drive?" A cartoon on my office wall -- a gift from Marlette as I left the Charlotte Observer -- shows PTL televangelist Jim Bakker kneeling before a dollar sign that towers over a stone altar framed with candles. Bakker proclaims, with his boyish grin, "Gimme that old time religion!" The cartoonist knew he was playing with holy fire. You can't draw Jesus climbing Calvary on Good Friday -- carrying an electric chair -- and not expect people to react.
Marlette insisted that his goal was to remind his fellow believers to practice what they preach.
"As I look back through my work, I'm always amazed by how much of what I do just comes out of having gone to Sunday school," he said, taking a break in his cluttered Observer office in the mid-1980s. "The perspective, the viewpoint, comes out of that. They don't teach subversive ideas in the Magnolia Street Baptist Church in Laurel, Mississippi."
Marlette, 57, was back in Mississippi recently when he died in a single-vehicle crash on a rain-swept highway while on the way to help a high school perform his musical, "Kudzu." A true gadfly, he rattled cages for more than three decades and died with more than his share of faithful friends and fierce critics.
A native of North Carolina, the cartoonist and writer burst into print after studying at Florida State University, where he tried to study art but ended up majoring in philosophy. He took classes in New Testament and ethics but also, as he loved to note, classes in sports officiating.
Marlette won a Pulitzer Prize in 1988 for his work at the Observer and the Atlanta Constitution. He wrote two novels and, in 2001, became a distinguished visiting professor of journalism at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Marlette had a better grasp of the power of religion than most journalists, noted former Observer editor Rich Oppel, who led the newsroom during the PTL era. The cartoonist was a provocateur and, at his best, a prophet.
"After 10 years of our reporting, televangelist Bakker resigned from PTL and was later convicted of fraud and sentenced to federal prison," noted Oppel, in his editor's column at the Austin American-Statesman. "Bakker's handpicked successor was Jerry Falwell, who came in to see me and 'make peace.' "From a corner, Marlette cast a gimlet eye on Falwell as the minister did his best Sunday school number on me. Marlette then retreated to his lair to pen a cartoon of the preacher as a serpent in the Garden of Eden.
Falwell refused to talk to me again."
When it came to religion, Marlette thought of himself as a Baptist's Baptist, a fierce believer in the "priesthood of the believer," the authority of human experience and the separation of church and state.
There are, he told me, people who become cynical about religion and he was determined not to yield to that temptation -- very often. But there were many times when he preferred laughing, instead of crying.
While he took the Christian faith seriously, he also thought it was futile to obsess over details. There were times when he felt like a church of one.
"It's my own church, my own perspective. It certainly doesn't deserve to be institutionalized or taken more seriously than other people's," said Marlette.
"It's not infallible. It's skewed. It's mine. ... It's kind of like dissecting a frog. Once you get the thing cut up and taken apart, it's not really a frog anymore. Something dies in the process."
Terry Mattingly (www.tmatt.net) directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
St. Paul's ex-rector cleared of charges
Bollinger had been accused of financial misconduct at parish
By William Moyer
Press & Sun-Bulletin
OWEGO -- The former rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Owego was cleared Tuesday by an ecclesiastical court of all charges related to alleged financial misconduct at the parish.
The Rev. David G. Bollinger, of the Town of Owego, was cleared Tuesday at a church trial in Syracuse. The court based its decision largely on the Episcopal Diocese of Central New York's refusal to furnish Bollinger with copies of the evidence that claimed he misused money and broke ordination vows.
Bollinger, 52, who took a sabbatical from St. Paul's in early 2005 and retired a year later, said he was "elated" by the church court's ruling. By church law, Bollinger is permitted to resume priestly duties, which he had been "inhibited" from doing for the past two years.
"It's been my contention that all accusations against me were false. I've been exonerated," said Bollinger, who had been St. Paul's rector for two decades. "I have no regrets about blowing the whistle on a pedophile."
Bishop Gladstone B. Adams issued a statement Tuesday that read: "It is unfortunate that the facts regarding the charges were unable to be heard in an open court. My concerns and prayers remain with the members of St. Paul's Episcopal Church."
The case had roots in Bollinger's accusations of sexual misconduct by a former St. Paul's rector against a parishioner in the 1970s. In May 2006, the former rector, Ralph E. Johnson, then 79, voluntarily renounced his ministerial orders without admitting guilt after the alleged victim filed an affidavit with the diocese. Years earlier, though, Bollinger said he alerted diocesan officials in Syracuse of Johnson's alleged misconduct, but Adams rebuffed him.
In a lawsuit filed in a state court in January 2006, Bollinger had sought $4.35 million from the diocese, which he accused of retaliation by alleging financial misconduct at St. Paul's.
A judge has dismissed several complaints, reducing the claim to $1.25 million, Bollinger said Tuesday.
According to the church court ruling, evidence that the diocese refused to give Bollinger included an independent report that might have shown a diocesan official hacked into Bollinger's bank account.
Bollinger said he wants time to pray before deciding whether he will return to an Episcopal parish.
By William Moyer
Press & Sun-Bulletin
OWEGO -- The former rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Owego was cleared Tuesday by an ecclesiastical court of all charges related to alleged financial misconduct at the parish.
The Rev. David G. Bollinger, of the Town of Owego, was cleared Tuesday at a church trial in Syracuse. The court based its decision largely on the Episcopal Diocese of Central New York's refusal to furnish Bollinger with copies of the evidence that claimed he misused money and broke ordination vows.
Bollinger, 52, who took a sabbatical from St. Paul's in early 2005 and retired a year later, said he was "elated" by the church court's ruling. By church law, Bollinger is permitted to resume priestly duties, which he had been "inhibited" from doing for the past two years.
"It's been my contention that all accusations against me were false. I've been exonerated," said Bollinger, who had been St. Paul's rector for two decades. "I have no regrets about blowing the whistle on a pedophile."
Bishop Gladstone B. Adams issued a statement Tuesday that read: "It is unfortunate that the facts regarding the charges were unable to be heard in an open court. My concerns and prayers remain with the members of St. Paul's Episcopal Church."
The case had roots in Bollinger's accusations of sexual misconduct by a former St. Paul's rector against a parishioner in the 1970s. In May 2006, the former rector, Ralph E. Johnson, then 79, voluntarily renounced his ministerial orders without admitting guilt after the alleged victim filed an affidavit with the diocese. Years earlier, though, Bollinger said he alerted diocesan officials in Syracuse of Johnson's alleged misconduct, but Adams rebuffed him.
In a lawsuit filed in a state court in January 2006, Bollinger had sought $4.35 million from the diocese, which he accused of retaliation by alleging financial misconduct at St. Paul's.
A judge has dismissed several complaints, reducing the claim to $1.25 million, Bollinger said Tuesday.
According to the church court ruling, evidence that the diocese refused to give Bollinger included an independent report that might have shown a diocesan official hacked into Bollinger's bank account.
Bollinger said he wants time to pray before deciding whether he will return to an Episcopal parish.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Presentment Charges Against Fr. David Bollinger Dismissed
From The Living Church:
07/17/2007
The Rev. David Bollinger, former rector of St. Paul’s Church, Owego, N.Y., was exonerated of presentment charges today after an ecclesiastical court in the Diocese of Central New York dismissed all counts against him. The verdict cannot be appealed, according to canon law.
After six fruitless hours yesterday in which the church attorney for the diocese unsuccessfully attempted nine times to introduce witnesses and evidence previously excluded by the court, the hearing today required only about an hour.
Fr. Bollinger, acting as his own lawyer, began his defense this morning by submitting one piece of evidence verifying that he had paid taxes on income the diocese had accused him of failing to report. After that was admitted, Fr. Bollinger noted that the prosecution had offered no evidence to support its allegations against him and made a motion for dismissal. After a brief recess for consultation, the panel of five judges returned and granted the motion.
Prior to the July 16 start of the trial, Presiding Judge Carter Stickland had ruled inadmissible the prosecution’s list of witnesses and nearly all of its evidence against Fr. Bollinger because the diocese missed the discovery-phase deadline by more than two weeks. In lengthy closing remarks, Judge Strickland repeated the reasons why the diocese’s evidence and witnesses had been excluded. He also strongly criticized the diocese’s handling of the case, stating that it was required to abide by the same rules of procedure as everyone else.
The Rt. Rev. Gladstone “Skip” Adams, Bishop of Central New York, had inhibited Fr. Bollinger in 2005, accusing him of financial misconduct and disobedience. Fr. Bollinger contended that the charges were part of an attempt to punish him after he continued a public campaign to have sexual misconduct allegations against a previous rector of St. Paul’s investigated by the diocese. The previous rector voluntarily renounced his orders in April 2006 after a diocesan review panel recommended that presentment charges be prepared.
The trial attracted about 10 spectators, eight of them priests of the diocese. After the court adjourned, one of them asked Bishop Adams if he was now prepared to release the so-called Shafer Report, a document commissioned by the diocese to investigate allegations that a former diocesan employee had improperly accessed Fr. Bollinger's personal financial information. Release of the Shafer Report had been requested in a resolution proposed during the 2005 diocesan convention, but the resolution was tabled.
The court ordered the diocese to make the report available. It was considered relevant because one of the presentment charges against Fr. Bollinger states that he falsely accused Gael Sopchak of illegally accessing his personal financial information. In a pre-trial conference last month, James Sparkes, the church attorney for the diocese, said the diocese would never make the report public.
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion not available online, read The Living Church magazine each week. Call 1-800-211-2771 to start your subscription.
07/17/2007
The Rev. David Bollinger, former rector of St. Paul’s Church, Owego, N.Y., was exonerated of presentment charges today after an ecclesiastical court in the Diocese of Central New York dismissed all counts against him. The verdict cannot be appealed, according to canon law.
After six fruitless hours yesterday in which the church attorney for the diocese unsuccessfully attempted nine times to introduce witnesses and evidence previously excluded by the court, the hearing today required only about an hour.
Fr. Bollinger, acting as his own lawyer, began his defense this morning by submitting one piece of evidence verifying that he had paid taxes on income the diocese had accused him of failing to report. After that was admitted, Fr. Bollinger noted that the prosecution had offered no evidence to support its allegations against him and made a motion for dismissal. After a brief recess for consultation, the panel of five judges returned and granted the motion.
Prior to the July 16 start of the trial, Presiding Judge Carter Stickland had ruled inadmissible the prosecution’s list of witnesses and nearly all of its evidence against Fr. Bollinger because the diocese missed the discovery-phase deadline by more than two weeks. In lengthy closing remarks, Judge Strickland repeated the reasons why the diocese’s evidence and witnesses had been excluded. He also strongly criticized the diocese’s handling of the case, stating that it was required to abide by the same rules of procedure as everyone else.
The Rt. Rev. Gladstone “Skip” Adams, Bishop of Central New York, had inhibited Fr. Bollinger in 2005, accusing him of financial misconduct and disobedience. Fr. Bollinger contended that the charges were part of an attempt to punish him after he continued a public campaign to have sexual misconduct allegations against a previous rector of St. Paul’s investigated by the diocese. The previous rector voluntarily renounced his orders in April 2006 after a diocesan review panel recommended that presentment charges be prepared.
The trial attracted about 10 spectators, eight of them priests of the diocese. After the court adjourned, one of them asked Bishop Adams if he was now prepared to release the so-called Shafer Report, a document commissioned by the diocese to investigate allegations that a former diocesan employee had improperly accessed Fr. Bollinger's personal financial information. Release of the Shafer Report had been requested in a resolution proposed during the 2005 diocesan convention, but the resolution was tabled.
The court ordered the diocese to make the report available. It was considered relevant because one of the presentment charges against Fr. Bollinger states that he falsely accused Gael Sopchak of illegally accessing his personal financial information. In a pre-trial conference last month, James Sparkes, the church attorney for the diocese, said the diocese would never make the report public.
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion not available online, read The Living Church magazine each week. Call 1-800-211-2771 to start your subscription.
Prosecution Rests Case Against Central New York Priest
From The Living Church:
7/16/2007
An ecclesiastical court ruled July 16 in Syracuse, N.Y., that the Rt. Rev. Gladstone “Skip” Adams, Bishop of Central New York, would not be permitted to testify in the trial of the Rev. David Bollinger, former rector of St. Paul’s, Owego, who stands accused of financial misconduct and disobedience.
Before the trial began, Carter Strickland, the presiding judge, excluded most of the evidence and all of the witnesses for the prosecution because it missed the discovery phase filing deadline by more than two weeks. Bishop Adams was not on a witness list submitted to the court at least 60 days before the start of the trial.
In all, the court rejected nine motions by James Sparks, the church attorney for the diocese. After the ninth motion, the diocese rested its case. The only evidence it was allowed to submit were the allegations made in the presentment charges.
Court was in session for six hours however, there were numerous breaks during which the ecclesiastical judges conferred. The trial resumes Tuesday with the defense calling witnesses and offering evidence.
In previous interviews with The Living Church, Fr. Bollinger has maintained that the financial misconduct charges against him were part of an attempt to silence him after he repeatedly tried to have the diocese investigate the alleged sexual misconduct of a former rector of St. Paul’s. In April 2006 the priest voluntarily renounced his vows.
7/16/2007
An ecclesiastical court ruled July 16 in Syracuse, N.Y., that the Rt. Rev. Gladstone “Skip” Adams, Bishop of Central New York, would not be permitted to testify in the trial of the Rev. David Bollinger, former rector of St. Paul’s, Owego, who stands accused of financial misconduct and disobedience.
