Task Force on Property Disputes Spins Attempt to Depose Bishops

News Analysis

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
5/30/2008

The Bishop of Lexington, Stacy Sauls, has written a memorandum attempting to
justify the Presiding Bishop's failure to obtain the required consents to depose
Bishops William Cox and John-David Schofield.

Faced with growing criticism from a number of orthodox dioceses that Presiding
Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and David Booth Beers have indiscriminately
used the "abandonment of communion" canon to depose both men, the bishops and
Standing Committees of five diocese called the actions of the PB an abuse of
power with canonical actions that did not hold up under close scrutiny.

In his memorandum, Sauls, who is a licensed attorney and chairs the "Task Force
on Property Disputes", said the actions of Jefferts Schori were "procedurally
appropriate" in consenting to the depositions of the two bishops. The House's
Parliamentarian rules were followed, he said.

Sauls cites the evolution of the canon in his 12-page brief saying the HOB
followed fair and lawful procedure.

He said that the 1904 General Convention approved an amendment to the canons on
abandonment of communion by a bishop. At issue in the disputed depositions is
language that states that for a deposition to be valid, it requires a majority
of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.

Sauls argues that plain reading of the text means that the whole numbers
entitled to vote were present at that meeting. Therefore, the voice vote, in
March by a majority of members present, consented to the depositions of bishops
Schofield and Cox.

Sauls said the House of Bishops took similar action regarding two other bishops,
Donald Davies of Ft. Worth in 1993 and Neptali Larrea of Ecuador Central, in
2004. In both cases, the exact same procedure, with respect to Schofield and
Cox, was followed. No objections were raised.

The memorandum says accused bishops are provided with a number of procedural
safeguards, including the right to request a hearing.

"In the present cases, all the procedural safeguards were followed." Sauls says
that neither bishop disputed abandoning the communion as certified by Title IV
Review committee and did not "deny the actions in any way, request a further
hearing, make any rebuttal or issued any defense, or contested the allegations."

Sauls concluded that a fair and lawful procedure was followed under the Canon,
and that the decision canonically stands as the legitimate judgment of the
House.

Wicks Stephens, Chancellor of the Anglican Communion Network disputes Sauls'
findings.

He wrote to VOL saying he was intrigued that a group of bishops, assigned the
task of finding ways to keep property from leaving TEC, would be called upon to
add their voices to the thus-far futile attempts of the Presiding Bishop to
justify the failure to obtain the required consents to depose Bishops Cox and
Schofield.

"The Memo is a regrettable effort to justify the unjustifiable. No right
thinking person will be taken in by it. Perhaps the Task Force could redeem its
work, however, by turning the Memo into a polemic for the amendment at General
Convention 2009 of Canon IV.9.2 to require only a mere majority of those present
and voting to consent to the deposition of a Bishop of TEC."

Stephens blasts the memo saying it was just another example of how TEC attempts
to justify actions that follow neither the canons nor approved rules for
canonical interpretation. "In short, this is simply another group in power in
TEC saying: 'It's so because I say it's so.'"

Wicks says that neither the Memo nor the Presiding Bishop has attempted to argue
that the consent requirements of the Canon were met. Instead, each invokes a
"line of reasoning" designed to support the argument that what happened was, and
should be, enough to validate the consent even though it was not "a majority of
the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote."

A mere majority of those present and voting is most assuredly not the same as a
majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote. Article I.2 of TEC's
Constitution says that the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote are: "Each
Bishop of this Church having jurisdiction, every Bishop Coadjutor, every
Suffragan Bishop, every Assisting Bishop, and every Bishop who by reason of
advanced age or bodily infirmity ... has resigned a jurisdiction, shall have a
seat and a vote in the House of Bishops."

Since there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 290 Bishops who qualify under
Article I.2 for a seat and vote in the HoB, a majority of those would be at
least 146 Bishops. Rumor has it that fewer than that number were present and
voting at the time the vote of consent was taken. And of those voting, according
to the Memo, there were dissenting votes, as well as abstentions. Thus, there is
no way the canonical requirement for consent was met.

"If real safeguards of fairness and justice are what are desired, then simply
apply the plain language of the canon, rather than an interpretation of that
language which is concocted to support a different agenda. When the canon says
'a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote,' don't try to get
away with a lesser consent. When the canons define the term 'All the Members' to
mean 'the total number of the body provided for by Constitution or Canon without
regard to absences, excused members, abstentions or vacancies,' honor its plain
meaning," he concluded.

John H. Lewis Jr.,attorney for Bishop Robert Duncan, stated: "they got caught
violating the canons and it took them two months to come up with an excuse that
makes no sense. There are 12 pages,but not one word on the difference in the
canons between consenting to resignation of a bishop ("a majority of those
present") and consenting to the deposition of a bishop (" a majority of the
whole number of bishops entitled to vote"). Instead,the "task force",certainly
not an independent group of canon law scholars, has decided to unilaterally
amend the abandonment of communion canon by inserting the words "at that
meeting" after "majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote". This
group has as much respect for the canons as they do for scripture."

The long and short of it all is that Jefferts Schori and Beers were caught
violating the canons and it took them two months to come up with a phony
explanation. It is ironic that it came from the "task force on property
disputes" and not an independent group of canon law scholars.

The canonical requirement for consenting to a resignation of a bishop is the
whole number of bishops entitled to vote. That was clearly not the case. The
depositions of these two bishops do not hold up and should be publicly declared
null and void.

END

Colorado Bishop Seeks to Remove Previously Transferred Priests

From The Living Church:

Posted on: May 30, 2008

The Rt. Rev. Robert O’Neill, Bishop of Colorado, is seeking to remove from the ministry more than a dozen priests that his predecessor lawfully transferred to another Anglican province after they joined the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA) more than seven years ago.

The initial list included at least one priest, the Rev. Robert John Bryan, who claims not to have received any communication on the matter. He expressed surprise at the news of his inhibition when contacted by The Living Church, and said he had not received any communication from anyone in the Diocese of Colorado since receiving a copy of his letter of transfer nearly eight years ago.

The Rev. Canon Colin Kelly, president of the Diocese of the Rio Grande’s standing committee, confirmed that Fr. Bryan has been a canonically resident priest in good standing of that diocese since 2002. According to several priests in the Rio Grande who spoke with The Living Church, he served with distinction and loyalty as priest-in-charge at St. Matthew’s, Las Lunas, M.M., for about five years. He decided to retire from the active ministry and moved back to Colorado to be nearer to family last year.

In 2000, 17 priests from the Diocese of Colorado, including Fr. Bryan, sought to leave The Episcopal Church after the formation of the AMiA that year. The Rt. Rev. Jerry Winterrowd, who was Bishop of Colorado from 1991-2004, signed and sent letters dimissory for all the priests to the “Ecclesiastical Authority of the Church of the Province of Southeast Asia.”

Copies of the transfer letters also were sent to the Recorder of Ordinations, the Church Pension Fund and The Living Church. Two years later, Fr. Bryan transferred back to The Episcopal Church. His letter dimissory from Southeast Asia to the Diocese of the Rio Grande was received and accepted by the Rt. Rev. Terence Kelshaw, who retired in 2005. Fr. Young’s canonical license was renewed by Bishop Kelshaw’s successor, Jeffrey Steenson.

In February Bishop O’Neill purportedly wrote to the priests stating that the letters dimissory sent Dec. 7, 2000, by Bishop Winterrowd “does not effectively remove you from the jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church.” Bishop O’Neill urged that the priests voluntarily renounce their priestly orders, warning that if they did not, the diocesan standing committee “has already determined that you have abandoned communion of The Episcopal Church” and that they would be deposed from the ministry after a six-month inhibition.

In a follow-up letter sent the following month to one of the other priests, Bishop O’Neill explained that “our canons do not actually provide for the kind of inter-provincial transfer that was used to accommodate your move to the AMiA, and having reviewed it all carefully with both our chancellor and our standing committee, it is simply necessary to clarify your status and that of others with regard to jurisdiction by using the provisions that are allowed under our canons.”

The decision to pursue depositions against these priests nearly eight years after they were lawfully given letters dimissory raises questions about due process. In September 2004 at a special meeting in Spokane, the House of Bishops approved a “mind of the house” resolution whose explanation notes that the “House of Bishops rejects the practice of transfer of canonical residence to allow a priest or bishop to exercise ministry outside of the geographical boundaries of his or her canonical residence.” Bishop Winterrowd’s decision to issue letters dimissory did not meet with objection at the time, however, and resolutions are not canonically binding, according to the polity of The Episcopal Church.

In a telephone interview with a reporter for The Living Church, Bishop Winterrowd explained that he issued letters dimissory for the priests rather than depositions for abandonment in 2000 because he said he wanted to deal equitably with a potentially volatile situation.