Before the trial began, Carter Strickland, the presiding judge, excluded most of the evidence and all of the witnesses for the prosecution because it missed the discovery phase filing deadline by more than two weeks. Bishop Adams was not on a witness list submitted to the court at least 60 days before the start of the trial.
In all, the court rejected nine motions by James Sparks, the church attorney for the diocese. After the ninth motion, the diocese rested its case. The only evidence it was allowed to submit were the allegations made in the presentment charges.
Court was in session for six hours however, there were numerous breaks during which the ecclesiastical judges conferred. The trial resumes Tuesday with the defense calling witnesses and offering evidence.
In previous interviews with The Living Church, Fr. Bollinger has maintained that the financial misconduct charges against him were part of an attempt to silence him after he repeatedly tried to have the diocese investigate the alleged sexual misconduct of a former rector of St. Paul’s. In April 2006 the priest voluntarily renounced his vows.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Diocese Violates Canons Again Revisited
On May 23, I posted the following story about the Diocese of Central NY violating the canons of the Episcopal Church. The diocese protested that this was not true and they promised to produce evidence refuting the claims in the story that is reproduced below. The Living Church reported last week that (surprise, surprise), the diocese will be denied witnesses and evidence because of their violations of the canons pertaining to disclosure of evidence to the respondent (Fr. David Bollinger) and their failure to provide Fr. David Bollinger with their witness list in a timely fashion. In case you're wondering, no, the diocese never did provide any evidence
that they have acted in accordance with the canons.
The preceding story that is below this one is a short summary of today's actions at the presentment trial.
This is from May 23:
The Diocese of Central NY, in its presentment of the Rev. David Bollinger has violated the canons concerning the disclosure of information prior to the presentment trial. No later than sixty days prior to a presentment trial both parties, in this case Fr. Bollinger and the diocese, are to present evidence to the other side. During this discovery phase Fr. Bollinger's lawyer has requested and not received specific items including the Shaffer (sp.) Report. The Shaffer Report is an inquiry by the church attorney concerning the charges against Fr. Bollinger. In addition to the canonical requirement that has been violated by not releasing this report and other materials to Fr. Bollinger's legal counsel, members of the Diocese of Central NY have also asked that the Shaffer Report be made public. Consistent with its general policy of non-disclosure, the diocese continues to keep the Shaffer Report and other matters under wraps. The presentment trial is scheduled for July 16-18.
that they have acted in accordance with the canons.
The preceding story that is below this one is a short summary of today's actions at the presentment trial.
This is from May 23:
The Diocese of Central NY, in its presentment of the Rev. David Bollinger has violated the canons concerning the disclosure of information prior to the presentment trial. No later than sixty days prior to a presentment trial both parties, in this case Fr. Bollinger and the diocese, are to present evidence to the other side. During this discovery phase Fr. Bollinger's lawyer has requested and not received specific items including the Shaffer (sp.) Report. The Shaffer Report is an inquiry by the church attorney concerning the charges against Fr. Bollinger. In addition to the canonical requirement that has been violated by not releasing this report and other materials to Fr. Bollinger's legal counsel, members of the Diocese of Central NY have also asked that the Shaffer Report be made public. Consistent with its general policy of non-disclosure, the diocese continues to keep the Shaffer Report and other matters under wraps. The presentment trial is scheduled for July 16-18.
First Day of Bollinger Trial
Shortly after 11 this morning the presentment trial of Fr. David Bollinger began in Syracuse. In a ninth floor conference room of the law firm McKenzie Hughes, the Ecclesiastical Court convened to hear testimony from the Diocese of Central NY and Fr. Bollinger. As was reported by The Living Church last week, because of the flagrant violations of the court's mandates the diocese was denied witnesses and evidence in the trial. The diocesan legal team of Church Attorney James Sparks and an associate asked the court to reverse its decision on witnesses and evidence and they were denied. The diocesan legal team attempted to introduce ten exhibits and nine of them were declared inadmissable. Following the court's determination on the tenth exhibit the diocese rested its case. Tommorrow the court will hear from the witnesses of Fr. David Bollinger. The case is scheduled to be concluded on Wednesday.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
A Response to "Communion Matters"
by The Very Rev. Frank F. Limehouse, III
July 12, 2007
From the Preface of "Communion Matters: A Study Document for the Episcopal Church":
"The Theology Committee of the House of Bishops has been asked to prepare this study document as a resource for the bishops, dioceses, and the people of the Episcopal Church in considering the communique of the Primates Meeting of the Anglican Communion.
"As most Episcopalians know, issues of human sexuality recently have threatened to impair our relations with other Anglicans. To seek godly wisdom and prevent further damage to our bonds of fellowship, we have been engaged in global conversation involving back-and-forth position papers and dialogue that are both prayerful theology and ecclesial diplomacy.
"This most recent statement in this ongoing process is the Communique of the Primates� Meeting of the Anglican Communion issued in February 2007 from Tanzania. The Communique addresses our 2006 General Convention response to the requests of the Windsor Report on Communion, and makes additional requests of our House of Bishops. It asks for a response by September 30, 2007�
"This study document� poses questions for our (Episcopal church) corporate reflection to assist the bishops as they prepare for the fall meeting of the House of Bishops."
+ + +
The clergy of the Diocese of Alabama have been encouraged to make "Communion Matters: A Study Document for the Episcopal Church" available to the people. It is meant to engage the people of the church and ask, "What do you think?" As Dean of the Cathedral Church of the Advent, and at the encouragement of the vestry, I am taking this opportunity to briefly respond with my own thoughts. On July 24 at 6:30 pm, the people in this part of the diocese will have the opportunity to meet with Bishop Parsley at All Saints' Church, 110 West Hawthorne Road, in Homewood.
The clergy of the diocese have already met (June 19) for the purpose of this discussion. Let me say first of all that I appreciate our bishop's kind tolerance and patience in allowing a guy like me to express my honest feelings toward the document. This is especially so considering the fact that he himself chairs the Theology Committee that put it together. Had he been a one-man committee, I suspect we would have a better document!
In the second paragraph of the preface of Communion Matters, it is written, "As most Episcopalians know, the issues of human sexuality recently have threatened to impair our relations with other Anglicans." While this is true, the fact of the matter is human sexuality is only the presenting issue. The underlying issue is the authority of our Scriptures. Be that as it may, I think this document is written from a revisionist-minded perspective. It indoctrinates, rather than seeks opinion. It feels like a kind of set-up. It seeks to dignify the direction of the Episcopal Church; it begs for self-justification for all of the recent actions of the Episcopal Church.
That's not to say it is not written with the best of intentions. I believe that it has been written with good intentions, but it certainly bears the imprint of mainstream Episcopalian liberalism.
For example, its treatment of via media as the long prized way of Anglicanism is, I believe, poorly handled and not true to Richard Hooker�s understanding of "the middle way." Hooker�s understanding of via media was never meant to guide Anglicanism to a middle way between God's revealed truth and any other kind of wisdom, leave alone the prevailing wisdom of the world; it was never meant to guide us to a middle way between those who look to Scripture and those who look to experience. For Hooker, even "reason" and "tradition" were absolutely subordinate to Scripture.
About those who would claim to hold to the authority of Scripture but question what it actually teaches about the human sexuality issue that divides our communion, I would say, to quote J.I. Packer, "I do not question their sincerity, but I do question their clear-mindedness."
In an effort to extol unity through diversity in moral theology within the communion, it says, "We affirm that unity does not mean rigid uniformity, but a communion that includes differences, analogous to the union of distinct persons within the triune God." In other words, the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit, had differences. If they can get along, why can't we? (As if there were theological differences within the triune godhead! No such idea is found in the New Testament.)
To its credit, the document speaks of the beauty of Anglican Communion. But if the Episcopal Church is sincere in her quest to "prevent further damage to our bonds of fellowship", I believe repentance and amendment of life is the real answer. Sadly the document does not guide us to even consider repentance as a possible response to the Primates.
I believe the Episcopal Church would be more honest to say to the Primates, in effect, "We have chosen our path and our direction. We want our autonomy and independence; we also want to stay in the Communion. But we aren�t going to change. Now, what are you going to do about it?"
May God have mercy on us all, "miserable offenders."
July 12, 2007
From the Preface of "Communion Matters: A Study Document for the Episcopal Church":
"The Theology Committee of the House of Bishops has been asked to prepare this study document as a resource for the bishops, dioceses, and the people of the Episcopal Church in considering the communique of the Primates Meeting of the Anglican Communion.
"As most Episcopalians know, issues of human sexuality recently have threatened to impair our relations with other Anglicans. To seek godly wisdom and prevent further damage to our bonds of fellowship, we have been engaged in global conversation involving back-and-forth position papers and dialogue that are both prayerful theology and ecclesial diplomacy.
"This most recent statement in this ongoing process is the Communique of the Primates� Meeting of the Anglican Communion issued in February 2007 from Tanzania. The Communique addresses our 2006 General Convention response to the requests of the Windsor Report on Communion, and makes additional requests of our House of Bishops. It asks for a response by September 30, 2007�
"This study document� poses questions for our (Episcopal church) corporate reflection to assist the bishops as they prepare for the fall meeting of the House of Bishops."
+ + +
The clergy of the Diocese of Alabama have been encouraged to make "Communion Matters: A Study Document for the Episcopal Church" available to the people. It is meant to engage the people of the church and ask, "What do you think?" As Dean of the Cathedral Church of the Advent, and at the encouragement of the vestry, I am taking this opportunity to briefly respond with my own thoughts. On July 24 at 6:30 pm, the people in this part of the diocese will have the opportunity to meet with Bishop Parsley at All Saints' Church, 110 West Hawthorne Road, in Homewood.
The clergy of the diocese have already met (June 19) for the purpose of this discussion. Let me say first of all that I appreciate our bishop's kind tolerance and patience in allowing a guy like me to express my honest feelings toward the document. This is especially so considering the fact that he himself chairs the Theology Committee that put it together. Had he been a one-man committee, I suspect we would have a better document!
In the second paragraph of the preface of Communion Matters, it is written, "As most Episcopalians know, the issues of human sexuality recently have threatened to impair our relations with other Anglicans." While this is true, the fact of the matter is human sexuality is only the presenting issue. The underlying issue is the authority of our Scriptures. Be that as it may, I think this document is written from a revisionist-minded perspective. It indoctrinates, rather than seeks opinion. It feels like a kind of set-up. It seeks to dignify the direction of the Episcopal Church; it begs for self-justification for all of the recent actions of the Episcopal Church.
That's not to say it is not written with the best of intentions. I believe that it has been written with good intentions, but it certainly bears the imprint of mainstream Episcopalian liberalism.
For example, its treatment of via media as the long prized way of Anglicanism is, I believe, poorly handled and not true to Richard Hooker�s understanding of "the middle way." Hooker�s understanding of via media was never meant to guide Anglicanism to a middle way between God's revealed truth and any other kind of wisdom, leave alone the prevailing wisdom of the world; it was never meant to guide us to a middle way between those who look to Scripture and those who look to experience. For Hooker, even "reason" and "tradition" were absolutely subordinate to Scripture.
About those who would claim to hold to the authority of Scripture but question what it actually teaches about the human sexuality issue that divides our communion, I would say, to quote J.I. Packer, "I do not question their sincerity, but I do question their clear-mindedness."
In an effort to extol unity through diversity in moral theology within the communion, it says, "We affirm that unity does not mean rigid uniformity, but a communion that includes differences, analogous to the union of distinct persons within the triune God." In other words, the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit, had differences. If they can get along, why can't we? (As if there were theological differences within the triune godhead! No such idea is found in the New Testament.)
To its credit, the document speaks of the beauty of Anglican Communion. But if the Episcopal Church is sincere in her quest to "prevent further damage to our bonds of fellowship", I believe repentance and amendment of life is the real answer. Sadly the document does not guide us to even consider repentance as a possible response to the Primates.
I believe the Episcopal Church would be more honest to say to the Primates, in effect, "We have chosen our path and our direction. We want our autonomy and independence; we also want to stay in the Communion. But we aren�t going to change. Now, what are you going to do about it?"
May God have mercy on us all, "miserable offenders."
Where is the Money Coming From?
An Open Letter to the Executive Council
July 14, 2007
Dear Council Members:
We, the undersigned, protest the recent actions of the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church. Leveling charges and threats of litigation at four dioceses of the Episcopal Church constitutes an outrageous example of exacerbating rather than reconciling the divisions in this church.
The Episcopal Church is already involved in expensive lawsuits in Los Angeles, Virginia, Florida, San Diego, New York and elsewhere. Now the Executive Council is threatening even more legal action against four dioceses who affirm their membership in the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. They are trying to keep unity in their dioceses by declaring in their constitutions that they will abide by the doctrine and practice of the Historic Catholic Church and to Holy Scriptures.
Many formerly faithful Episcopalians, congregations and individuals have chosen to depart and affiliate elsewhere, including many who have gone to other Anglican Provinces. Some of you might not care about this tragic daily hemorrhaging of the life blood of the Episcopal Church, but we grieve over it. And, we, in the name of the living God, declare that by litigation you may win possession of some buildings and land, but you will never get the people back by the most potent litigation that money can buy. The Episcopal Church has the capacity to bankrupt and destroy all of the congregations and dioceses that dare to meet the Episcopal Church in court. But that will not get the people back. We would like to know, where the money is coming from in order to conduct this litigation, especially in view of the fact that the program budget is being reduced because insufficient funds are being received from dioceses.