“We accomplished our purpose,” he said. “The priests who left did so without acrimony. There are no hard feelings to this day between myself and any of these priests.”

Bishop Winterrowd said he had briefed Bishop O’Neill on the letters dimissory prior to his retirement in 2004. He also said he did not think the decision to depose the priests now was done out of vindictiveness, and that he had great respect for the job Bishop O’Neill is doing.

Beckett Stokes, director of communications for the diocese, described the inhibition letters as a housekeeping measure, noting that “the Bishop and standing committee wanted to ensure that priests who are no longer under the jurisdiction of the diocese have been removed in a canonically appropriate way.” In a follow-up message, she added that “if there is an individual who feels he’s received the letter in error, if our records are incorrect, he can certainly contact the diocese, and we will be happy to make appropriate corrections.”

After Fr. Bryan’s inhibition was brought to his attention by The Living Church, Canon Kelly furnished Bishop O’Neill with a copy of Fr. Bryan’s transfer from Southeast Asia to the Rio Grande and a signed receipt of the letter dimissory signed by Bishop Kelshaw.

“Once the Diocese of Colorado had received those documents, they acknowledged that their records had not been complete and thanked us for updating them,” Canon Kelly said in an email message. “Bishop O’Neill called me to say that he accepted that Fr. Bryan was a priest canonically resident in the Diocese of the Rio Grande and they would correct their records to reflect that fact.”

Steve Waring

Network Chancellor Responds to Property Task Force Memo on Deposing Bishops

“Oh what tangled webs we weave, when first we practise to deceive.” Sir Walter Scott

A Response to the Task Force on Property Disputes By Wicks Stephens Chancellor Anglican Communion Network

Under date of May 27, 2008, the House of Bishops’ Task Force on Property Disputes published a memorandum (the “Memo”) on the “proper use of abandonment procedures for bishops.”

Initially, I was intrigued that a group of bishops assigned the task of finding ways to keep property from leaving TEC would be called upon to add their voices to the thus-far futile attempts of the Presiding Bishop to justify the failure to obtain the required consents to depose Bishops Cox and Schofield. However, on reading the Memo, I found it to be just another example of how TEC attempts to justify actions which follow neither the canons nor approved rules for canonical interpretation. In short, this is simply another group in power in TEC saying: “It’s so because I say it’s so.” Let me demonstrate briefly.

The issue at hand is whether the House of Bishops (HoB) met the canonical requirement for its consent to the deposition of Bishops Cox and Schofield. The consent requirement is set forth in Canon IV.9.2 as follows:

“If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the Ministry….” (Emphasis added.)

Near the end of the meeting of the HoB, held March 7–12, 2008, the issue of consent to the proposed deposition of Bishops Cox and Schofield was put before the House. It is reported in the Memo that a voice vote was taken, and that, though the vote was not unanimous and included abstentions, it “clearly indicated majority consent.” It is without question that the “majority consent” referred to in the Memo is not that required by Canon IV.9.2, but rather is only an affirmative vote of a majority of those present and voting at the time of the meeting.

Now, here’s what is amazing. Neither the Memo nor the Presiding Bishop has attempted to argue that the consent requirements of the Canon were met. Instead, each invokes a “line of reasoning” designed to support the argument that what happened was and should be enough to validate the consent even though it was not “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote. Here’s how the Memo, and to a large extent the Presiding Bishop, attempts to make that case.

1. First of all, the Memo argues that the “intended meaning” of Canon IV.9.2 is that a simple majority of those present and voting is all the consent that is necessary to depose a fellow Bishop. That, of course, is not what the Canon says. It requires “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.” Further, a mere majority of those present and voting is most assuredly not the same as a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote. Article I.2 of TEC’s Constitution says that the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote are:

“Each Bishop of this Church having jurisdiction, every Bishop Coadjutor, every Suffragan Bishop, every Assisting Bishop, and every Bishop who by reason of advanced age or bodily infirmity … has resigned a jurisdiction, shall have a seat and a vote in the House of Bishops.”

Since there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 290 Bishops who qualify under Article I.2 for a seat and vote in the HoB, a majority of those would be at least 146 Bishops. Rumor has it that fewer than that number were present and voted at the time of the vote to consent was taken. And of those voting, according to the Memo, there were dissenting votes as well as abstentions. Thus there is no way the canonical requirement for consent was met.

The accepted rules that govern canonical interpretation require first that the canon be examined for its plain meaning. Where the meaning is plain and not ambiguous, it is applied. We’ve done that and the outcome is obvious as set forth above. To try to overcome the lack of an adequate vote when the plain meaning of the canon is applied, the Memo suggests we should instead search for the “intended meaning “of the canon. What follows is a fanciful “interpretation” of the “intent’ of the canon’s drafters and changers beginning in 1853 and following through to the amendment of the canon in 1904. The conclusion the Memo reaches is that the plain words of the canon do not represent the “intent” of the drafters of the cited amendments. Even were the search for the intent of the drafters an appropriate inquiry, that conclusion is unpersuasive. The drafters of the amendments did not leave us a record of their intent apart from the language of the canon and its changes. Speculation about their intent is therefore nothing more than speculation.

1.

The second basis upon which the Memo argues that the vote was valid is that in previous times a vote of consent has been taken in the same way and no one objected. “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” A review of the history of this Canon in White & Dykman demonstrates that each amendment came from a set of specific circumstances which showed a need for that amendment. There is no reason that the canon cannot again be amended if that is what TEC desires.
2.

The Memo’s third argument as to why the vote should be found sufficient is that “procedural safeguards assure fairness and justice in the case of the Bishops accused of having abandoned the Communion of this Church.” What safeguards are those? Are they that:

* The canon does not allow for a hearing?
* The canon does not allow for legal representation at the meeting of the HoB’s at which the vote is to occur?
* The canon does not allow the accused to speak at the meeting?
* The Bishops are not required to examine the record which is offered in support of the certification of abandonment to determine for themselves whether or not to consent to the deposition?
* The matter of the consent can be accomplished by a voice vote rather than requiring the safeguard of a ballot or roll call vote which would record and preserve the facts of the vote?
If real safeguards of fairness and justice are what are desired, then simply apply the plain language of the canon, rather than an interpretation of that language which is concocted to support a different agenda. When the canon says “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote,” don’t try to get away with a lesser consent. When the canons define the term “All the Members” to mean “the total number of the body provided for by Constitution or Canon without regard to absences, excused members, abstentions or vacancies,” honor its plain meaning. When the plain meaning of Canon IV.9.2 is enhanced by reference to other provisions of the Constitution or Canons don’t ignore the clarity so provided. See, for example: Articles I.2, I.3, II.2, II.3, III, VI.2, X, and XII of the Constitution; and Canons III.11, IV.5.25, IV.9.2, IV.15, V.3.

A review of these provisions demonstrates clearly that TEC knows full well how to call for a variety of different “majorities” in its Constitution and Canons. If the drafters of Canon IV.9.2 had intended to require a mere majority of those present and voting to constitute a valid consent to deposition, they surely would have done so.

Conclusion

The Memo is a regrettable effort to justify the unjustifiable. No right thinking person will be taken in by it. Perhaps the Task Force could redeem its work, however, by turning the Memo into a polemic for the amendment at General Convention 2009 of Canon IV.9.2 to require only a mere majority of those present and voting to consent to the deposition of a Bishop of TEC. On the other hand, simplifying the process of deposition for Bishops who disagree with the agenda of those in power may not be in the best interest of the members of the Task Force. After all, tomorrow….

Posted May 30, 2008

Five Dioceses Oppose Depositions of Schofield and Cox

They Accuse Presiding Bishop of "Abuse of Power"

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
5/28/208

The Standing Committees of five dioceses have come out condemning the actions of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and her attorney, David Booth Beers in deposing two orthodox bishops, John David Schofield and William Cox, arguing that the canons of the church were either misused or not followed.

Deposition is the ecclesiastical equivalent of impeachment and formally removes the bishop from office. Deposed members of the clergy are no longer allowed to exercise their offices in The Episcopal Church. In the eyes of The Episcopal Church, they are laicized. The canonical process for deposition is complex and usually involves a formal trial. In the case of "abandonment of communion" (where no trial or hearing is provided for), the process is designed to require a very high level of support in the House of Bishops before the deposition can be carried out.

Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori set aside the rules that govern "abandonment of communion" and deposed two orthodox bishops without trial or even a hearing. She is also bent on deposing the Bishop of Pittsburgh, the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, without a formal trial.

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Northern Indiana roundly condemned the depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox saying that it is the harshest punishment that can be handed a bishop.

"It is essential that both the letter and the spirit of the Canons be followed since, in this case, the rights of the accused are protected, in part, by the extraordinarily high level of involvement and concord called for within the House of Bishops by Canon IV.9.2." wrote the Standing Committee.

"As others have pointed out, the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church at various times distinguishes between a majority of the Bishops at a meeting, from a vote by a majority of the whole. Mr. Beers was incorrect in his assertion, reaffirmed by the Presiding Bishop in a letter to the House of Bishops (April 30, 2008), that the Canonical language of "the whole number of bishops entitled to vote" can be taken to mean only "those in attendance at a particular meeting."

"This makes deposition an action with no higher standard than any matter of routine business. We agree with the analysis provided by the Bishops and Standing Committees of the Dioceses of South Carolina and Central Florida that the Canons plainly require a majority of all Bishops entitled to vote, not just those in attendance at a particular meeting.

"We call upon the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops to revisit those decisions and make every effort to follow our Church Canons in this and all future House of Bishops decisions," concluded the statement.

The Standing Committee also ripped the Presiding Bishop over her pending actions against Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan saying that they noted, with "alarm", her publicly stated intent to bring deposition proceedings against the orthodox bishop at the September meeting of the House of Bishops for abandoning the communion before the diocese votes to do so in November.

"We plead for calm and prayer in the face of temptations to escalate abuses of power in this way. We agree with the Standing Committee of Central Florida and others who insist that depositions are an unnecessary and unfortunate way to deal with disagreement, dissension, and even division within our Church. We believe it also borders on unchristian."

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina also protested the Presiding Bishop's failure to follow the Canons of the national church and wrote her saying they "strongly protest(ed)" her failure to follow the Canons of the Episcopal Church in the recent depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox. "We respectfully request that you and the House of Bishops revisit those decisions, refrain from the planned selection of a new bishop for the Diocese of San Joaquin, and make every effort to follow our Church Canons in all future House of Bishops decisions."

"We believe that deposition is the most severe sanction that can be applied against a bishop. Consequently, it is most important that both the letter and the spirit of the Canons be followed. In this instance, it is clear that the canonical safeguards in place were not followed."

They said the language of the Canon has consistently required that a majority of all bishops entitled to vote, not just a majority of those present at a meeting, must give their consent to the deposition of a bishop. "It is only logical that a greater majority of Bishops should be required for involuntary separation by way of deposition than for voluntary separation by resignation.

The Standing Committee and Diocesan Council of the Diocese of Western Louisiana wrote to Jefferts Schori saying they refused to recognize the deposition of the two orthodox bishops.

In a resolution authorized by the diocesan Standing Committee and endorsed by the bishop, D. Bruce MacPherson, and Diocesan Council, the Diocese went on record as not recognizing the depositions of (Episcopal) Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin and former Bishop Suffragan William Cox of Maryland because the requisite canonical votes were not obtained for the deposition of a bishop.

The Western Louisiana Standing Committee motion says: "The Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church have been held up by some church leaders as part of the way forward for our broken church, in that these governing documents provide a procedural basis for our common life together. One of the main justifications for the actions taken at General Convention 2003 regarding the consents to the Bishop of New Hampshire was that the Diocese of New Hampshire had followed the canonical process in electing a bishop. We also note that the Diocese of South Carolina was held to an exacting standard in obtaining consents for the consecration of Bishop Mark Lawrence, while such exacting standards as to form of consents have not been applied to any other Episcopal election to our knowledge.

"However, such documents cannot provide the basis for our common life when they are ignored for expediency's sake. Selective enforcement of canonical requirements breeds mistrust in the church, which can preclude reconciliation. Moreover, we find that the uncanonical actions taken in the matter of the depositions of Bishops Cox and Schofield erode confidence in the church and its canonical processes and delegitimize subsequent actions taken by the Presiding Bishop and others in attempting to reorganize the Diocese of San Joaquin."

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Springfield wrote to the Presiding Bishop rejecting the "purported depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox" saying they were not validly procured. They said that if the HOB wanted to continue to seek depositions in these questionable circumstances, they should revisit this issue at a future meeting of House of Bishops. The Rt. Rev Peter H. Beckwith endorsed the letter and actions of his Diocesan Council.

Bishop John W. Howe of the Diocese of Central Florida and Anthony P. Clark, President of the Standing Committee, sent a letter to the Presiding Bishop "strongly protest(ing)" what they believe was a failure to follow the Canons of our Episcopal Church in the recent depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox.

"Since deposition is the most severe sanction that can be applied against a bishop, it is critical that both the letter and the spirit of the Canons be followed. The Canons intentionally provide for an exceptionally high level of participation and agreement from the Bishops in order to impose a sentence of deposition. In this instance, it seems clear to us that the canonical safeguards in place were not followed."

They concluded their letter by saying that the depositions were an unnecessary and unfortunate way to deal with disagreement, dissension, and even division within our Church. "Those Bishops (or other clergy) who, for sake of conscience, can no longer minister as part of The Episcopal Church can be transferred at their request, or permitted to renounce their vows and join with other Anglican Provinces without vindictiveness or punitive measures."

The Rev. Canon Daryl Fenton, Chief Operating Officer for the Anglican Communion Network, also condemned the actions of the Presiding Bishop and David Booth Beers. "It will have no practical effect on the ministry of these two godly leaders, but instead makes crystal clear the scorched earth policy that the current leadership of The Episcopal Church intends to prosecute against those who cannot in good conscience follow them out of the Christian mainstream."

"This is a bit like saying 'you can't quit, you're fired!'" he said.

"There is no question that both Bishop Cox and Bishop Schofield remain bishops in the Anglican Communion and will continue in ministry. We at the Network are thankful for their willingness to witness for the truth of the Gospel and fully intend to support them in their ongoing ministry," he added.

END

The Sauls Memorandum Refuted (I)

From A.S. Haley, aka the Anglican Curmudgeon. He promises further reflection on this memo. ed.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

The lengthy Memorandum to the House of Bishops authored by the Rt. Rev. Stacy F. Sauls of the Diocese of Lexington is, as many bloggers have already spotted, full of inconsistencies and erroneous analysis. In considering how best to demonstrate this point, I have decided to use a "Fisking" format for its first five pages, where the errors accumulate until the conclusions can no longer be validly drawn. I am putting this part of my response up now, and will require some more time to decide how best to format the second part. Suffice it to say that everyone who takes the trouble to follow along and see what is being claimed in light of what is actually the case should have no difficulty in seeing, without any help from me, how these errors permeate the rest of the Memorandum. The original is in black text, and my fisks are in purple; the footnotes (numbers preceded by a *) are reproduced at the end.

MEMORANDUM
May 27, 2008

To: House of Bishops

From: Task Force on Property Disputes

Re: Proper Use of Abandonment Procedures for Bishops

Subsequent to our meeting at Camp Allen, some Bishops of The Episcopal
Church*1 and some commentators*2 have suggested that we may have failed to follow our own rules for giving consent to the deposition of a Bishop for abandoning the communion of this Church. A careful analysis and examination of the canon law, however, confirms that consent to deposition was procedurally appropriate, as the House’s Parliamentarian ruled and the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor has advised.*3

A “careful analysis and examination of the canon law”? We shall see.

This memorandum is intended to provide the Members of the House with necessary legal background and the reasoning supporting that conclusion for the assurance of the Members as to past actions and in advance of their consideration of any additional such actions in the future.

Actually, this memorandum is intended to arrive at a foregone conclusion (that the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor committed no error), and would serve as a very poor guide to any such additional actions in the future.

Conclusion

The House of Bishops followed the proper canonical procedure for consenting to the depositions of John-David Schofield and William J. Cox from the Ministry of The Episcopal Church as provided in Canon IV.9 of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (2006) for the following reasons:

A. The intended meaning of Section 2 of Canon IV.9 of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (2006) is that the consent of a majority of the Bishops voting at a meeting of the House of Bishops constitutes valid consent for the deposition of a Bishop.

B. Precedent establishes that the House of Bishops acted appropriately in considering and acting upon the Presiding Bishop’s referral to it of the abandonment of communion certified to her by the Review Committee.

C. Procedural safeguards assure fairness and justice in the case of Bishops accused of having abandoned the Communion of this Church. 


All right, so we know what your conclusions are before we start (and so, most likely, did you). Now let’s look at the analysis.

Background


The House of Bishops met for its annual, and duly noticed, spring meeting at
Camp Allen, Navasota, Texas on March 7-12, 2008. As is its custom, the House
scheduled a business session during that meeting. Members were notified in advance of the business session that the certification of the abandonment of the communion of this Church by the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield, Bishop of San Joaquin, and the Rt. Rev. William J. Cox, Bishop Suffragan of Maryland, Res., would be considered. The business session was held, as planned, on March 12, at which time the subject of consent to deposition was before the House.

Actually, the “business meeting” (meaning chiefly the business of deposing Bishops Cox and Schofield) was scheduled for the last day of the Camp Allen session, when it was highly likely that a number of Bishops would already have left. It was scheduled for March 12 because that was the earliest day following the 60-day period in which Bishop Schofield had to deny the charges that he had “abandoned the communion of this Church” under Canon IV.9 (having been given notice of his inhibition on January 11), and thus was the only day on which the assembled Bishops who were left by that point could take up the “business.”