We ask you, our Executive Council, to make a public report of how much money the Episcopal Church has spent in recent years on court costs and attorney fees in these extensive litigations. In what budget is it accounted for? Has any income from trust funds been used to support these litigations? How much and from which funds? How much compensation has the law firm of the Episcopal Church’s chancellor, David Beers, received, for servicing this litigation? An open and transparent disclosure is crucially important to avoid speculation, rumors and consequent distrust of the Episcopal Church.
+Maurice M. Benitez, Bishop of Texas, Retired
+ C.F. Allison, Bishop of South Carolina, Retired
+Alex D.Dickson, Bishop of West Tennessee, Retired
+ William C. Wantland, Bishop of Eau Claire, Retired
July 14, 2007
Dear Council Members:
We, the undersigned, protest the recent actions of the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church. Leveling charges and threats of litigation at four dioceses of the Episcopal Church constitutes an outrageous example of exacerbating rather than reconciling the divisions in this church.
The Episcopal Church is already involved in expensive lawsuits in Los Angeles, Virginia, Florida, San Diego, New York and elsewhere. Now the Executive Council is threatening even more legal action against four dioceses who affirm their membership in the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. They are trying to keep unity in their dioceses by declaring in their constitutions that they will abide by the doctrine and practice of the Historic Catholic Church and to Holy Scriptures.
Many formerly faithful Episcopalians, congregations and individuals have chosen to depart and affiliate elsewhere, including many who have gone to other Anglican Provinces. Some of you might not care about this tragic daily hemorrhaging of the life blood of the Episcopal Church, but we grieve over it. And, we, in the name of the living God, declare that by litigation you may win possession of some buildings and land, but you will never get the people back by the most potent litigation that money can buy. The Episcopal Church has the capacity to bankrupt and destroy all of the congregations and dioceses that dare to meet the Episcopal Church in court. But that will not get the people back. We would like to know, where the money is coming from in order to conduct this litigation, especially in view of the fact that the program budget is being reduced because insufficient funds are being received from dioceses.
We ask you, our Executive Council, to make a public report of how much money the Episcopal Church has spent in recent years on court costs and attorney fees in these extensive litigations. In what budget is it accounted for? Has any income from trust funds been used to support these litigations? How much and from which funds? How much compensation has the law firm of the Episcopal Church’s chancellor, David Beers, received, for servicing this litigation? An open and transparent disclosure is crucially important to avoid speculation, rumors and consequent distrust of the Episcopal Church.
+Maurice M. Benitez, Bishop of Texas, Retired
+ C.F. Allison, Bishop of South Carolina, Retired
+Alex D.Dickson, Bishop of West Tennessee, Retired
+ William C. Wantland, Bishop of Eau Claire, Retired
Friday, July 13, 2007
Diocesan Motions Denied, Central New York Trial Begins Monday
From The Living Church:
07/12/2007
The standing committee in the Diocese of Central New York on July 11 unanimously denied two motions made by the diocese, seeking a change of venue and termination of the current Title IV ecclesiastical court members in a presentment case against the Rev. David Bollinger, former rector of St. Paul’s Church, Owego. The trial is scheduled to begin July 16.
The two motions by the diocese arose out of a decision made by the presiding judge on May 29 to suppress the prosecution’s list of witnesses and most of its evidence against Fr. Bollinger after it still had not complied with a court-imposed deadline to submit the documents two weeks after the discovery deadline had elapsed. The diocese has also refused to make available a key piece of evidence, the so-called Shafer report, which had been requested by the defense and ordered to be delivered by Carter Strickland, the presiding judge.
Acting in its capacity as the diocesan review committee, the standing committee ruled that the diocese’s request for a change of venue and a declaration that the current court was vacant was not possible under the existing canons, which refer “only to the substantive construction of the court, not to the wisdom of the court’s procedural decisions.”
In 2002, Fr. Bollinger brought an allegation of sexual misconduct against a previous St. Paul’s rector to the attention of the Rt. Rev. Gladstone “Skip” Adams, Bishop of Central New York, and Fr. Bollinger persisted in calling attention to the case despite repeated admonitions from Bishop Adams to desist. In May 2005 Bishop Adams inhibited Fr. Bollinger, charging him with possible criminal misuse of his discretionary fund.
Ralph E. Johnson, the former rector of St. Paul’s accused by a victim of sexual misconduct, voluntarily renounced his orders the following year.
The Shafer report was commissioned by Bishop Adams after Fr. Bollinger alleged that the former diocesan controller, Gael Sopchak, had without Fr. Bollinger’s permission gained access to his personal retirement account information. The report is relevant because one of the charges in Bishop Adams’ presentment complaint is that Fr. Bollinger wrongly accused Ms. Sopchak of illegally obtaining access to his personal financial records.
The diocese previously released an executive summary of the report. On two separate occasions the ecclesiastical court has ordered the diocese to make the full report available to the defense.
Steve Waring
07/12/2007
The standing committee in the Diocese of Central New York on July 11 unanimously denied two motions made by the diocese, seeking a change of venue and termination of the current Title IV ecclesiastical court members in a presentment case against the Rev. David Bollinger, former rector of St. Paul’s Church, Owego. The trial is scheduled to begin July 16.
The two motions by the diocese arose out of a decision made by the presiding judge on May 29 to suppress the prosecution’s list of witnesses and most of its evidence against Fr. Bollinger after it still had not complied with a court-imposed deadline to submit the documents two weeks after the discovery deadline had elapsed. The diocese has also refused to make available a key piece of evidence, the so-called Shafer report, which had been requested by the defense and ordered to be delivered by Carter Strickland, the presiding judge.
Acting in its capacity as the diocesan review committee, the standing committee ruled that the diocese’s request for a change of venue and a declaration that the current court was vacant was not possible under the existing canons, which refer “only to the substantive construction of the court, not to the wisdom of the court’s procedural decisions.”
In 2002, Fr. Bollinger brought an allegation of sexual misconduct against a previous St. Paul’s rector to the attention of the Rt. Rev. Gladstone “Skip” Adams, Bishop of Central New York, and Fr. Bollinger persisted in calling attention to the case despite repeated admonitions from Bishop Adams to desist. In May 2005 Bishop Adams inhibited Fr. Bollinger, charging him with possible criminal misuse of his discretionary fund.
Ralph E. Johnson, the former rector of St. Paul’s accused by a victim of sexual misconduct, voluntarily renounced his orders the following year.
The Shafer report was commissioned by Bishop Adams after Fr. Bollinger alleged that the former diocesan controller, Gael Sopchak, had without Fr. Bollinger’s permission gained access to his personal retirement account information. The report is relevant because one of the charges in Bishop Adams’ presentment complaint is that Fr. Bollinger wrongly accused Ms. Sopchak of illegally obtaining access to his personal financial records.
The diocese previously released an executive summary of the report. On two separate occasions the ecclesiastical court has ordered the diocese to make the full report available to the defense.
Steve Waring
When God Brings Things to a Point
Written by Rev. Dr. Philip Turner
Sunday, 08 July 2007
An Address on Integrity, Diversity, and Episcopal Authority In the Anglican Communion
I
We are gathered to discuss the covenant that has been proposed as a means of preventing the fragmentation of Anglicanism and insuring its continuance as a communion of churches. As a way to throw light on the subject, I have been asked to speak about "Integrity, Diversity, and Episcopal Authority within the Anglican Communion". The fact is that conflicting ways of understanding these four nouns (integrity, diversity, authority, and communion) lie at the heart of our travails. The subject before us is in fact of central importance to our future. However, the pace of events is such that hardly a thought crosses my mind before it is rendered problematic by yet another development within one or another of our provinces. Within my own church, for example, the consecration of Gene Robinson and the election of a woman as Primate have been followed by the whole sale rejection on the part of the House of Bishops and the Executive Council of the scheme of pastoral care proposed by the Primates meeting in Dar es Salaam, In reaction to these and other previous developments, we have witnessed the formation of CANA, the announcement that Kenya and Uganda will each consecrate a bishop to oversee the "orthodox" parishes within the U.S. that have placed themselves under their care, and formation of a wider coalition (Common Cause) that includes these and other groups. This coalition bears all the marks of a proto province. By the time I deliver this address, I assume even more will have transpired; and I assume as well all that occurs will have profound effects on how the question I have been assigned is adequately to be addressed.
In the face of difficulties such as these, all I can do is place on display the deep and abiding issues that underlie the myriad events that rise to the surface of a very troubled sea—one that very easily could leave the Anglican Communion no more than a sunken wreck. The first of these is why are the issues of "Integrity, Diversity, and Episcopal Authority" perennial? Why is it that each of the parties to our present disputes cannot avoid addressing the questions their confluence presents? Quite simply because the subjects indicated by the nouns in my title are ones no Christian can avoid if they desire to remain faithful Christians. To be specific, "Integrity" presents the issue of fidelity to the apostolic witness. "Diversity" poses the question of the adequacy of this witness within the changes and chances of history. "Episcopal Authority" presses the question of how the tension between fidelity and relevance is to be managed in a faithful and orderly fashion. Finally, the phrase "Within the Anglican Communion!" These words pose a question made necessary by the hideous spectacle of a divided church, and the question is this. Is the survival of Anglicanism as a communion rather than a federation of churches of any value within the providence of a God whose purpose is the unity of all things in Christ Jesus? I feel sure that many of a Protestant, Orthodox, or Roman Catholic persuasion answer this question in the negative. It is a question about whose answer we ought not to be sanguine!
I will return to this question at a later point, but an initial comment about it will help us focus our attention on the immediate significance for us of the church struggle in which we are engaged. From the beginning, Anglicans have worried about ecclesiology. From the beginning, we Anglicans have sought a justification for our existence within a divided church. The history of Anglican theology is in no small measure a history of what we have had to say in response to this question. Our present travail has raised the question again, and in an acute and painful form. It would appear that we are not at present sure about who we are as Anglicans? What is our identity? What we see in the arguments that whiz back and forth in the virtual world of the Internet is less an argument about sex and more a quest for identity—an answer to the haunting question of what we as Anglicans are called to be and do.
So the title I have been assigned presents us with several abiding issues and one that is of specific importance for ourselves. How do we remain faithful to the apostolic witness and yet speak in a way that is meaningful and powerful within our own time and place. How do we maintain both the truth with which we have been entrusted and the unity to which we are called as we struggle both to be truthful and relevant? And in this struggle, does Anglicanism have an important, even necessary, role within the providence of God?
II
When I first thought of this address, I imagined that I would begin with the Windsor Report--with that document Bishop Tom Wright has referred to as the gold standard of present Anglican thought. I quite agree with Bishop Wright, and I will end these remarks by trying to show that it points to an answer to each of the questions posed by my title in a way far more adequate than any of its rivals. But the Windsor Report was prepared in response to an action on the part of The Episcopal Church (TEC)—an action that was in direct contradiction to the requests of all the instruments of our communion. It seems right, therefore, to begin with the answer to our questions that is now dominant within the church that precipitated our present crisis.
In defending itself, TEC is quick to remind its critics that it holds fast to the Lambeth Quadrilateral and so insists (in accord with Resolution 11 of the Lambeth Conference 1888) that TEC holds to the four following points:
(a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as "containing all tings necessary for salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith, (b) The Apostles Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith, (c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ himself—Baptism and the Supper of the Lord—ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution, and of the elements ordained by Him, (d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.
These four points are taken by the progressive defenders of the actions of TEC as an adequate guarantee of its integrity, its adherence to the apostolic tradition. However, at each of the four points, the progressive leadership of TEC gives a remarkable spin to their interpretation. Thus, for example, the claim that the Holy Scriptures contain "all things necessary for salvation" and are "the rule and ultimate standard of faith" is qualified (if not contradicted) by the common assertion that revelation is "ongoing" in a way that makes available new truths either not previously known, not properly understood, or in direct contradiction to well established tradition. The witness of the Holy Scriptures is further qualified by claims that there are truths of reason and/or experience that may contradict the seemingly univocal witness of scripture. (Thus, for example, the assertion that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life is contradicted by the experience of God in other religions just as the univocal scriptural condemnation of homosexual relations is contradicted by the experience of loving relations between members of the same gender.) In short, within TEC, tradition, reason, and now experience can operate independent of and in contradistinction to the witness of the Holy Scriptures. Further, novelty in respect to doctrine and practice receive generous license because (so it is claimed) the Holy Spirit acts most normally in doing new things—things that need not accord with former things!
Similar issues arise with the claim that the integrity of TEC is assured by the continuing authority of the historic creeds. However, the progressive clergy who now hold the levers of power within TEC insist vehemently that the creeds are not to be used as binding confessions that exclude from fellowship people whose experience of God or whose beliefs about God are different from or even contradictory to those normally associated with the creeds as tokens of Christian identity and sufficient statements of Christian belief. The progressive position in respect to the creeds is that Christians in the U.S. now live in a pluralistic society; and, in response to this fact, its advocates agree with our former Presiding Bishop who is fond of saying we should tolerate the contradictions because they will find a final reconciliation within the pleroma of divine truth. The prevalence of this view recently received vivid illustration when a Priest of TEC announced that she is now both and Muslim and a Christian. The response of her bishop was that he welcomed her decision because it would do wonders for interfaith relations!
A more fundamental problem arises when one looks hard at the meaning and use of the two sacraments on the part of TEC's clerical leadership. It is no secret that in a significant number of dioceses and parishes Baptism is no longer thought to be a necessary precondition for participation in the Supper of the Lord. To be sure, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord are sacraments found throughout the dioceses and parishes of TEC. However, use is changing the meaning of both in ways most Christians within the Anglican Communion and within the other churches would not recognize as faithful to Christ's intention. How is one to understand this remarkable novelty? One can come the Supper of the Lord without Baptism because one does not have to die and rise with Christ in order to come to the Father. As a consequence, Baptism is not an effective sign of dying and rising with Christ and the Supper of the Lord is not a participation in that death and resurrection. Both sacraments are simply ways of offering hospitality to a diverse humankind and so manifesting the welcoming love of God to all.