With respect to each Bishop, a voice vote was taken, which was not unanimous and included abstentions but which clearly indicated majority consent to the depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox by a wide margin in each case.

By holding just a voice vote, the Presiding Bishop ensured that the actual count of those voting for and against, and the abstentions, would be forever lost to the record. How convenient it is not to have to deal with the actual numbers, when by the time the matter was called for discussion the attendees were down to just 68 active bishops plus an indeterminate number of retired bishops, and the departure of just one active bishop (since retired bishops do not count toward a quorum) would have meant there was no longer even a quorum to hold the vote at all!

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, as required by Section 2 of Canon IV.9, has since deposed both from the Ministry of The Episcopal Church.*4

Deposition was not “required”---indeed, the motion to depose lost---if it was not approved by the requisite number of Bishops.

Reasoning


A. The intended meaning of Section 2 of Canon IV.9 of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (2006) is that the consent of a majority of the Bishops voting at a meeting of the House of Bishops constitutes valid consent for the deposition of a Bishop.

An extraordinary statement, given the history of this Canon: although the language used has differed over the years, the requirement that the deposition of a colleague be approved by a majority of all Bishops entitled to vote in the House (whether present or not at the meeting where the vote is taken) has remained unchanged since the Canon’s original enactment in 1853, as we shall see.

The procedure for deposing a Bishop of The Episcopal Church for abandonment of the communion of this Church requires, upon certification of the abandonment by the Review Committee, that the Presiding Bishop “present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House.”

Not so fast, Bishop Sauls---to be “liable to deposition”, a Bishop must not only be certified by the Review Committee to have abandoned the communion, but he must also have been first inhibited with the consent of the three senior Bishops of the Church. You (conveniently) left out the requirement for inhibition in setting up your premise. Is that because you also want to use this Memorandum to "justify" the Presiding Bishop's proposed deposition of Bishop Duncan without any inhibition, just as she did with Bishop Cox?

The Canon goes on to provide in its next sentence:

"If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the Ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed."

The current language of the Canon has evolved over time, and some understanding of that evolution is necessary to understand the meaning of the Canon’s current language.


Indeed.

The abandonment Canon (currently numbered IV.9) was originally enacted in 1853, and pertinently amended in 1859, 1874, and 1904.*5 It has consistently provided for Bishops found to have abandoned the communion of this Church, with required consent, to be deposed by the Presiding Bishop. It is the giving of that consent that is primarily at issue now.


Indeed, again.

The method and requirements for giving consent have evolved over the Canon’s 165-year history, as follows:

• 1853: “with the consent of the majority of the Members of the House of
Bishops.”*6

• 1859: “with the consent of a majority of the House of Bishops.”*7

You have misquoted White & Dykman here, on a point that is crucial to your later argument. The 1859 version did not read as you have it, but said the same as the 1853 version: “with the consent of the majority of the House of Bishops” (emphasis supplied).

• 1874: “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled at the time to seats in the House of Bishops” at a duly convened meeting of the House.*8

• 1904: “consent of the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.”*9

Absent evidence to the contrary, we must interpret the General Convention’s choice to change the language defining the necessary consent from one version to another also to indicate an intention to change the definition itself.

Why assume that a change in the language necessarily meant a change in meaning? The history of the Canon (which you have relegated to some isolated footnotes, and which you have interpreted based on a misreading of the actual changes) shows instead that it was amended in a continuing process intended to clarify its meaning as applied to specific circumstances as they arose.

Relegating some explanation of the rationale behind the original enactment and its amendments to the footnotes, the meaning of the consent definition evolved over time as follows:

• 1853: the consent of a majority of all Members of the House of Bishops was required without the necessity of a meeting being held.*10

The House did not read it that way at all. It held a meeting to vote on the deposition of Bishop Ives immediately following the adoption of this Canon at the General Convention of 1853. Surely such an interpretation of the Canon by those who enacted it, evidenced by their conduct immediately afterward, completely outweighs your unfounded speculation that a meeting was not considered necessary under the Canon.

• 1859: the consent of a majority of the Members in attendance at a meeting of the House of Bishops (the meeting requirement being implicit and established by subsequent interpretation).*11

Not by “subsequent” interpretation, but by consistent interpretation ever since the Canon was first adopted. Your argument in the footnote (*11) that there was a change from the definite to the indefinite article in front of the word “majority” has no foundation in fact, and leads your subsequent conclusions badly astray.

• 1874: the consent, at a meeting of the House of Bishops, of a majority of the total number of Members entitled to a seat, whether or not present.*12

Or, said another way, it was exactly the same majority of Bishops required under both the 1853 and the 1859 versions. The only relevant change in the 1874 amendment was to make the requirement of a meeting of the House explicit, and in so doing the House simply acknowledged what had been its consistent practice over the previous years.

• 1904: the consent of the House as determined by a majority of the Members
entitled to vote at that meeting (not entitled to vote whether or not present)*13

Now you have jumped the ship in order to arrive at your predetermined destination. Your interpolation of the words “at that meeting”---which are not in the language of the Canon itself---cannot be justified by logic or history, and is not justified by any of your subsequent arguments.

The interpretation of the 1904 language is governed by five considerations: (1) the issue of who gives consent, (2) canonical context, (3) evolutionary context, (4) analogous provisions, and (5) the actual purpose of the word “whole” in Canon IV.9.


(1) The Issue of who Gives Consent


The 1904 amendment replaced the consent of the Members acting individually with the consent of the body itself. This is a significant difference with practical implications.



No, it is a specious difference wholly without support in the history and application of the Canon, and one that is invented only to get you where you have already decided to go.

The election of Bishops, for example, requires the consent of certain individual Members (those Bishops having jurisdiction) and not the consent of the House of Bishops expressed in a vote thereof, even when the consents are given during General Convention.*14 



Your footnote *14 continues the specious distinction you have just made. In the first place, it cites to a non-existent Canon (“Canon III.11.3”)---I assume that is a typo for “Canon III.16.3”. Subsection (c) of that Canon reads that “. . . notice of [the] consent [by the House of Deputies to the election of a Bishop] . . . shall be sent to the House of Bishops.” (Emphasis added.) The House of Bishops votes on the matter during one of its regular sessions at General Convention---individual consents are not gathered up during coffee breaks and tallied afterward, but a vote of the House is taken and recorded in its Minutes. That vote is then certified to the House of Deputies, if the required number of active Bishops have consented. The only time no meeting is needed to take the vote is when the election is being ratified in the period between one General Convention and three months before the next.

When the Members act individually, the majority is determined based on the total number of individuals and not based on the number of those individuals present at the meeting. 



The specious logic continues. The Bishops act “individually” when they are not in a meeting, as when they are ratifying an election when General Convention is not in session. When they vote on an election at one of their meetings during General Convention, the same number of affirmative votes is required by the Constitution and Canons as when they are voting individually outside of Convention: it is a majority of all Bishops exercising jurisdiction, and has nothing to do with the number who are present at a given meeting during Convention.


On the other hand, when the House acts as a body, a majority is determined based on the number of those eligible to vote who are present.*15 



This is not necessarily the case. As just noted, if the vote is to ratify the election of a colleague during a session of General Convention, a majority of all Bishops exercising jurisdiction in the Church must still give their consent, regardless of the number present at the given meeting, and as we shall see, the majority of “the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” is also not tied to the number who are actually present. Likewise, your cite in the footnote to Canon V.3---specifying that a quorum is a majority of all the members in a given body, except where the Constitution and Canons provide otherwise, is a non-sequitur. It is not Canon V.3, but Art. I, section 2 of the Constitution that specifies the definition of a “quorum” of the House of Bishops, and the number it specifies is smaller than the number specified by Canon V.3, because Art. I, section 2 leaves bishops who have resigned jurisdiction out of the count for a quorum.

In changing who gives consent from the individual Members (1874) to the House itself (1904), a difference in how a majority is to be determined was presumably intended. Otherwise, there would be no practical difference between the 1874 language and the 1904 language.


Precisely the point! All that occurred in going from the 1874 language to the 1904 language was a grammatical change of subject, not a change in meaning. Your distinction between “the House, by a majority . . . of the Bishops” and “the majority of the House” is a distinction without any semantical difference. This is especially the case when we take up the use of the word “whole” (in Part II, to come).


Not only is there not clear intent to the contrary, on the whole, evidence of intent favors the general rule as set forth in Canon V.3, as explained below.



The “general rule as set forth in Canon V.3” is a rule dealing with a quorum, not a particular vote on deposition, and it has no application to the House of Bishops, because Art. I, section 2 of the Constitution supersedes its definition.

(2) Canonical Context 


It is noteworthy that the reference to “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” in the current Canon immediately follows the requirement of a meeting of the House and is specifically linked to the House itself and not to the individual Members thereof. Therefore, the plainest reading in context is that it means “a majority of the whole number of members entitled to vote” at that meeting.



I dealt with this argument in my previous post, and showed how this meaning does not at all follow from your artificially derived distinction between “the House” and “the individual members thereof.”

Endnotes
*1 “Diocese of South Carolina Protests Presiding Bishop’s failure to follow the Canons,” (Diocese of South Carolina, 27 March 2008) http://www.dioceseofsc.org/mt/archives/000337.html.

*2 See, e.g., George Conger, “Call for Review after Trial ‘Flouted Church Rules,’” Church of England Newspaper, 28 March 2008, p. 5.

*3 “House of Bishops’ Votes Valid, Chancellor Confirms,” (Episcopal News Service, 15 March 2008)
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_95735_ENG_HTM.htm.
*4 The Deposition of a Bishop (John David M. Schofield) dated March 12, 2008 and the Deposition of a Bishop (William J. Cox) dated March 12, 2008, in both cases signed by the Most Rev. Katherine Jefferts Schori and witnessed by the Rt. Rev. Richard S. Chang and the Rt. Rev. Kenneth L. Price, Jr.
*5 Edwin Augustine White and Jackson A. Dykman, Annotated Constitution and Canons vol. 2 (1981 ed.) (New York: Office of the General Convention, 1985) 1079-1082 (herewith cited as White and Dykman).

*6 White and Dykman (n 5) 1079.

*7 White and Dykman (n 5) 1080.

*8 White and Dykman (n 5) 1081.
*9 White and Dykman (n 5) 1082.

*10 The canon was originally enacted in response to the decision of Bishop Levi S. Ives, Bishop of North Carolina, to become a Roman Catholic in 1852.

*11 The language of the amended Canon does not explicitly require a meeting, but does change the consent required from that of the Members thereof to being that of the House itself. There seems to have been some dispute, possibly relating to the change in language, over whether a meeting was required when the Bishops were forced to consider the abandonment of Bishop George D. Cummins, the Assistant Bishop of Kentucky, in order to found the Reformed Episcopal Church in 1873. Presiding Bishop Benjamin Bosworth Smith (Bishop of Kentucky) obtained the consent of a majority of the total number of Bishops without calling a meeting after which Bishop Smith deposed Cummins. Concern that the intention was to require the action at a meeting of the House led the House, meeting at the General Convention of 1874, to reaffirm the consent in the context of a meeting, and in October of 1874, Bishop Smith repeated the deposition. [White and Dykman (n 5) 1081]. A logical argument can be made that the change from the definite article “the” to the indefinite article “a” in the 1859 amendment together with the change to requiring
the consent of the House as such implied that a meeting was required and redefined the consent requirement as meaning as given by a majority at a meeting.


In fact, as noted above, there was no such change, and so this speculation is groundless.

*12 The extraordinary requirement of a majority of the total number of Bishops entitled to a seat was likely a reaction to the crisis of the Reformed Episcopal Church schism and confusion surrounding the deposition of Cummins.

As we have already seen, there was no change in the specified majority of Bishops required to vote on a deposition from 1853 through 1874, and continuing right down to today: it was then, and is now, a majority of all ("the whole number") of the Bishops entitled at any given time to vote in the House.

*13 The 1904 language was originally proposed to 1895 Convention by the Joint Commission on Revision of the Constitution and Canons [General Convention, Journal of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church, 1895 (General Convention, New York 1895) 679]. The report was taken up by the Convention in sections, the abandonment canon being revised in 1904 [General Convention, Journal of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church, 1904 (General Convention, New York 1904] 325-326, 598.

*14 Cf. Canon III.11.3 (c) and (d).

*15 Canon V.3.

Family Sytems Theory and pecusa

The post immediately below this one examines how family systems theory, particularly Bowen theory as reworked for congregations by Rabbi Edwin Friedman is used in pecusa in healthy and unhealthy ways. The author teaches at Trinity School for Ministry and has an extensive background in family systems as he cites.

My first exposure to family systems theory was in Clinical Pastoral Education during seminary and subsequent to that training I continued to study Bowen theory. Over the years I have attended both a two-day seminar and a lecture by Friedman and done some work in Family Systems at the Center for Family Counseling in Evanston, IL. Friedman's work was especially helpful for me in my first parish as a rector. Having served for six years as an assistant, three years each in two parishes, learning the dynamics of being a sole clergyperson in a small parish was a challenge. I found (and find) Friedman's work to be highly insightful.

The two pieces of Friedman's work that are generally most difficult are becoming and staying well-differentiated and at the same time staying connected to the system. Harding explains these two concepts below. As he points out, pecusa has misused family systems by pushing an agenda without staying connected to those parts of the system (in this case the Anglican Communion and dissidents within pecusa) that stand in 0pposition to the new direction. Harding does a good job of explaining family systems and identifying pecusa's failures in properly applying it.

Misreading Family Systems Theory

Over on Standfirm there is a thread about Kevin Martin’s article on Family Systems Theory and the present climate in the Episcopal Church. I have been studying Bowen Family Systems Theory since 1978. I teach it at the school. It can be misread in a superficial way as a technique for handling conflict which is content neutral. Matt Kennedy is critiquing that sort of use. The theory has flaws like any conceptual system and tends to be a bit philosophically naive and like most social science theories blind to the border between description and prescription.

Bowen Theory does say that the quality of thinking in an emotional system is related to the level of chronic anxiety in the system. The theory does not really maintain that content doesn’t matter. It simply says that in highly polarized situations anxiety rather than thinking is running the show. You need to be relatively calm to really think. The goal of this conceptuality is to help people have the thinking function be a little more independent of emotionality. Bowen Theory is very counter-cultural in that it doesn’t teach that healing comes from emotional catharsis as in Greek Drama or Psychoanalysis but from getting a little perspective and thinking independently of one’s own and of other’s emotionality. Family Systems Theory is not soteriology though there are points of contact. It has its own integrity in its own domain and is an important dialog partner with Pastoral Theology but is of course no substitute for theology. Below is is piece I wrote some time back on how Family Systems Theory is misread by leaders in TEC among others.

Family Systems Theory and the Crisis in the Episcopal Church

By

The Rev. Leander S. Harding, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology

Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry

In a recent video interview on Standfirminfaith.com the bishop elect of Virginia, Shannon Johnston. The bishop elect makes extensive reference to his approach to leadership which is heavily influenced by the Family Systems Theory of the late Rabbi Edwin Friedman. I teach Friedman’s book in the course on Pastoral Leadership at Trinity and have been a student of Family Systems Theory since 1978 when I became aware of the work of Dr. Murray Bowen. My 1989 Ph.D. thesis, Christian Nurture Revisited has a chapter on Family Systems Theory.

Ed Friedman was one of Dr. Bowen’s students and pioneered the application of Bowen Family Systems Theory to congregational life. Friedman’s book, From Generation to Generation: Family Process in Church and Synagogue, has become easily the single most influential text about leadership in religious systems and is taught in seminaries that represent a range of denominational and theological commitments. Dr. Friedman was a regular at the “baby bishop school” and I believe the concepts are still taught there. The bishop-elect of Virginia is convinced that a model of leadership informed by Family Systems Theory can help ameliorate the destructive conflict in the Episcopal Church. I believe he is correct but I also believe that a superficial understanding and application of the theory has added immeasurably to the current conflict.

One of the basic insights of this approach to leadership is that leaders tend to behave in similar ways in their families of origin, in their present family and in the leadership position they occupy in the church system to which they belong. Problems and creativity move across these three systems like ripples on the surface of a pond. Likewise anxiety is contagious between all three systems. Chronically anxious systems are those systems that have poorly defined leaders. There is a kind of Catch 22 effect at work because chronically anxious systems instinctively sabotage the self-definition of their leaders.

Chronically anxious systems tend to descend into more and more entrenched patterns of dysfunction “from generation to generation.” A “self-defined” and “well differentiated leader” can start a dynamic in the system in the direction of less anxiety, more creativity and better overall functioning. Friedman was part therapist and part comedian and he was fond of saying that problem solving in a chronically anxious system was like a “brainstem storming session.” In a chronically anxious system, people are stuck in flight, fright or freeze mode and are reactive rather than responsive. There may be a lot of rationalization going on but very little actual thinking, and the dysfunctional leaders in the dysfunctional systems tend to be reactive rather than thoughtfully responsive. Leadership tends to operate on the desire to appease the “togetherness forces” and typically “gives up self” in order to avoid conflict. “Peace-mongering” was one of Friedman’s epithets for dysfunctional leadership.