We now come to the fourth element of the quadrilateral—the historic episcopate locally adapted. With its arrival, we are presented not only the question of Episcopal authority but also the question of diversity. How is the truth of the Gospel of Christ to be proclaimed and lived faithfully in circumstances very different from those that obtained in first century Palestine? And how is the common life of the church to be ordered within the tensions produced by the meeting of the truth about God made known in Christ Jesus and the particular circumstances in which Christians witness to that truth? The answer given by the leadership of TEC is, at the moment, through allowing the greatest possible autonomy not only on the part of each province of the Anglican Communion but also on the part of the various dioceses and parishes of TEC. Within TEC this is known as local option. Each province, diocese, parish and mission is to maintain loving relations with all others, but each is to pursue the truth of God in Christ in its own way and in its own place. In short, the historic episcopate which once was thought to guarantee that Christians throughout the world held to one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all is now to see that the particular way in which the Gospel is received and lived in his or her particular location is not threatened or impinged upon by Christians from beyond the borders of a particular jurisdiction. The locally adapted episcopate within TEC has become thoroughly local in all matters save a range of moral imperatives that enjoin hospitality, mutual aid, mutual respect, and love, but not common faith and practice. On this view, bishops function in large measure to enforce not the belief and practice of the church catholic but local canons that protect diocese or parish from foreign intervention or defection by anyone who opposes the progressive views of those who hold office.
So, what about the Anglican Communion? A trip around progressive blogs and a sample of recent literature quickly reveals an answer. The Anglican Communion has no brief to impose restrictions on its member provinces. Each province is autonomous. To be sure, each is bound to the others by "bonds of affection" but these bonds do not include common belief and practice. On this view, the Communion is in fact a federation of independent churches whose links are purely historical and moral. Thus, in respect to Episcopal authority, progressive voices make the very dubious claim that the "enhanced responsibility" now accorded to the Meeting of Primates represents an incipient curia that runs in a contrary direction to Anglican tradition. In a similar vein, the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury to "gather" the bishops of the Communion and its various instruments of communion is no more than functional. It carries with it no right to withhold invitations and so no right to discipline. In short, the progressive view is thoroughly postmodern. The Anglican Communion is a polycentric web of autonomous and distinctive political units whose chief characteristic is diversity. Integrity consists not in unity of faith and practice but furtherance of this diversity within a web of communication that is sustained by mutual respect for difference. (What we have here is a paradise imagined by Richard Rorty.)
III
It is not surprising that there has been a vehement reaction to the progressive position on the part of people of a more traditional frame of mind. Both Ephraim Radner and I have termed this reaction "confessionalist." What is the counter vision of integrity, diversity, Episcopal authority, and communion presented in reaction to what is perceived to be an unacceptable progressive hegemony within TEC (and the C of E)? Within TEC reaction to the progressive position has in large measure been political and practical rather than theological. Nevertheless, there is a growing literature (largely from outside the U.S.) that gives voice to the views of those in reaction to the patently heterodox views now regnant within TEC. There are several of particular importance; namely, the chapter in To Mend the Net entitled "The Formularies and the Limits of Diversity," "A Covenant for the Church of England" issued by a coalition from within the Church of England, a submission by Bishops from the Global South to the Covenant Design Committee, and a recent change in its constitution on the part of the Anglican Church of Nigeria.
As one culls through these sources, what vision of "integrity" emerges? In a section from "A Covenant for the Church of England" (CCE) entitled "Identity", we read, "We are committed to faithful biblical orthodoxy as defined by the classic formularies of our tradition." This commitment is further defined by reference to Canon A5 of the C of E that reads, "The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal." The framers of CCE then add a reference to the Preface to the Declaration of Assent that declares that the Church of England professes "the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds." The section on "identity" concludes by saying "true unity belongs in this common confession" and that schism is caused by "departure from this common faith."
Integrity, fidelity to the apostolic witness, is to be recognized and guaranteed not by relatively unfettered evolution in experience and understanding (i.e., as in TEC) but by an interpretation of the Holy Scriptures that accords with a range of authoritative interpretive documents. This is precisely the position taken by the author of the essay "The Formularies and the Limits of Diversity" only the number of authoritative documents listed there is more extensive. The author contends that there are two sorts of formularies—one general and the other particular. The general formularies are the dogmatic decrees of the General Councils, the "writings of the Fathers as a record of the mind of the Church in reading Holy Scripture"; and the common law of the Christian Church. The particular formularies are The Book of Common Prayer, the "Ordinal", the Articles of Religion, and the Canon Law. It is by fidelity to these "formularies" that the integrity of the Anglican Communion is to preserved.
It is clear that this view is having very practical consequences. The Anglican Church of Nigeria has changed its Constitution so as to define communion by adherence to the classical formularies of Anglicanism rather than by a relation to the Archbishop of Canterbury. In a similar move, Common Cause (a uniting movement of diaspora Anglicans within the U.S. and disaffected parishes and dioceses from within TEC) has incorporated these formularies into its self-definition.
It is clear also that the "confessionalist" view of diversity is radically different from that proposed by those Ephraim Radner has termed "localists" and I have referred to as "progressives." If "localists" uphold diversity as part of the richness of the Anglican heritage and as a way in fact of ensuring its integrity, "confessionalists" view diversity as a threat to integrity that is best limited by rather clear doctrinal and moral boundaries. The important thing is not variety, development and new insight but fidelity to a recognized deposit of right doctrine and practice.
"Confessionalists" are concerned to maintain doctrinal limits rather than expand (or perhaps blur) doctrinal boundaries; and, not surprisingly, this concern gives them a very different view from their "progressive" adversaries of both Episcopal authority and the nature of the Anglican Communion. For "confessionalists" Episcopal authority functions primarily to insure that "orthodoxy" is maintained within parish, diocese, province and communion. However, it may well be that "confessionalists" have differing views of how that authority ought to be exercised in circumstances like those brought about by the actions of TEC. Those who proposed CCE have a very radical position. Noting that the Gospel imperative to "Go into all the world and make disciples" has renewed force in a post Christian society, the framers of CCE insist "traditional patterns of parishes, clergy and ecclesiastical buildings is now inadequate" and in consequence "existing ecclesial legal boundaries should be seen as permeable." Thus, there cannot be any "no-go areas for gospel growth and church planting." They insist also that leadership faithful to "biblical orthodoxy" must be raised up at the local level and if not approved by the ordinary of that area, provision for recognizing or ordaining said leadership should be provided from outside the local jurisdiction. They conclude that they can no longer accept "churches being denied such oversight, and that provision of such oversight is more important than arguments about jurisdiction. The immediate crisis, they say, is over "the fundamentals of revealed truth." It is perhaps worth noting at this point that Bishop Martyn Minns of CANA has espoused a similar view in a recent web article, "The World is Flat." It is also a position similar to that taken by AMiA.
The view of Episcopal authority proposed by the authors of CCE, CANA, and AMiA is quite aggressive. It not only is charged with guarding "biblical orthodoxy", it is also charged with spreading it not only in areas where it is under threat by heterodox Episcopal authority but also more generally even in "Biblically orthodox" dioceses. A more moderate view can be found in the letter of Archbishop Henry Luke Orambi of Uganda announcing the consecration of the Rev. John Guernsey as Bishop within the Church of Uganda with pastoral responsibility for the 26 parishes that have sought the protection of one or another of Uganda's bishops. Bishop-elect Guernsey will be assigned "Episcopal oversight" but not "jurisdiction" in respect to the 26 parishes (each of which will remain "full members" of its respective Ugandan diocese). Guernsey is to be seen as "overseeing bishop" and the various Ugandan bishops involved as mission partners. This arrangement means, in the words of Bishop Orambi, "all matters pertaining to ordinations, deployment of clergy, calling of clergy to parishes, clergy discipline, installation of new rectors, confirmation, planting of new churches, referral of church for Ugandan oversight, etc. should now be referred directly to Bishop-elect Guernsey and no longer to your Ugandan Bishop. On the other hand, matters pertaining to your joint mission efforts should be referred to your Ugandan Bishop."
By Bishop Orambi's own admission, this is a "complex" arrangement. It is, however, one that has arisen from direct requests for Episcopal oversight that have come from within TEC. It is not one that has resulted from missionary efforts on the part of the Church of Uganda within other jurisdictions. Further, it is an arrangement the bishop refers to as an "ecclesiastical refugee ministry." It is intended to last only until there is in place "a Biblically orthodox domestic ecclesial entity in the USA." If at some point in the future such an entity should exist, Bishop Orambi says the Church of Uganda could "repatriate" any parishes involved in such a scheme.
What might such an entity look like? This question brings me to the final subject I have been assigned—the Anglican Communion. I say this because the sort of entity envisioned carries with it the future nature of what is now the Anglican Communion. For various reasons that future does not at the moment look bright. The unanimously agreed Pastoral Scheme by the Primates in their February meeting of 2007 is one possibility. If adopted, it would provide a way to prevent fracture because it would, in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, provide an American solution to an American problem. Nevertheless, its rejection by TEC's House of Bishops and its Executive Council prompt a concluding comment by Bishop Orambi that augers ill for such a possibility. At the conclusion of his letter he welcomes Bishop Duncan's call for a "Council of Bishops meeting for the Common Cause partners in September." He states, "This is the kind of movement toward unity among orthodox entities in the USA that is hopeful for the future of a Biblical North American Anglican witness…" This remark leads to the conclusion that a new province may be in the making if no other course presents itself.
The apparent collapse of the pastoral scheme and the positions and actions taken prior to and subsequent to said collapse by persons and groups of a "confessionalist" frame of mind cast more than a shadow of doubt over the future of the Anglican Communion, as it now exists. Just what sort of communion do "confessionalists" envision? How do they understand the identity of Anglicanism? They often speak of "realignment", but on what basis? Clearly, as Nigeria's change in its constitution makes clear and as the other proposals and actions I have mentioned suggest, Anglicanism is to be understood first of all as a confessional body defined by the classical formularies of the C of E. It is on the basis of this confessional identity that the Anglican Communion is to go forward, and it is on the basis of a confessional identity that the realignment of the Communion is to take place. It probably doesn't need saying, but I will anyway. This view is as different from the polycentric vision of autonomous provinces held by progressives as one can imagine.
IV
Be that as it may, what I find so distressing about what might be called the "confessionalist turn" in thought and action is that planning for an independent ecclesiastical entity of the sort apparently being considered by the bishops involved in Common Cause has been going on in secret perhaps from the year 2004 and certainly from the year 2005. The recent appearance on the Web of a memo by the Rev. Allison Barfoot and dated 2004 suggesting many of the developments and possibilities I have noted above certainly suggests that plans for a new province have been in the making for some time. A memo from Bishops Duncan to the Primates of the Global South dated 2005 proposing a "missionary distinct" clearly recommends such a course. What is even more distressing than the secrecy, however, is the fact that the confessional nature of the suggestions for a new province and a new definition of communion portends splits within the Communion that run all the way down--through parishes, dioceses, and provinces. We are speaking here not of "realignment" but the shattering of the Anglican Communion as we have known it.
It may in fact be too late to prevent such an eventuality, but a possibility as dire as this requires one to ask if there is a better way. I very much hope there is because both the "progressive" and the "confessionalist" positions are more than inadequate. They are dead wrong! Before I point to a better way forward, I must state briefly my reasons for making such a bald statement. To take the "progressive" view first, their idea of communion verges on Rotarianism. It amounts to little more than a dedication to good works surrounded by a patina of religiosity. Thus, the mission of the church is reducible in their mind to the "millennium goals." But can the church understood as a communion of believers be understood as little more than a society devoted to good works (even if those good works are done to honor God)? Or again, does a body bound by no more than affection, mutual aid, and mutual respect even approximate what the New Testament understands as koinonia? Does it come close to what Paul means when he urges believers to be of one mind? Does it approach what John has in mind when he presents the Church with Christ's final prayer that they all be one? I find it impossible to conclude that the right answer to any of these questions could be yes.
The "confessionalist " position presents different but equally serious problems. Its difficulties are at least three fold. First, the history of confessions within Anglicanism shows that again and again appeal to formularies failed to produce the unity for which they were intended. Second, as time goes on, those who hold to confessions must interpret them in the light of new circumstances. This simple fact suggests that the communion confessions are supposed to produce and protect in fact depend upon relations between people who interpret and enforce them. Finally, confessions grow from an achieved unity of thought and practice and have force only as long as that unity exists. In and or themselves, they cannot sustain the reality that gives them birth—namely a unity of belief and life within the Church. In short, to make confessional agreement the basis of communion is to put the cart before the horse and in so doing produce not a communion but a church party; or worse yet another church!