Friedman’s prescription for effective leadership which leads to healthy, functional and creative emotional systems was to coach leaders to take leadership stands based on well thought out and integrated values and principles while staying in touch with the system. In order to do this one has to develop “more of a self” and become able to be a “non-anxious presence” in the systems in which one is a leader. The absolute high road to being an effective leader for Friedman is working on defining a self in your family of origin. This involves the hard, years long, work of understanding the relationship patterns in your family of origin and re-working relationships with parents, siblings, grandparents and even generations that are only present in the family by legend or reputation. Defining yourself in your family of origin involves defining a self while staying in touch. Friedman echoes Murray Bowen when he says repeatedly that it is easy to define a self and easy to stay in touch with the other members of an emotional system, and it is the hardest thing in the world to define a self while staying in touch. Adult children who have alternated between avoiding visiting their parents and disastrous home visits in which they quickly revert to being truculent adolescents know the kind of challenge involved.

Friedman warns again and again, as did his mentor Murray Bowen, against using Family Systems Theory as a technique or an ideology. At the heart of the vision of creative leadership of both Bowen and Friedman is an invitation to do hard personal work in the family of origin. Friedman worried about a “too serious” hearing of Family Systems Theory in which people would study the theory and then think they had a set of tools that could be impersonally applied to manage the emotional functioning in a system. The challenge of Family System Theory is to be a change agent by changing yourself and how you respond to conflict. To hear Family Systems Theory as a technique for “handling” conflict or “handling” others is to hear it in the “too serious” way that Friedman warned of and to increase rather than decrease the chronic anxiety and emotional dysfunction in the system. This is I think exactly what has happened in many church circles and especially in the national leadership of the Episcopal Church.

There is one image in Friedman’s book which has been chronically misread and which is the centerpiece of the “too serious” and counterproductive application of this theory to leadership in the church. Friedman was trying to explain the dynamic in systems when someone takes a stand based on principle and conviction. For instance, an enabling wife of an acting-out alcoholic is coached by Friedman to cease trying to change her husband’s drinking patterns but rather to focus on her own input into the system. Instead of hiding the bottle she is coached to “define self” and say what she is willing and not willing to do based on well thought out principles and values. Under Friedman’s coaching she says, “honey, your drinking is none of my business, it is your life and if you want to proceed on this life-threatening course of behavior that is your business. I am just worried about what will become of me and the kids if you have a wreck or ruin your health with your drinking. If you will double your life insurance I promise never to mention your drinking again.” Friedman coaches the wife that she can expect not only the husband but all the other members of that emotional system from her parents to his boss to work together to get her to resume her “over-functioning” and “over-anxious” responses. She must persist and be steadfast if any change is to come.

Here comes the significant metaphor that has been so misheard and is so significantly responsible for the making the present crisis in our church much worse. Friedman uses the metaphor of General Chuck Yeager and the sound barrier. When the sound barrier was being approached the aircraft would experience more and more turbulence as the plane closed in on the critical speed. Pilots would drive their aircraft to what they thought was the limit and then, afraid that the airplane would shake apart, back off without breaking the barrier. Yeager believed a physicist friend that it would be smooth on the other side of the barrier and put on speed just when most pilots were backing off and became the first to break the sound barrier.

I believe that a large number of leaders in the Episcopal Church have heard Family Systems Theory in a “too serious” way. They have heard well that all leaders can expect resistance and sabotage, the turbulence of the Yeager metaphor, and will prevail by pouring on the speed on pushing ahead when they meet resistance. They have heard that they should not be distracted by the “content” of criticism but should pay attention to the emotional process and should above all be self-defined and persist. They think that smooth sailing is just around the corner. They have not heard the challenge that leadership involves staying emotionally connected to the members of the system, especially those with whom they are most emotionally uncomfortable. They have not heard the warning that this leadership theory is primarily about controlling one’s own emotionality and not a recipe for handling or manipulating others. The result is a generation of leaders on all sides of the current polarization who think that leadership consists of taking a bold stand and persisting in a damn the torpedoes full steam ahead mode. When resistance arises and the ship threatens to shake apart they are convinced that smooth skies are just ahead and they pour on the speed. They will not be able to perceive that they have not done the personal and relational homework necessary to really make a positive contribution until the wings come off as they now are.

When I teach Family Systems theory in my classes I warn against what I call the “Yeager heresy.” I caution the students that being rigid, inflexible and unwilling to accommodate reasonable criticism is not the same as taking a principled stand. Giving in always to maintain peace is reactive and anxious, and so is never making any accommodation. The full speed ahead damn the torpedoes rhetoric in the Episcopal Church is a symptom of an anxious and reactive leadership. Good leaders say, “This is what I think and believe, and this is what I am willing to do and not do” in such a way as to leave others the room to do the same thing. Good leaders have to have the strength of their convictions, which is something different from the desire to leave the opposition behind in the wake of their sonic boom. Family Systems Theory can make a contribution to understanding leadership in a conflicted church but not as merely more information or a superficial technique for managing the opposition but as a challenge for leaders to work on their own emotional and spiritual maturity and to respond thoughtfully rather than react emotionally to conflict.

In my assessment the current clearest example of leadership in the Anglican Communion which exhibits the principles of Friedman’s vision is the statement of the Windsor Report which says in so many words to the Episcopal Church, “You have acted in ways which put in question your continued membership in the communion. The communion is now going to work together to make clear what it means to belong to the communion and then you can decide whether you want to belong or not.” Now we are finding out whether the leaders of the dominant party in the Episcopal Church will react or respond to this challenge and whether the leaders of the minority party will react or respond to that action. The emotional and spiritual maturity of a lot of people in the church is on very public view.

Drell: Obviously We’ve Got Them Worried Now: Bishop Stacy Saul’s Memorandum On the Illegal Depositions

Title by Brad Drell of Drell's Discants, ed.

Published May 28, 2008

MEMORANDUM
May 27, 2008
To: House of Bishops
From: Task Force on Property Disputes
Re: Proper Use of Abandonment Procedures for Bishops

Subsequent to our meeting at Camp Allen, some Bishops of The Episcopal
Church1 and some commentators2 have suggested that we may have failed to follow our
own rules for giving consent to the deposition of a Bishop for abandoning the
communion of this Church. A careful analysis and examination of the canon law,
however, confirms that consent to deposition was procedurally appropriate, as the
House’s Parliamentarian ruled and the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor has advised.3
This memorandum is intended to provide the Members of the House with
necessary legal background and the reasoning supporting that conclusion for the
assurance of the Members as to past actions and in advance of their consideration of any
additional such actions in the future.

Conclusion
The House of Bishops followed the proper canonical procedure for consenting to
the depositions of John-David Schofield and William J. Cox from the Ministry of The
Episcopal Church as provided in Canon IV.9 of the Constitution and Canons of The
Episcopal Church (2006) for the following reasons:

A. The intended meaning of Section 2 of Canon IV.9 of the Constitution and Canons
of The Episcopal Church (2006) is that the consent of a majority of the Bishops
voting at a meeting of the House of Bishops constitutes valid consent for the
deposition of a Bishop.

B. Precedent establishes that the House of Bishops acted appropriately in
considering and acting upon the Presiding Bishop’s referral to it of the
abandonment of communion certified to her by the Review Committee.

C. Procedural safeguards assure fairness and justice in the case of Bishops accused
of having abandoned the Communion of this Church.
Background
The House of Bishops met for its annual, and duly noticed, spring meeting at
Camp Allen, Navasota, Texas on March 7-12, 2008. As is its custom, the House
scheduled a business session during that meeting. Members were notified in advance of
the business session that the certification of the abandonment of the communion of this
Church by the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield, Bishop of San Joaquin, and the Rt. Rev.
William J. Cox, Bishop Suffragan of Maryland, Res., would be considered. The business
session was held, as planned, on March 12, at which time the subject of consent to
deposition was before the House. With respect to each Bishop, a voice vote was taken,
which was not unanimous and included abstentions but which clearly indicated majority
consent to the depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox by a wide margin in each case.
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, as required by Section 2 of Canon IV.9, has
since deposed both from the Ministry of The Episcopal Church.4

Reasoning

A. The intended meaning of Section 2 of Canon IV.9 of the Constitution and Canons
of The Episcopal Church (2006) is that the consent of a majority of the Bishops
voting at a meeting of the House of Bishops constitutes valid consent for the
deposition of a Bishop.

The procedure for deposing a Bishop of The Episcopal Church for abandonment of
the communion of this Church requires, upon certification of the abandonment by the
Review Committee, that the Presiding Bishop “present the matter to the House of
Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House.” The Canon goes on to
provide in its next sentence:

If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to
vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop
from the Ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or
more Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.

The current language of the Canon has evolved over time, and some understanding of
that evolution is necessary to understand the meaning of the Canon’s current language.
The abandonment Canon (currently numbered IV.9) was originally enacted in 1853,
and pertinently amended in 1859, 1874, and 1904.5 It has consistently provided for
Bishops found to have abandoned the communion of this Church, with required consent,
to be deposed by the Presiding Bishop. It is the giving of that consent that is primarily at
issue now.