V
To quote Luke very much out of context, the problems endemic to the sort of action and reaction I have described prompt me to ask "What then shall we do?" As I suggested at the outset, I believe the Windsor Report (WR) provides a more adequate answer to the questions posed than either of the alternatives I have described. How do the authors of WR understand "integrity"? Nor surprisingly, "integrity" requires fidelity to apostolic teaching. However, fidelity to apostolic teaching is carried forward through time not by devouring the past in the name of the future and not by confessional agreement. Rather it is carried forward by participation in a practice, namely, the regular reading of the Holy Scriptures (entire) through the year in the context of the prayers and worship of the church. If read in this way the Bible is perspicuous—its meaning open to the simple believer. To be sure, the faithful are aided in their appropriation of the meaning of the Holy Scriptures by councils, creeds, the writing of the Fathers, confessions, and formularies; but these do not provide the bedrock upon which fidelity to apostolic teaching rests. What a number of us have termed "scriptural immersion" on the part of a people is the source and guarantee of the "integrity" to which the Church is called at all times and in all places. Consequently, WR calls for the Anglican Communion to "re-evaluate the ways in which we have read, heard, studied and digested scripture" with a view to procuring "a shared reading of Scripture across boundaries of culture, religion, and tradition." (WR 61, 62) Clearly, a shared reading is something that comes into being through the common practice of the church. It is not a pre-existing and permanent condition that can be summed up in a formulary and presented as the standard of fidelity through the ages.
What about "diversity"? Why is it necessary and how is it related to "integrity"? According to WR, a common and adequate appropriation of apostolic teaching is an ongoing process. That process is challenging because there are differences in historical and cultural location that require autonomy on the part of the various provinces of the Communion. Each is called upon to make a faithful witness within its particular circumstances. Consequently, differences between provinces (some no doubt extreme) will inevitably appear. However, WR insists that, "in communion, each church acknowledges and respects the interdependence and autonomy of the other…"If any local practices or statements of belief become controversial, their adequacy is to be judged through a process of discernment. However, in this process each province is to put "the needs of the global fellowship before its own." Further, they are to "avoid unilateral action on contentious issues which may result in broken communion." In short, "diversity" and autonomy are to be understood not in isolation but always in relation to the sort of common mind and heart that is constitutive of communion.
The view presented by WR of both "integrity" and "diversity" leads directly to what the report has to say about Episcopal authority. The centrality of the Holy Scriptures for discerning the circumference of apostolic teaching and the limits of diversity points to the importance of "teachers of Scripture" within the life of the Church. Chief among these are "bishops who aid the church in its efforts of discernment." (WR 57,58) Bishops also fulfill a function of fundamental importance in maintaining and giving expression to the sort of "synodality" that is constitutive of communion as Anglicans have understood and lived it. What the report terms "synodical walking together" is "expressed most visibly among Anglicans through the office of bishop." (WR 66) How might this view of Episcopal authority best be summarized? The bishop is not a prophet called to lead the church into new truth. The bishop is not first of all an inspector of confessional adequacy. The bishop is rather a teacher of the church and a living expression of its common faith and life charged with guarding and strengthening its communion both within each diocese and the church universal.
(I will only note at this point that failure to discuss church discipline in connection with the Episcopal responsibility to guard the faith and practice of the church constitutes a serious weakness in both the Virginia Report and the Windsor Report. Apart from adequate discipline, the call given by WR for "mutual subjection" cannot sustain the sort of communion it is the purpose of the framers of WR to promote.)
This last remark about the authority of bishops brings us to the way in which WR understands the Anglican Communion. It's chief characteristic is neither local autonomy, confessional uniformity, nor centralized jurisdiction. Rather, its chief characteristics are "mutual subjection" and "mutual responsibility and interdependence" within the body of Christ. On this view communion is not a steady state that can be measured by confessional adequacy. Neither is it simply a shared set of moral commitments. Rather, it is a constant work of the Spirit within the church bringing unity out of division and peace out of struggle. It is a work of the Spirit within the life of the Church that brings together those of a different mind and heart and gives them one mind and heart. For this miracle to occur, the church is called upon to practice mutual subjection and exercise patience as it searches the Holy Scriptures seeking a common mind on divisive matters. In short, when threatened with division, the Church is called upon to provide a space in time for grace to abound so that brothers and sisters who have been divided may once again sit down in unity and peace. This calling, says WR, derives from the fundamental calling of the Church; namely, to be an anticipatory sign of God's purpose for "all things." That purpose is to unite all things in Christ Jesus. Thus, unity and truth are conjoined in the providence of God like twins joined at the hip.
VI
In conclusion, allow me to return to a question I posed at the beginning of these remarks. Is the continuance of Anglicanism as a communion of churches of any significance within the providence of God? I believe it is and I hope you will forgive me for quoting myself as I provide a reason for saying so. The reason I believe the Anglican Communion is important within God's providence stems from the answer it gives to one of my initial questions in this address.
How does the Church both remain faithful to the apostolic witness and yet address the issues of its own time and place? The answer suggested by WR is as follows:
"The Anglican answer to the question of fidelity and cogency on the part of the church is not addressed by magisterial, fixed conciliar, or confessional authority, but by the shape and form of the common life of the church itself. That shape is given form by a thick notion of communion and mutual subjection and upon a willingness to abide over extended periods within the internal conflicts of the church." (Ephraim Radner and Philip Turner, The Fate of the Church)
It is my belief that God has brought us to a point within our present conflicts at which he is asking if we Anglicans have sufficient faith, hope and love to sustain such a vision of the church catholic, and offer it as a way forward for Christ's broken and divided body. This is the question posed to us by the proposal that we covenant one with another. What ought such a covenant to look like. If we are progressive, it will resemble a charter of good will and mutual aid. If we are confessionalists it will resemble a rather carefully formulated statement of shared belief. If we follow the road suggested by the Windsor Report, it will more closely resemble a marriage—a commitment to mutual subjection in Christ that will carry us through time and in the process unite us both to Christ and one another in a bond that binds in one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, and one God and Father of all. Amen.
Last Updated ( Friday, 13 July 2007 )
Sunday, 08 July 2007
An Address on Integrity, Diversity, and Episcopal Authority In the Anglican Communion
I
We are gathered to discuss the covenant that has been proposed as a means of preventing the fragmentation of Anglicanism and insuring its continuance as a communion of churches. As a way to throw light on the subject, I have been asked to speak about "Integrity, Diversity, and Episcopal Authority within the Anglican Communion". The fact is that conflicting ways of understanding these four nouns (integrity, diversity, authority, and communion) lie at the heart of our travails. The subject before us is in fact of central importance to our future. However, the pace of events is such that hardly a thought crosses my mind before it is rendered problematic by yet another development within one or another of our provinces. Within my own church, for example, the consecration of Gene Robinson and the election of a woman as Primate have been followed by the whole sale rejection on the part of the House of Bishops and the Executive Council of the scheme of pastoral care proposed by the Primates meeting in Dar es Salaam, In reaction to these and other previous developments, we have witnessed the formation of CANA, the announcement that Kenya and Uganda will each consecrate a bishop to oversee the "orthodox" parishes within the U.S. that have placed themselves under their care, and formation of a wider coalition (Common Cause) that includes these and other groups. This coalition bears all the marks of a proto province. By the time I deliver this address, I assume even more will have transpired; and I assume as well all that occurs will have profound effects on how the question I have been assigned is adequately to be addressed.
In the face of difficulties such as these, all I can do is place on display the deep and abiding issues that underlie the myriad events that rise to the surface of a very troubled sea—one that very easily could leave the Anglican Communion no more than a sunken wreck. The first of these is why are the issues of "Integrity, Diversity, and Episcopal Authority" perennial? Why is it that each of the parties to our present disputes cannot avoid addressing the questions their confluence presents? Quite simply because the subjects indicated by the nouns in my title are ones no Christian can avoid if they desire to remain faithful Christians. To be specific, "Integrity" presents the issue of fidelity to the apostolic witness. "Diversity" poses the question of the adequacy of this witness within the changes and chances of history. "Episcopal Authority" presses the question of how the tension between fidelity and relevance is to be managed in a faithful and orderly fashion. Finally, the phrase "Within the Anglican Communion!" These words pose a question made necessary by the hideous spectacle of a divided church, and the question is this. Is the survival of Anglicanism as a communion rather than a federation of churches of any value within the providence of a God whose purpose is the unity of all things in Christ Jesus? I feel sure that many of a Protestant, Orthodox, or Roman Catholic persuasion answer this question in the negative. It is a question about whose answer we ought not to be sanguine!
I will return to this question at a later point, but an initial comment about it will help us focus our attention on the immediate significance for us of the church struggle in which we are engaged. From the beginning, Anglicans have worried about ecclesiology. From the beginning, we Anglicans have sought a justification for our existence within a divided church. The history of Anglican theology is in no small measure a history of what we have had to say in response to this question. Our present travail has raised the question again, and in an acute and painful form. It would appear that we are not at present sure about who we are as Anglicans? What is our identity? What we see in the arguments that whiz back and forth in the virtual world of the Internet is less an argument about sex and more a quest for identity—an answer to the haunting question of what we as Anglicans are called to be and do.
So the title I have been assigned presents us with several abiding issues and one that is of specific importance for ourselves. How do we remain faithful to the apostolic witness and yet speak in a way that is meaningful and powerful within our own time and place. How do we maintain both the truth with which we have been entrusted and the unity to which we are called as we struggle both to be truthful and relevant? And in this struggle, does Anglicanism have an important, even necessary, role within the providence of God?
II
When I first thought of this address, I imagined that I would begin with the Windsor Report--with that document Bishop Tom Wright has referred to as the gold standard of present Anglican thought. I quite agree with Bishop Wright, and I will end these remarks by trying to show that it points to an answer to each of the questions posed by my title in a way far more adequate than any of its rivals. But the Windsor Report was prepared in response to an action on the part of The Episcopal Church (TEC)—an action that was in direct contradiction to the requests of all the instruments of our communion. It seems right, therefore, to begin with the answer to our questions that is now dominant within the church that precipitated our present crisis.
In defending itself, TEC is quick to remind its critics that it holds fast to the Lambeth Quadrilateral and so insists (in accord with Resolution 11 of the Lambeth Conference 1888) that TEC holds to the four following points:
(a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as "containing all tings necessary for salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith, (b) The Apostles Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith, (c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ himself—Baptism and the Supper of the Lord—ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution, and of the elements ordained by Him, (d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.
These four points are taken by the progressive defenders of the actions of TEC as an adequate guarantee of its integrity, its adherence to the apostolic tradition. However, at each of the four points, the progressive leadership of TEC gives a remarkable spin to their interpretation. Thus, for example, the claim that the Holy Scriptures contain "all things necessary for salvation" and are "the rule and ultimate standard of faith" is qualified (if not contradicted) by the common assertion that revelation is "ongoing" in a way that makes available new truths either not previously known, not properly understood, or in direct contradiction to well established tradition. The witness of the Holy Scriptures is further qualified by claims that there are truths of reason and/or experience that may contradict the seemingly univocal witness of scripture. (Thus, for example, the assertion that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life is contradicted by the experience of God in other religions just as the univocal scriptural condemnation of homosexual relations is contradicted by the experience of loving relations between members of the same gender.) In short, within TEC, tradition, reason, and now experience can operate independent of and in contradistinction to the witness of the Holy Scriptures. Further, novelty in respect to doctrine and practice receive generous license because (so it is claimed) the Holy Spirit acts most normally in doing new things—things that need not accord with former things!
Similar issues arise with the claim that the integrity of TEC is assured by the continuing authority of the historic creeds. However, the progressive clergy who now hold the levers of power within TEC insist vehemently that the creeds are not to be used as binding confessions that exclude from fellowship people whose experience of God or whose beliefs about God are different from or even contradictory to those normally associated with the creeds as tokens of Christian identity and sufficient statements of Christian belief. The progressive position in respect to the creeds is that Christians in the U.S. now live in a pluralistic society; and, in response to this fact, its advocates agree with our former Presiding Bishop who is fond of saying we should tolerate the contradictions because they will find a final reconciliation within the pleroma of divine truth. The prevalence of this view recently received vivid illustration when a Priest of TEC announced that she is now both and Muslim and a Christian. The response of her bishop was that he welcomed her decision because it would do wonders for interfaith relations!
A more fundamental problem arises when one looks hard at the meaning and use of the two sacraments on the part of TEC's clerical leadership. It is no secret that in a significant number of dioceses and parishes Baptism is no longer thought to be a necessary precondition for participation in the Supper of the Lord. To be sure, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord are sacraments found throughout the dioceses and parishes of TEC. However, use is changing the meaning of both in ways most Christians within the Anglican Communion and within the other churches would not recognize as faithful to Christ's intention. How is one to understand this remarkable novelty? One can come the Supper of the Lord without Baptism because one does not have to die and rise with Christ in order to come to the Father. As a consequence, Baptism is not an effective sign of dying and rising with Christ and the Supper of the Lord is not a participation in that death and resurrection. Both sacraments are simply ways of offering hospitality to a diverse humankind and so manifesting the welcoming love of God to all.
We now come to the fourth element of the quadrilateral—the historic episcopate locally adapted. With its arrival, we are presented not only the question of Episcopal authority but also the question of diversity. How is the truth of the Gospel of Christ to be proclaimed and lived faithfully in circumstances very different from those that obtained in first century Palestine? And how is the common life of the church to be ordered within the tensions produced by the meeting of the truth about God made known in Christ Jesus and the particular circumstances in which Christians witness to that truth? The answer given by the leadership of TEC is, at the moment, through allowing the greatest possible autonomy not only on the part of each province of the Anglican Communion but also on the part of the various dioceses and parishes of TEC. Within TEC this is known as local option. Each province, diocese, parish and mission is to maintain loving relations with all others, but each is to pursue the truth of God in Christ in its own way and in its own place. In short, the historic episcopate which once was thought to guarantee that Christians throughout the world held to one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all is now to see that the particular way in which the Gospel is received and lived in his or her particular location is not threatened or impinged upon by Christians from beyond the borders of a particular jurisdiction. The locally adapted episcopate within TEC has become thoroughly local in all matters save a range of moral imperatives that enjoin hospitality, mutual aid, mutual respect, and love, but not common faith and practice. On this view, bishops function in large measure to enforce not the belief and practice of the church catholic but local canons that protect diocese or parish from foreign intervention or defection by anyone who opposes the progressive views of those who hold office.
So, what about the Anglican Communion? A trip around progressive blogs and a sample of recent literature quickly reveals an answer. The Anglican Communion has no brief to impose restrictions on its member provinces. Each province is autonomous. To be sure, each is bound to the others by "bonds of affection" but these bonds do not include common belief and practice. On this view, the Communion is in fact a federation of independent churches whose links are purely historical and moral. Thus, in respect to Episcopal authority, progressive voices make the very dubious claim that the "enhanced responsibility" now accorded to the Meeting of Primates represents an incipient curia that runs in a contrary direction to Anglican tradition. In a similar vein, the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury to "gather" the bishops of the Communion and its various instruments of communion is no more than functional. It carries with it no right to withhold invitations and so no right to discipline. In short, the progressive view is thoroughly postmodern. The Anglican Communion is a polycentric web of autonomous and distinctive political units whose chief characteristic is diversity. Integrity consists not in unity of faith and practice but furtherance of this diversity within a web of communication that is sustained by mutual respect for difference. (What we have here is a paradise imagined by Richard Rorty.)
III
It is not surprising that there has been a vehement reaction to the progressive position on the part of people of a more traditional frame of mind. Both Ephraim Radner and I have termed this reaction "confessionalist." What is the counter vision of integrity, diversity, Episcopal authority, and communion presented in reaction to what is perceived to be an unacceptable progressive hegemony within TEC (and the C of E)? Within TEC reaction to the progressive position has in large measure been political and practical rather than theological. Nevertheless, there is a growing literature (largely from outside the U.S.) that gives voice to the views of those in reaction to the patently heterodox views now regnant within TEC. There are several of particular importance; namely, the chapter in To Mend the Net entitled "The Formularies and the Limits of Diversity," "A Covenant for the Church of England" issued by a coalition from within the Church of England, a submission by Bishops from the Global South to the Covenant Design Committee, and a recent change in its constitution on the part of the Anglican Church of Nigeria.
As one culls through these sources, what vision of "integrity" emerges? In a section from "A Covenant for the Church of England" (CCE) entitled "Identity", we read, "We are committed to faithful biblical orthodoxy as defined by the classic formularies of our tradition." This commitment is further defined by reference to Canon A5 of the C of E that reads, "The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal." The framers of CCE then add a reference to the Preface to the Declaration of Assent that declares that the Church of England professes "the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds." The section on "identity" concludes by saying "true unity belongs in this common confession" and that schism is caused by "departure from this common faith."
Integrity, fidelity to the apostolic witness, is to be recognized and guaranteed not by relatively unfettered evolution in experience and understanding (i.e., as in TEC) but by an interpretation of the Holy Scriptures that accords with a range of authoritative interpretive documents. This is precisely the position taken by the author of the essay "The Formularies and the Limits of Diversity" only the number of authoritative documents listed there is more extensive. The author contends that there are two sorts of formularies—one general and the other particular. The general formularies are the dogmatic decrees of the General Councils, the "writings of the Fathers as a record of the mind of the Church in reading Holy Scripture"; and the common law of the Christian Church. The particular formularies are The Book of Common Prayer, the "Ordinal", the Articles of Religion, and the Canon Law. It is by fidelity to these "formularies" that the integrity of the Anglican Communion is to preserved.
It is clear that this view is having very practical consequences. The Anglican Church of Nigeria has changed its Constitution so as to define communion by adherence to the classical formularies of Anglicanism rather than by a relation to the Archbishop of Canterbury. In a similar move, Common Cause (a uniting movement of diaspora Anglicans within the U.S. and disaffected parishes and dioceses from within TEC) has incorporated these formularies into its self-definition.
It is clear also that the "confessionalist" view of diversity is radically different from that proposed by those Ephraim Radner has termed "localists" and I have referred to as "progressives." If "localists" uphold diversity as part of the richness of the Anglican heritage and as a way in fact of ensuring its integrity, "confessionalists" view diversity as a threat to integrity that is best limited by rather clear doctrinal and moral boundaries. The important thing is not variety, development and new insight but fidelity to a recognized deposit of right doctrine and practice.
"Confessionalists" are concerned to maintain doctrinal limits rather than expand (or perhaps blur) doctrinal boundaries; and, not surprisingly, this concern gives them a very different view from their "progressive" adversaries of both Episcopal authority and the nature of the Anglican Communion. For "confessionalists" Episcopal authority functions primarily to insure that "orthodoxy" is maintained within parish, diocese, province and communion. However, it may well be that "confessionalists" have differing views of how that authority ought to be exercised in circumstances like those brought about by the actions of TEC. Those who proposed CCE have a very radical position. Noting that the Gospel imperative to "Go into all the world and make disciples" has renewed force in a post Christian society, the framers of CCE insist "traditional patterns of parishes, clergy and ecclesiastical buildings is now inadequate" and in consequence "existing ecclesial legal boundaries should be seen as permeable." Thus, there cannot be any "no-go areas for gospel growth and church planting." They insist also that leadership faithful to "biblical orthodoxy" must be raised up at the local level and if not approved by the ordinary of that area, provision for recognizing or ordaining said leadership should be provided from outside the local jurisdiction. They conclude that they can no longer accept "churches being denied such oversight, and that provision of such oversight is more important than arguments about jurisdiction. The immediate crisis, they say, is over "the fundamentals of revealed truth." It is perhaps worth noting at this point that Bishop Martyn Minns of CANA has espoused a similar view in a recent web article, "The World is Flat." It is also a position similar to that taken by AMiA.
The view of Episcopal authority proposed by the authors of CCE, CANA, and AMiA is quite aggressive. It not only is charged with guarding "biblical orthodoxy", it is also charged with spreading it not only in areas where it is under threat by heterodox Episcopal authority but also more generally even in "Biblically orthodox" dioceses. A more moderate view can be found in the letter of Archbishop Henry Luke Orambi of Uganda announcing the consecration of the Rev. John Guernsey as Bishop within the Church of Uganda with pastoral responsibility for the 26 parishes that have sought the protection of one or another of Uganda's bishops. Bishop-elect Guernsey will be assigned "Episcopal oversight" but not "jurisdiction" in respect to the 26 parishes (each of which will remain "full members" of its respective Ugandan diocese). Guernsey is to be seen as "overseeing bishop" and the various Ugandan bishops involved as mission partners. This arrangement means, in the words of Bishop Orambi, "all matters pertaining to ordinations, deployment of clergy, calling of clergy to parishes, clergy discipline, installation of new rectors, confirmation, planting of new churches, referral of church for Ugandan oversight, etc. should now be referred directly to Bishop-elect Guernsey and no longer to your Ugandan Bishop. On the other hand, matters pertaining to your joint mission efforts should be referred to your Ugandan Bishop."
By Bishop Orambi's own admission, this is a "complex" arrangement. It is, however, one that has arisen from direct requests for Episcopal oversight that have come from within TEC. It is not one that has resulted from missionary efforts on the part of the Church of Uganda within other jurisdictions. Further, it is an arrangement the bishop refers to as an "ecclesiastical refugee ministry." It is intended to last only until there is in place "a Biblically orthodox domestic ecclesial entity in the USA." If at some point in the future such an entity should exist, Bishop Orambi says the Church of Uganda could "repatriate" any parishes involved in such a scheme.
What might such an entity look like? This question brings me to the final subject I have been assigned—the Anglican Communion. I say this because the sort of entity envisioned carries with it the future nature of what is now the Anglican Communion. For various reasons that future does not at the moment look bright. The unanimously agreed Pastoral Scheme by the Primates in their February meeting of 2007 is one possibility. If adopted, it would provide a way to prevent fracture because it would, in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, provide an American solution to an American problem. Nevertheless, its rejection by TEC's House of Bishops and its Executive Council prompt a concluding comment by Bishop Orambi that augers ill for such a possibility. At the conclusion of his letter he welcomes Bishop Duncan's call for a "Council of Bishops meeting for the Common Cause partners in September." He states, "This is the kind of movement toward unity among orthodox entities in the USA that is hopeful for the future of a Biblical North American Anglican witness…" This remark leads to the conclusion that a new province may be in the making if no other course presents itself.
The apparent collapse of the pastoral scheme and the positions and actions taken prior to and subsequent to said collapse by persons and groups of a "confessionalist" frame of mind cast more than a shadow of doubt over the future of the Anglican Communion, as it now exists. Just what sort of communion do "confessionalists" envision? How do they understand the identity of Anglicanism? They often speak of "realignment", but on what basis? Clearly, as Nigeria's change in its constitution makes clear and as the other proposals and actions I have mentioned suggest, Anglicanism is to be understood first of all as a confessional body defined by the classical formularies of the C of E. It is on the basis of this confessional identity that the Anglican Communion is to go forward, and it is on the basis of a confessional identity that the realignment of the Communion is to take place. It probably doesn't need saying, but I will anyway. This view is as different from the polycentric vision of autonomous provinces held by progressives as one can imagine.
IV
Be that as it may, what I find so distressing about what might be called the "confessionalist turn" in thought and action is that planning for an independent ecclesiastical entity of the sort apparently being considered by the bishops involved in Common Cause has been going on in secret perhaps from the year 2004 and certainly from the year 2005. The recent appearance on the Web of a memo by the Rev. Allison Barfoot and dated 2004 suggesting many of the developments and possibilities I have noted above certainly suggests that plans for a new province have been in the making for some time. A memo from Bishops Duncan to the Primates of the Global South dated 2005 proposing a "missionary distinct" clearly recommends such a course. What is even more distressing than the secrecy, however, is the fact that the confessional nature of the suggestions for a new province and a new definition of communion portends splits within the Communion that run all the way down--through parishes, dioceses, and provinces. We are speaking here not of "realignment" but the shattering of the Anglican Communion as we have known it.
It may in fact be too late to prevent such an eventuality, but a possibility as dire as this requires one to ask if there is a better way. I very much hope there is because both the "progressive" and the "confessionalist" positions are more than inadequate. They are dead wrong! Before I point to a better way forward, I must state briefly my reasons for making such a bald statement. To take the "progressive" view first, their idea of communion verges on Rotarianism. It amounts to little more than a dedication to good works surrounded by a patina of religiosity. Thus, the mission of the church is reducible in their mind to the "millennium goals." But can the church understood as a communion of believers be understood as little more than a society devoted to good works (even if those good works are done to honor God)? Or again, does a body bound by no more than affection, mutual aid, and mutual respect even approximate what the New Testament understands as koinonia? Does it come close to what Paul means when he urges believers to be of one mind? Does it approach what John has in mind when he presents the Church with Christ's final prayer that they all be one? I find it impossible to conclude that the right answer to any of these questions could be yes.
The "confessionalist " position presents different but equally serious problems. Its difficulties are at least three fold. First, the history of confessions within Anglicanism shows that again and again appeal to formularies failed to produce the unity for which they were intended. Second, as time goes on, those who hold to confessions must interpret them in the light of new circumstances. This simple fact suggests that the communion confessions are supposed to produce and protect in fact depend upon relations between people who interpret and enforce them. Finally, confessions grow from an achieved unity of thought and practice and have force only as long as that unity exists. In and or themselves, they cannot sustain the reality that gives them birth—namely a unity of belief and life within the Church. In short, to make confessional agreement the basis of communion is to put the cart before the horse and in so doing produce not a communion but a church party; or worse yet another church!
V
To quote Luke very much out of context, the problems endemic to the sort of action and reaction I have described prompt me to ask "What then shall we do?" As I suggested at the outset, I believe the Windsor Report (WR) provides a more adequate answer to the questions posed than either of the alternatives I have described. How do the authors of WR understand "integrity"? Nor surprisingly, "integrity" requires fidelity to apostolic teaching. However, fidelity to apostolic teaching is carried forward through time not by devouring the past in the name of the future and not by confessional agreement. Rather it is carried forward by participation in a practice, namely, the regular reading of the Holy Scriptures (entire) through the year in the context of the prayers and worship of the church. If read in this way the Bible is perspicuous—its meaning open to the simple believer. To be sure, the faithful are aided in their appropriation of the meaning of the Holy Scriptures by councils, creeds, the writing of the Fathers, confessions, and formularies; but these do not provide the bedrock upon which fidelity to apostolic teaching rests. What a number of us have termed "scriptural immersion" on the part of a people is the source and guarantee of the "integrity" to which the Church is called at all times and in all places. Consequently, WR calls for the Anglican Communion to "re-evaluate the ways in which we have read, heard, studied and digested scripture" with a view to procuring "a shared reading of Scripture across boundaries of culture, religion, and tradition." (WR 61, 62) Clearly, a shared reading is something that comes into being through the common practice of the church. It is not a pre-existing and permanent condition that can be summed up in a formulary and presented as the standard of fidelity through the ages.
What about "diversity"? Why is it necessary and how is it related to "integrity"? According to WR, a common and adequate appropriation of apostolic teaching is an ongoing process. That process is challenging because there are differences in historical and cultural location that require autonomy on the part of the various provinces of the Communion. Each is called upon to make a faithful witness within its particular circumstances. Consequently, differences between provinces (some no doubt extreme) will inevitably appear. However, WR insists that, "in communion, each church acknowledges and respects the interdependence and autonomy of the other…"If any local practices or statements of belief become controversial, their adequacy is to be judged through a process of discernment. However, in this process each province is to put "the needs of the global fellowship before its own." Further, they are to "avoid unilateral action on contentious issues which may result in broken communion." In short, "diversity" and autonomy are to be understood not in isolation but always in relation to the sort of common mind and heart that is constitutive of communion.