The method and requirements for giving consent have evolved over the Canon’s 165
year history, as follows:

· 1853: “with the consent of the majority of the Members of the House of
Bishops.”6
· 1859: “with the consent of a majority of the House of Bishops.”7
· 1874: “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled at the time to seats in
the House of Bishops” at a duly convened meeting of the House.8
· 1904: the consent of the House as determined by a majority of the Members
entitled to vote at that meeting (not entitled to vote whether or not present)13

The interpretation of the 1904 language is governed by five considerations: (1) the
issue of who gives consent, (2) canonical context, (3) evolutionary context, (4) analogous
provisions, and (5) the actual purpose of the word whole in Canon IV.9.
(1) The Issue of who Gives Consent

The 1904 amendment replaced the consent of the Members acting individually with
the consent of the body itself. This is a significant difference with practical implications.
The election of Bishops, for example, requires the consent of certain individual Members
(those Bishops having jurisdiction) and not the consent of the House of Bishops
expressed in a vote thereof, even when the consents are given during General
Convention.14 When the Members act individually, the majority is determined based on
the total number of individuals and not based on the number of those individuals present
at the meeting. On the other hand, when the House acts as a body, a majority is
determined based on the number of those eligible to vote who are present.15 In changing
who gives consent from the individual Members (1874) to the House itself (1904), a
difference in how a majority is to be determined was presumably intended. Otherwise,
there would be no practical difference between the 1874 language and the 1904 language.
Not only is there not clear intent to the contrary, on the whole, evidence of intent favors
the general rule as set forth in Canon V.3, as explained below.

(2) Canonical Context

It is noteworthy that the reference to “a majority of the whole number of Bishops
entitled to vote” in the current Canon immediately follows the requirement of a meeting
of the House and is specifically linked to the House itself and not to the individual
Members thereof. Therefore, the plainest reading in context is that it means “a majority
of the whole number of members entitled to vote” at that meeting.

(3) Evolutionary Context
In its evolutionary context, “the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” (1904
language) must mean something different than “the whole number of Bishops entitled at
the time to seats in the House of Bishops” (1874). The 1904 amendment was enacted as
part of a process of comprehensive constitutional and canonical revision. One of those
revisions was making allowance for suffragan bishops,16 which were constitutionally
authorized for the first time in 1910 under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.17 The
contemporaneous constitutional revision of 1901 did not, however, extend the right to
vote in the House of Bishops to suffragan bishops. Thus, suffragan bishops were legally
entitled to seat and voice but not vote. In these circumstances, it was necessary to amend
the 1874 language of the abandonment Canon,18 which had set the standard for
determining abandonment based on the number of bishops entitled to seat rather than
those entitled to vote.

The operative phrase in the 1874 Canon for determining the standard for
determining abandonment, “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled at thetime to seats in the House of Bishops,” was altered with this change in mind in two
important ways. First, “to vote” replaced “to seats.” Indeed, before Suffragan Bishops
became entitled to vote in 1943,19 there were as many as 24 of them serving in the House
of Bishops at one time,20 which would have radically altered the standard for determining
abandonment were it not for the 1904 amendment.

The 1901 constitutional amendment also deprived bishops resigning for nonconstitutionally
specified grounds of both seat and vote, although the House itself,
through Rule XXV, makes it possible for those resigned Bishops, when moral reasons are
not involved in the resignation, to be granted seat and voice. House rules also make it
possible to seat honorary and collegial Members (Rule XXIV) as well as guests (Rule
XXVI). Guests with seat and voice, as opposed to honorary and collegial Members, are
not entitled to be present during Executive Session. Again, were it not for the 1904
amendment to the abandonment canon, the presence of these non-voting Members would
have an impact, potentially significant, in the determination of abandonment.

Second, and very significantly, the 1904 amendment revised the 1874 language in one
other crucial respect. The amended Canon omitted the important words “at the time”
from the operative phrase as used in 1874. Their omission in 1904 meant that the
standard for determining abandonment was not the whole number entitled at the time to
vote, thus not requiring that those entitled to vote but not present at the meeting be
counted as had been the case with respect to those entitled to a seat theretofore. It is a
change that makes sense given the 1904 amendment’s decision to vest the responsibility
for determining abandonment in the House as a body and not in the Bishops as
individuals.

In context, then, it is highly likely that the canonical drafters in 1904, in choosing
the language “whole number of Bishops entitled to vote,” did so with the primary
intention of correcting the 1874 language so as to provide for the new potential (and
actuality) of significant numbers of Members with seats but without vote and making the
finding of abandonment an action of the House as a body and not of the individual
bishops.

(4) Analogous Provisions
Similar canonical language and situations support interpreting the phrase “whole
number of Bishops entitled to vote” as meaning entitled to vote at that meeting. Canon
IV.9 itself uses the phrase “all the Members” with respect to the Review Committee
when it means a majority of the total number of Members and not the phrase “the whole
number of Members.” The constitutional provision for defining a quorum for a meeting
of the House of Bishops states: “A majority of all Bishops entitled to vote, exclusive of
Bishops who have resigned their jurisdiction or positions, shall be necessary to constitute
a quorum for the transaction of business.”21 Similarly, both Canons I.12.2 (regarding
Diocesan Standing Committees in some circumstances) and Canon V.3 (regarding bodies
of General Convention) successfully define quorums with reference to all Members
without using the word “whole” as an adjective even when using the word “whole” as a
noun to describe the total number of Members for purposes of giving notice. The use of
the word “whole” as an adjective is not necessary to define the set of Members necessary
for a quorum, and since it is unnecessary for that purpose, cannot be held to require such
an interpretation in Section 2 of Canon IV.9. Indeed, it has a different purpose therein.

(5) The Actual Purpose of the Word Whole in Canon IV.9

If the word whole in Section 2 of Canon IV.9 is not intended to refer to the total
number of Bishops entitled to vote whether or not present, what is its purpose? It would
be improper to interpret the Canon in a way that rendered the language chosen by the
1904 General Convention, in whole or in part, meaningless if doing so would be
unnecessary. It cannot be ignored that the General Convention, while making significant
changes in the definition of the consent requirement for deposition, chose to retain the
word whole. Again, however, the meaning of that word is completely consistent with the
interpretation of this memorandum. Indeed, the word whole has important application in
the Canon thus understood in that it requires counting abstaining Members present at the
meeting, for the purpose of determining what constitutes a majority at a meeting, thus
making failures to vote, or abstentions, have the same net effect as a negative vote, which
has the effect of making a majority more difficult to obtain than would otherwise be the
case. It is not difficult to posit a situation in which Members might express their
displeasure at a given Bishop’s conduct and at the same time refuse to consent to the
sanction of deposition by registering an abstention. Indeed, the 2008 votes included
several abstentions.

B. Precedent establishes that the House of Bishops acted appropriately in
considering and acting upon the Presiding Bishop’s referral to it of the
abandonment of communion certified to her by the Review Committee.
In recent history, the House of Bishops has taken similar action regarding two
Bishops, Donald Davies of Ft. Worth (1993) and Neptali Larrea of Ecuador Central
(2004). In both cases, the exact procedure followed with respect to John-David Schofield
and William Cox was used. Decisions were taken based on a majority vote of those
present at a meeting of the House of Bishops. Although the minutes of both meetings
leave much to be desired, it appears that 131 Bishops of the 276 total eligible to vote
attended the 1993 meeting and of that 143 Bishops of the over 300 total22 eligible to vote
attended the 2004 meeting. In neither case did a majority of those eligible to vote attend.

Very tellingly, no objection was made at all. Even more tellingly, no objection was made
at the time by either Schofield or Cox, or by any Bishop present at the time, which
included, in the case of Bishop Larrea, many current Members of the House. There is no
legitimate distinction to be made between the former cases and the present ones. Indeed,
a fundamental unfairness would arise were Bishops similarly situated as to the Review
Committee’s findings and certification treated differently. Impartial administration of the
Canons of The Episcopal Church requires recognizing the legitimacy of the present
depositions and not the contrary as some have argued.23

C. Procedural safeguards assure fairness and justice in the case of Bishops accused
of having abandoned the Communion of this Church.
Canon IV.9 provides several important safeguards to assure a fair and just
consideration of the cases bishops accused of abandoning the communion of this Church.
Those assurances of due process begin before deposition is even a remote possibility.

First, abandonment is carefully defined by Section 1 of the Canon. A Bishop may
abandon the communion in one of three ways:
(i) by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this
Church, or (ii) by formal admission into any religious body not in
communion with the same, or (iii) by exercising episcopal acts in and for a
religious body other than this Church or another church in communion
with this Church, so as to extend to such body Holy Orders as this Church
holds them, or to administer on behalf of such religious body
Confirmation without the express consent and commission of the proper
authority in this Church.