The view presented by WR of both "integrity" and "diversity" leads directly to what the report has to say about Episcopal authority. The centrality of the Holy Scriptures for discerning the circumference of apostolic teaching and the limits of diversity points to the importance of "teachers of Scripture" within the life of the Church. Chief among these are "bishops who aid the church in its efforts of discernment." (WR 57,58) Bishops also fulfill a function of fundamental importance in maintaining and giving expression to the sort of "synodality" that is constitutive of communion as Anglicans have understood and lived it. What the report terms "synodical walking together" is "expressed most visibly among Anglicans through the office of bishop." (WR 66) How might this view of Episcopal authority best be summarized? The bishop is not a prophet called to lead the church into new truth. The bishop is not first of all an inspector of confessional adequacy. The bishop is rather a teacher of the church and a living expression of its common faith and life charged with guarding and strengthening its communion both within each diocese and the church universal.
(I will only note at this point that failure to discuss church discipline in connection with the Episcopal responsibility to guard the faith and practice of the church constitutes a serious weakness in both the Virginia Report and the Windsor Report. Apart from adequate discipline, the call given by WR for "mutual subjection" cannot sustain the sort of communion it is the purpose of the framers of WR to promote.)
This last remark about the authority of bishops brings us to the way in which WR understands the Anglican Communion. It's chief characteristic is neither local autonomy, confessional uniformity, nor centralized jurisdiction. Rather, its chief characteristics are "mutual subjection" and "mutual responsibility and interdependence" within the body of Christ. On this view communion is not a steady state that can be measured by confessional adequacy. Neither is it simply a shared set of moral commitments. Rather, it is a constant work of the Spirit within the church bringing unity out of division and peace out of struggle. It is a work of the Spirit within the life of the Church that brings together those of a different mind and heart and gives them one mind and heart. For this miracle to occur, the church is called upon to practice mutual subjection and exercise patience as it searches the Holy Scriptures seeking a common mind on divisive matters. In short, when threatened with division, the Church is called upon to provide a space in time for grace to abound so that brothers and sisters who have been divided may once again sit down in unity and peace. This calling, says WR, derives from the fundamental calling of the Church; namely, to be an anticipatory sign of God's purpose for "all things." That purpose is to unite all things in Christ Jesus. Thus, unity and truth are conjoined in the providence of God like twins joined at the hip.
VI
In conclusion, allow me to return to a question I posed at the beginning of these remarks. Is the continuance of Anglicanism as a communion of churches of any significance within the providence of God? I believe it is and I hope you will forgive me for quoting myself as I provide a reason for saying so. The reason I believe the Anglican Communion is important within God's providence stems from the answer it gives to one of my initial questions in this address.
How does the Church both remain faithful to the apostolic witness and yet address the issues of its own time and place? The answer suggested by WR is as follows:
"The Anglican answer to the question of fidelity and cogency on the part of the church is not addressed by magisterial, fixed conciliar, or confessional authority, but by the shape and form of the common life of the church itself. That shape is given form by a thick notion of communion and mutual subjection and upon a willingness to abide over extended periods within the internal conflicts of the church." (Ephraim Radner and Philip Turner, The Fate of the Church)
It is my belief that God has brought us to a point within our present conflicts at which he is asking if we Anglicans have sufficient faith, hope and love to sustain such a vision of the church catholic, and offer it as a way forward for Christ's broken and divided body. This is the question posed to us by the proposal that we covenant one with another. What ought such a covenant to look like. If we are progressive, it will resemble a charter of good will and mutual aid. If we are confessionalists it will resemble a rather carefully formulated statement of shared belief. If we follow the road suggested by the Windsor Report, it will more closely resemble a marriage—a commitment to mutual subjection in Christ that will carry us through time and in the process unite us both to Christ and one another in a bond that binds in one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, and one God and Father of all. Amen.
Last Updated ( Friday, 13 July 2007 )
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Church Hierarchies and church Property: How some laity see the matter.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
A discussion Starter from Peter Toon on behalf of some laymen
Not a few laity in and around The Episcopal Church [TEC] have the sense, even the understanding, that congregations which secede from this Church to be part of another Anglican Province (via AMiA, CANA etc), lose their properties (even where they have paid for them in whole) on secession; and the real reason for the loss is because of the principle of hierarchy—that TEC is governed hierarchically, Bishops downwards, and so the property follows this tendency, upwards to diocese and/or national Church.
Let us begin our reflection by recognizing that the clearest examples of what we call hierarchical churches are the Roman Catholic Church and the various Eastern Orthodox Churches. In these Churches, decisions come from the top down, or from higher up to lower down. In total contrast, in a variety of "Bible" and "Baptist" local churches, in which there is complete local autonomy in all matters and property is owned locally, decisions are made at the local level and might be carried forward and upward at a convention of like-minded churches; but such a convention is not empowered to rule and does not tell the local church what to do.
In the world of business and commerce, closely held corporations are hierarchical, but public companies are not. Even though in public companies the Board and CEO run the company on a daily basis, they are ultimately responsible to the stockholders, who can replace them if enough votes can be gathered to do so.
In the Roman Church, major decisions of all kinds always come from above. While the Pope is elected by the College of Cardinals, the Cardinals themselves are not elected. They are appointed by the incumbent Pope, who has his job for life. Bishops in the Roman Church are not elected, they are appointed by the Vatican. Priests are not called by a parish, they are sent by a bishop. Mutatis mutandis, the various Eastern Churches operate in much the same way in terms of the hierarchical principle. In the Roman Church a General Council is called by the Pope and reports to the Pope and from Pope and General Councils ( e.g. Vatican II) come doctrine. Laity and ordinary clergy are not in this loop except as the recipients of what is decided and required. And in terms of property, while there may be local trustees, the general rule is that the property belongs to the diocese and that where there is any dispute the diocese takes control.
Let us now return to TEC. Major decisions within TEC have never been made in the hierarchical way of Rome. Bishops are elected by their dioceses. Priests are called by local congregations, admittedly with the approval--usually in the past, a pro forma approval--by the bishop of the diocese. The basic structure of TEC is not set up as an absolute monarchy as is the Roman Church, but along democratic lines, with certain limited authority given to Diocesan Bishops, Rectors, and Executive Councils. But Delegates to diocesan conventions are selected by local congregations. Diocesan conventions make the rules for the dioceses. Delegates to the General Convention of TEC are selected at the diocesan level. The General Convention itself is set up on the model of the United States government, not on the model of an absolute or even limited monarchy. The House of Bishops (whose members are elected by local dioceses) corresponds to the U.S. Senate; the House of Delegates (whose members are elected at the local level) corresponds to the U.S. House of Representatives. The major officers of TEC are elected by these bodies and the Canons of TEC are voted upon and passed by these bodies. In short, decisions about worship, doctrine and discipline within the TEC are basically made from the ground up, not from the top down. That does not mean (a) that there is not a role for bishops to exercise leadership and discipline over clergy and laity, and (b) that all decisions of the TEC General Convention are fair or orthodox. What it does mean is that decisions are not made hierarchically as are the decisions made in the Roman and Eastern churches, privately-held companies, or in absolutist secular political systems.
So, if in principle the government of TEC imitates the working of the federal government of the USA, what does this mean for local congregations? Well it makes their claim, that they own the local property that they have paid for and cared for, to have real merit. Of course, they own it in the sense that they hold it in trust for the worship of God in the Episcopal and Anglican Way. Thus if the congregation judges that TEC is making it impossible to do fulfill this high privilege and solemn duty, then it has the right to secede from TEC and move to another Anglican Province both with its property and for full pastoral care and leadership. The decision to secede should not be taken lightly and would only be done after careful listening to those who have been appointed – through the majority vote – to lead the diocese of which the parish is a part.
Probably the claim that TEC is hierarchical and that the property of a parish really belongs to the hierarchy is based on the imported idea, foreign to TEC historically, that Bishops and their Executive Councils actually rule TEC and function as the CEO's of dioceses and Liturgical Directors of the same. Contrast this imported idea with what has been the boast of TEC in Anglican meetings around the globe -- that this Church is administered like no other Anglican province, for the principles of republican and democratic government within the USA constitution have been transferred in an appropriate manner to the way that the independent Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA is governed by its members under God, and this has been done without sacrificing the priority of Bishops in the Threefold Ministry and the Shepherding of the flock.
A discussion Starter from Peter Toon on behalf of some laymen
Not a few laity in and around The Episcopal Church [TEC] have the sense, even the understanding, that congregations which secede from this Church to be part of another Anglican Province (via AMiA, CANA etc), lose their properties (even where they have paid for them in whole) on secession; and the real reason for the loss is because of the principle of hierarchy—that TEC is governed hierarchically, Bishops downwards, and so the property follows this tendency, upwards to diocese and/or national Church.
Let us begin our reflection by recognizing that the clearest examples of what we call hierarchical churches are the Roman Catholic Church and the various Eastern Orthodox Churches. In these Churches, decisions come from the top down, or from higher up to lower down. In total contrast, in a variety of "Bible" and "Baptist" local churches, in which there is complete local autonomy in all matters and property is owned locally, decisions are made at the local level and might be carried forward and upward at a convention of like-minded churches; but such a convention is not empowered to rule and does not tell the local church what to do.
In the world of business and commerce, closely held corporations are hierarchical, but public companies are not. Even though in public companies the Board and CEO run the company on a daily basis, they are ultimately responsible to the stockholders, who can replace them if enough votes can be gathered to do so.
In the Roman Church, major decisions of all kinds always come from above. While the Pope is elected by the College of Cardinals, the Cardinals themselves are not elected. They are appointed by the incumbent Pope, who has his job for life. Bishops in the Roman Church are not elected, they are appointed by the Vatican. Priests are not called by a parish, they are sent by a bishop. Mutatis mutandis, the various Eastern Churches operate in much the same way in terms of the hierarchical principle. In the Roman Church a General Council is called by the Pope and reports to the Pope and from Pope and General Councils ( e.g. Vatican II) come doctrine. Laity and ordinary clergy are not in this loop except as the recipients of what is decided and required. And in terms of property, while there may be local trustees, the general rule is that the property belongs to the diocese and that where there is any dispute the diocese takes control.
Let us now return to TEC. Major decisions within TEC have never been made in the hierarchical way of Rome. Bishops are elected by their dioceses. Priests are called by local congregations, admittedly with the approval--usually in the past, a pro forma approval--by the bishop of the diocese. The basic structure of TEC is not set up as an absolute monarchy as is the Roman Church, but along democratic lines, with certain limited authority given to Diocesan Bishops, Rectors, and Executive Councils. But Delegates to diocesan conventions are selected by local congregations. Diocesan conventions make the rules for the dioceses. Delegates to the General Convention of TEC are selected at the diocesan level. The General Convention itself is set up on the model of the United States government, not on the model of an absolute or even limited monarchy. The House of Bishops (whose members are elected by local dioceses) corresponds to the U.S. Senate; the House of Delegates (whose members are elected at the local level) corresponds to the U.S. House of Representatives. The major officers of TEC are elected by these bodies and the Canons of TEC are voted upon and passed by these bodies. In short, decisions about worship, doctrine and discipline within the TEC are basically made from the ground up, not from the top down. That does not mean (a) that there is not a role for bishops to exercise leadership and discipline over clergy and laity, and (b) that all decisions of the TEC General Convention are fair or orthodox. What it does mean is that decisions are not made hierarchically as are the decisions made in the Roman and Eastern churches, privately-held companies, or in absolutist secular political systems.
So, if in principle the government of TEC imitates the working of the federal government of the USA, what does this mean for local congregations? Well it makes their claim, that they own the local property that they have paid for and cared for, to have real merit. Of course, they own it in the sense that they hold it in trust for the worship of God in the Episcopal and Anglican Way. Thus if the congregation judges that TEC is making it impossible to do fulfill this high privilege and solemn duty, then it has the right to secede from TEC and move to another Anglican Province both with its property and for full pastoral care and leadership. The decision to secede should not be taken lightly and would only be done after careful listening to those who have been appointed – through the majority vote – to lead the diocese of which the parish is a part.
Probably the claim that TEC is hierarchical and that the property of a parish really belongs to the hierarchy is based on the imported idea, foreign to TEC historically, that Bishops and their Executive Councils actually rule TEC and function as the CEO's of dioceses and Liturgical Directors of the same. Contrast this imported idea with what has been the boast of TEC in Anglican meetings around the globe -- that this Church is administered like no other Anglican province, for the principles of republican and democratic government within the USA constitution have been transferred in an appropriate manner to the way that the independent Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA is governed by its members under God, and this has been done without sacrificing the priority of Bishops in the Threefold Ministry and the Shepherding of the flock.
Kaeton on Imus
Comment by Diet of Worms on Stand Firm in Faith:
Out of curiosity, I looked up what Rev. Kaeton said about Don Imus.
This line really got me:
"So yes, let’s hold Imus accountable. Let’s hold everyone who breaks the standards of decency, however they are defined by the community, accountable for their actions."
Out of curiosity, I looked up what Rev. Kaeton said about Don Imus.
This line really got me:
"So yes, let’s hold Imus accountable. Let’s hold everyone who breaks the standards of decency, however they are defined by the community, accountable for their actions."
Greg Griffith: The Kaeton Limbo; or, How Low Can They Go?
The Episcopal left has finally begun to respond to the Elizabeth Kaeton controversy, and the responses are pretty predictable. Why do I characterize them as 'predictable'? Because they are a clear attempt to misrepresent the truth, with the goal being to minimize the seriousness of what The Rev. Kaeton has done.
The Episcopal left has finally begun to respond to the Elizabeth Kaeton controversy, and the responses are pretty predictable. Kaeton's post, in which she described a vision of Anne Kennedy as a hybrid of Andrea Yates and Susan Smith, was "long and thoughtful," and happened to contain "one paragraph where she alluded to another woman's blog." That was Lisa Fox's take on the matter.
Fr. Jake had this to say about it:
A blogger made a lengthy post about feminism. As a whole, it is quite good. An example was drawn from another blogger. From what I have observed, the example was accurate. A paragraph speculated about the dangers if the other blogger did not get help. One of the first commenters gently suggested that paragraph might be a bit over the top. The entry was revised, without the paragraph in question. IOW, the kind of thing that happens on blogs every day.
Lisa Fox at "My Manner of Life" wrote this:
"In the midst of her long thoughtful post, she had one paragraph where she alluded to another woman's blog."
Mark Harris wrote this:
There were all sorts of noise that accompanied an essay on feminism by Elizabeth Kaeton over on her blog Telling Secrets. Folks over at Stand Firm took considerable umbrage at the essay, which in a early incarnation had a nightmare sort of dream about a woman with too many children finally going nuts. 'Lizabeth (as the Mad Priest calls her) removed the offensive dream and the name reference, but the damage was done. Part of the damage was that Elizabeth is a damn fine writer and a zingo progressive and all that and therefore game for those who wish to pounce.
Why do I characterize these responses as 'predictable'?
Because they are a clear attempt to misrepresent the truth, with the goal being to minimize the seriousness of what The Rev. Kaeton has done.
The problem with Kaeton's post is not that it "speculated about the dangers if the other blogger did not get help." It is not that it "alluded to another woman's blog." And it is not that included "a nightmare sort of dream about a woman with too many children finally going nuts."
The problem, Worthy Opponents, is that Elizabeth Kaeton wrote this, and she wrote it not about "some blogger" or "some woman," but about The Rev. Anne Kennedy:
I swear to God, one of these days you are going to read about this woman loading herself and her six kids in her mini van and driving them all into a nearby lake. Or, drowning them, one by one, in the bathtub and then lining their lifeless little bodies in a perfect row on their perfectly made beds in their perfect suburban home.
I will not illustrate the problem with this article by substituting someone else's name or children's names - our Worthy Opponents can do that for themselves, and perhaps then they will understand.
I will also thank our Worthy Opponents to be honest enough to admit that the person in question is not "a woman" or "some blogger," and not to buy into the canard that Kaeton never identified her. There is only one Episcopal priest, married to another Episcopal priest, with three children and one on the way, who runs a blog titled "An Undercurrent of Hostility" (which Kaeton did indeed name in her original post), and who wrote a post about a broken cereal bowl; and that's Anne Kennedy. In any event, Kaeton admitted having identified her in a follow-up comment on her own site:
Apparently, in my original post, I did not keep the identity of her blog anonymous. I did not keep that first draft, but apparently Google does. I do apologize for that, confident at least, that is an exercise for my own integrity.
Kaeton's responses are no better, and in some ways are even worse. In the comment on her first post, she writes this about me:
He's all hot and smelly from what he considers a victory about the priest from Seattle. It's the nature of sharks to move into a feeding frenzy once they smell blood on the water or fear in the air.
As usual, the most objectionable material can be found at the Mad Priest, who tries to play our game by claiming that we're a bunch of wimps and sissies:
I'm all for men sticking up for their womenfolk (although I meet very few that need sticking up for) but they should do so in the honourable and accepted way of giving as good as they get (or, at the least, giving as good as they can whilst going down fighting). This does not involve trying to get your opponent into trouble.
Mad Priest refers to his having watched some John Wayne movies some time ago as a reference on how American men should respond to situations like this. Never mind the irony of someone of Mad Priest's persuasion relying on John Wayne for guidance, but he would do well to remember that in the world of John Wayne, the way men handled a woman behaving like this was to have it out with her husband, which is of course not possible when the woman in question is a lesbian. It's hard to apply Old West rules to the New Thing.
One of the more amazing developments of this whole controversy is the decision of Kaeton and some of her allies to blame others for it. Kaeton wrote:
I grow so weary of being attacked for raising the issue of the goodness and rightness of feminism.
Jesus was a feminist.
Get over it.
And:
The really, really sad piece is that it was brought on by one of her own - someone I'm certain she considers a friend. So nasty. So unnecessary.
And:
What's fascinating is that, while I take complete responsibility for my post - even the first, unfortunate post which I pulled - I have been amazed that the identity of the author would not have been at issue except that Greg Griffin made it so.
Ms. Kaeton and the folks who have leapt to her defense should get a few things straight:
I didn't write "I swear to God, one of these days you are going to read about this woman loading herself and her six kids in her mini van and driving them all into a nearby lake. Or, drowning them, one by one, in the bathtub and then lining their lifeless little bodies in a perfect row on their perfectly made beds in their perfect suburban home."
Elizabeth Kaeton did.
I didn't identify Anne Kennedy as an Episcopal priest, married to another Episcopal priest, with three children and one on the way, who runs a blog called "An Undercurrent of Hostility," and contained an entry about a broken cereal bowl.
Elizabeth Kaeton did.
I didn't attach to a strained "apology" the threat to "have something done" about the Kennedys, going so far as to write Anne's bishop, and to mention the "concerns" of several "professionals."
Elizabeth Kaeton did.
I have a lot of questions for our Worthy Opponents who are insisting that what Kaeton wrote about the murder of a fellow priest's children is not what it actually is - that instead of a vile, unprovoked assault on someone, it was merely a reflection, a reverie, an inconsequential part of a long and thoughtful essay about motherhood and feminism.
I'll start here:
Have you people no decency?
Do you all really expect us to believe that if the tables were turned, you'd blithely dismiss it as nothing to take offense at?
If the same minivan fantasy were projected, for example, onto someone whose "manner of life" tended to make her more vulnerable to driving her children into a pond or drowning them in the bathtub, would you now be telling everyone to just get over it, that it was a harmless passage in a thoughtful and beautiful meditation?
If so, then say so. Come out and say that we on this side of the debate are free to post unprovoked murderous fantasies about folks on your side of the aisle, and that your only response will be to dismiss it as inconsequential, if indeed you bother to respond at all.
Finally, do you all realize what you're doing? By asserting so forthrightly that Kaeton's minivan murder fantasy is acceptable discourse, you are lowering the bar about as far as it can possibly be lowered. Is this what you intend to do, you who continually insist that the level of dialogue in this debate must be raised? Is this accomplishing that goal? Are you even serious about the goal in the first place?
Look in your hearts, all of you, and tell us: Is this honestly the level to which you wish to stoop? Is it honestly the level to which you wish to give others license to stoop?
The Episcopal left has finally begun to respond to the Elizabeth Kaeton controversy, and the responses are pretty predictable. Kaeton's post, in which she described a vision of Anne Kennedy as a hybrid of Andrea Yates and Susan Smith, was "long and thoughtful," and happened to contain "one paragraph where she alluded to another woman's blog." That was Lisa Fox's take on the matter.
Fr. Jake had this to say about it:
A blogger made a lengthy post about feminism. As a whole, it is quite good. An example was drawn from another blogger. From what I have observed, the example was accurate. A paragraph speculated about the dangers if the other blogger did not get help. One of the first commenters gently suggested that paragraph might be a bit over the top. The entry was revised, without the paragraph in question. IOW, the kind of thing that happens on blogs every day.
Lisa Fox at "My Manner of Life" wrote this:
"In the midst of her long thoughtful post, she had one paragraph where she alluded to another woman's blog."
Mark Harris wrote this:
There were all sorts of noise that accompanied an essay on feminism by Elizabeth Kaeton over on her blog Telling Secrets. Folks over at Stand Firm took considerable umbrage at the essay, which in a early incarnation had a nightmare sort of dream about a woman with too many children finally going nuts. 'Lizabeth (as the Mad Priest calls her) removed the offensive dream and the name reference, but the damage was done. Part of the damage was that Elizabeth is a damn fine writer and a zingo progressive and all that and therefore game for those who wish to pounce.
Why do I characterize these responses as 'predictable'?
Because they are a clear attempt to misrepresent the truth, with the goal being to minimize the seriousness of what The Rev. Kaeton has done.
The problem with Kaeton's post is not that it "speculated about the dangers if the other blogger did not get help." It is not that it "alluded to another woman's blog." And it is not that included "a nightmare sort of dream about a woman with too many children finally going nuts."
The problem, Worthy Opponents, is that Elizabeth Kaeton wrote this, and she wrote it not about "some blogger" or "some woman," but about The Rev. Anne Kennedy:
I swear to God, one of these days you are going to read about this woman loading herself and her six kids in her mini van and driving them all into a nearby lake. Or, drowning them, one by one, in the bathtub and then lining their lifeless little bodies in a perfect row on their perfectly made beds in their perfect suburban home.
I will not illustrate the problem with this article by substituting someone else's name or children's names - our Worthy Opponents can do that for themselves, and perhaps then they will understand.
I will also thank our Worthy Opponents to be honest enough to admit that the person in question is not "a woman" or "some blogger," and not to buy into the canard that Kaeton never identified her. There is only one Episcopal priest, married to another Episcopal priest, with three children and one on the way, who runs a blog titled "An Undercurrent of Hostility" (which Kaeton did indeed name in her original post), and who wrote a post about a broken cereal bowl; and that's Anne Kennedy. In any event, Kaeton admitted having identified her in a follow-up comment on her own site:
Apparently, in my original post, I did not keep the identity of her blog anonymous. I did not keep that first draft, but apparently Google does. I do apologize for that, confident at least, that is an exercise for my own integrity.
Kaeton's responses are no better, and in some ways are even worse. In the comment on her first post, she writes this about me:
He's all hot and smelly from what he considers a victory about the priest from Seattle. It's the nature of sharks to move into a feeding frenzy once they smell blood on the water or fear in the air.
As usual, the most objectionable material can be found at the Mad Priest, who tries to play our game by claiming that we're a bunch of wimps and sissies:
I'm all for men sticking up for their womenfolk (although I meet very few that need sticking up for) but they should do so in the honourable and accepted way of giving as good as they get (or, at the least, giving as good as they can whilst going down fighting). This does not involve trying to get your opponent into trouble.
Mad Priest refers to his having watched some John Wayne movies some time ago as a reference on how American men should respond to situations like this. Never mind the irony of someone of Mad Priest's persuasion relying on John Wayne for guidance, but he would do well to remember that in the world of John Wayne, the way men handled a woman behaving like this was to have it out with her husband, which is of course not possible when the woman in question is a lesbian. It's hard to apply Old West rules to the New Thing.
One of the more amazing developments of this whole controversy is the decision of Kaeton and some of her allies to blame others for it. Kaeton wrote:
I grow so weary of being attacked for raising the issue of the goodness and rightness of feminism.
Jesus was a feminist.
Get over it.
And:
The really, really sad piece is that it was brought on by one of her own - someone I'm certain she considers a friend. So nasty. So unnecessary.
And:
What's fascinating is that, while I take complete responsibility for my post - even the first, unfortunate post which I pulled - I have been amazed that the identity of the author would not have been at issue except that Greg Griffin made it so.
Ms. Kaeton and the folks who have leapt to her defense should get a few things straight:
I didn't write "I swear to God, one of these days you are going to read about this woman loading herself and her six kids in her mini van and driving them all into a nearby lake. Or, drowning them, one by one, in the bathtub and then lining their lifeless little bodies in a perfect row on their perfectly made beds in their perfect suburban home."
Elizabeth Kaeton did.
I didn't identify Anne Kennedy as an Episcopal priest, married to another Episcopal priest, with three children and one on the way, who runs a blog called "An Undercurrent of Hostility," and contained an entry about a broken cereal bowl.
Elizabeth Kaeton did.
I didn't attach to a strained "apology" the threat to "have something done" about the Kennedys, going so far as to write Anne's bishop, and to mention the "concerns" of several "professionals."
Elizabeth Kaeton did.
I have a lot of questions for our Worthy Opponents who are insisting that what Kaeton wrote about the murder of a fellow priest's children is not what it actually is - that instead of a vile, unprovoked assault on someone, it was merely a reflection, a reverie, an inconsequential part of a long and thoughtful essay about motherhood and feminism.
I'll start here:
Have you people no decency?
Do you all really expect us to believe that if the tables were turned, you'd blithely dismiss it as nothing to take offense at?
If the same minivan fantasy were projected, for example, onto someone whose "manner of life" tended to make her more vulnerable to driving her children into a pond or drowning them in the bathtub, would you now be telling everyone to just get over it, that it was a harmless passage in a thoughtful and beautiful meditation?
If so, then say so. Come out and say that we on this side of the debate are free to post unprovoked murderous fantasies about folks on your side of the aisle, and that your only response will be to dismiss it as inconsequential, if indeed you bother to respond at all.
Finally, do you all realize what you're doing? By asserting so forthrightly that Kaeton's minivan murder fantasy is acceptable discourse, you are lowering the bar about as far as it can possibly be lowered. Is this what you intend to do, you who continually insist that the level of dialogue in this debate must be raised? Is this accomplishing that goal? Are you even serious about the goal in the first place?
Look in your hearts, all of you, and tell us: Is this honestly the level to which you wish to stoop? Is it honestly the level to which you wish to give others license to stoop?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)