The Review Committee, composed of five Bishop peers of the accused (a majority of the
Committee) along with two Priests and two confirmed adult lay communicants,24 must
first find by a majority vote of all its Members that at least one of the three circumstances
constituting abandonment is present and certify that fact to the Presiding Bishop.
Inhibition of a Bishop so certified is possible only with the consent of the “three senior
Bishops having jurisdiction in this Church.”

Even after the certification and, in some cases, inhibition, the certified Bishop has
two months to make a Verified written statement to the Presiding Bishop that the facts
alleged in the certification are false. If the Presiding Bishop finds that the statement is a
good faith retraction or denial, she or he may, with the consent of a majority of the three
senior Bishops, dissolve the inhibition and drop the matter. The Presiding Bishop’s
discretion is limited (in favor of the accused) by a standard of good faith, to which she or
he is canonically accountable. The accused is protected by the necessity of majority
consent in the House of Bishops, composed entirely of his or her peers to whom the
accused is presumably well known. The House has the right to initiate further
investigation, which indeed the accused might request. It should also be noted that a
Bishop accused of abandoning the communion of this Church can also avoid further
proceedings by renunciation pursuant either to Canon III.7.12 or Canon IV.8.

In the present cases all the procedural safeguards were followed. It is particularly
noteworthy that neither Bishop certified as having abandoned the communion at any
point whatsoever disputed the allegation of the abandonment as certified by the Review
Committee, renounced the actions, denied the actions in any way, requested a further
hearing, made any rebuttal, issued any defense, or contested the allegation whatsoever.
Nor did either do so despite having an affirmative canonical duty to do so to avoid
deposition.25 The fair opportunity to do so having been provided, but ignored, the right
must at this point be considered waived.

Finally, it must be noted that no Member of the House of Bishops, present or not
present, requested further action, investigation, or hearing as permitted under House
rules. No challenge was made to the Parliamentarian’s ruling on the meaning of Canon
IV.9. Similarly, no Member of the House of Bishops, as permitted by Rule XVII,
requested reconsideration of the House’s action. Again, no request having been made at
the time, the right to do so must now be considered waived.

Under the circumstances, then, the House can only conclude that a fair and lawful
procedure was followed, as provided by the Canon, and that the decision canonically
made stands as the legitimate judgment of the House.

Notes
1 “Diocese of South Carolina Protests Presiding Bishop’s failure to follow the Canons,” (Diocese of South Carolina, 27 March 200 8) http://www.dioceseofsc.org/mt/archives/000337.html.

2 See, e.g., George Conger, “Call for Review after Trial ‘Flouted Church Rules,’” Church of England Newspaper, 28 March 2008, p. 5.

3 “House of Bishops’ Votes Valid, Chancellor Confirms,” (Episcopal News Service, 15 March 200 8) http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_95735_ENG_HTM.htm.

4 The Deposition of a Bishop (John David M. Schofield) dated March 12, 2008 and the Deposition of a Bishop (William J. Cox) dated March 12, 2008, in both cases signed by the Most Rev. Katherine Jefferts Schori and witnessed by the Rt. Rev. Richard S. Chang and the Rt. Rev. Kenneth L. Price, Jr.

5 Edwin Augustine White and Jackson A. Dykman, Annotated Constitution and Canons vol. 2 (1981 ed.) (New York: Office of the General Convention, 1985) 1079-1082 (herewith cited as White and Dykman).

6 White and Dykman (n 5) 1079.

7 White and Dykman (n 5) 1080.

8 White and Dykman (n 5) 1081.

9 White and Dykman (n 5) 1082.

10 The canon was originally enacted in response to the decision of Bishop Levi S. Ives, Bishop of North Carolina, to become a Roman Catholic in 1852.

11 The language of the amended Canon does not explicitly require a meeting, but does change the consent required from that of the Members thereof to being that of the House itself. There seems to have been some dispute, possibly relating to the change in language, over whether a meeting was required when the Bishops were forced to consider the abandonment of Bishop George D. Cummins, the Assistant Bishop of Kentucky, in order to found the Reformed Episcopal Church in 1873. Presiding Bishop Benjamin Bosworth Smith (Bishop of Kentucky) obtained the consent of a majority of the total number of Bishops without calling a meeting after which Bishop Smith deposed Cummins. Concern that the intention was to require the action at a meeting of the House led the House, meeting at the General Convention of 1874, to reaffirm the consent in the context of a meeting, and in October of 1874, Bishop Smith repeated the deposition. [White and Dykman (n 5) 1081]. A logical argument can be made that the change from the definite article the to the indefinite article a in the 1859 amendment together with the change to requiring
the consent of the House as such implied that a meeting was required and redefined the consent
requirement as meaning as given by a majority at a meeting.

12 The extraordinary requirement of a majority of the total number of Bishops
entitled to a seat was likely a reaction to the crisis of the Reformed Episcopal Church schism and confusion surrounding the deposition of Cummins.

13 The 1904 languages was originally proposed to 1895 Convention by the Joint Commission on Revision of the Constitution and Canons [General Convention, Journal of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church, 1895 (General Convention, New York 1895) 679]. The report was taken up by the Convention in sections, the abandonment canon being revised in 1904 [General Convention, Journal of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church, 1904 (General Convention, New York 1904] 325-326, 598.

14 Cf. Canon III.11.3 (c) and (d).

15 Canon V.3.

16 The title “suffragan” had been previously but rarely used in TEC, but the so-called suffragan bishops functioned as canonical “assistant” bishops.

17 White and Dykman (n 5) 62.
18 Although the office of Suffragan Bishop was not created constitutionally until after the 1904 amendment to the abandonment canon (the creation of the office of suffragan having been passed on first reading in 1907, the next General convention, and on second reading in 1910), the creation of the office had long been contemplated. It had been proposed as early as 1847, and gained serious interest for missionary reasons at the General Convention of 1871 (the year after the Church of England began again appointing Suffragan Bishops) and thereafter [White and Dykman (n 5) 60-62].

19 White and Dykman (n 5) 21.

20 The Episcopal Church Annual: 2008 (Harrisburg: Morehouse Publishing, 2006).

21 Constitution of The Episcopal Church, Art. I, Sec. 2 (2006).

22 The Episcopal Church Annual 2004 (Harrisburg, Pa.: Morehouse Publishing, 2004) 429-436.
23 “Western Louisiana Bishop: ‘Two Sets of Rules for One Church,’” The Living Church (17 April 200 8) http://www.livingchurch.org/news/newsupdates/2008/4/17/western_louisiana_bishop_two_sets_of_rules_
for_one_church.

24 Canon IV. 3.26.

25 White and Dykman (n 5) 1082.

Diocese of Pittsburgh Statement

Standing Committee Statement on Threatened Deposition

The unanimously approved statement was sent to the office of the Presiding Bishop on May 28.

Editor's Note: The Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has released the following statement regarding the threatened deposition of Bishop Robert Duncan at the September 2008 meeting of The Episcopal Church's House of Bishops. Their statement has been faxed and mailed to the office of the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church.

The Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is saddened to learn the Presiding Bishop and her chancellor will continue to press for the deposition of our Diocesan Bishop, Robert W. Duncan, Jr. for the Abandonment of Communion at the September 2008 House of Bishops Meeting. Although we recognize the authority of the Episcopal Church to discipline and remove its ministers for violations of its canons, we believe Canon IV.9, Sec.1 has been misapplied and Canon IV.9, Sec.2 has been misinterpreted in this instance.

Should our Diocesan Bishop be validly deposed pursuant to the requirements set forth in the canons, the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is prepared to exercise its role as the Ecclesiastical Authority of this diocese.

Unanimously affirmed by the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, May 27, 2008.

- Posted May 28, 2008 -

Dean Kevin Martin: pecusa is "anxious and reactive"

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Anxiety

“Do not be anxious,” Jesus said. Without a doubt, Jesus’ wise advice to his disciples is also applicable to a congregation or community. Over the years, as I worked with congregations, I grew to have a greater appreciation for anxiety and its effects upon communities.

Directly said, anxious communities are reactive communities. Anxiety is an emotional state that is processed by our minds and bodies in the same way we react to fear. Emotionally, we click into “fight or flight.” We fight when we respond with conflict and when we attack others. We flee when we withdraw or avoid others. Some congregations that I worked with were so chronically anxious that they repeated sick and toxic behavior. For example, in congregations that others have called “Priest killers,” I have found that this destructive behavior toward clergy is a symptom of a deeper underlying anxiety.

When our congregation or community becomes anxious it becomes reactive. It is not very able to respond certainly not in creative ways. Things are viewed through the lens of either/or, black/white, right/wrong. People and events are measured as being for us or against us.

For some time now, I have tried to state as rationally and calmly as possible that TEC is a community that shows all the signs of an anxious and reactive community. The continuing polarization on issues related to human sexuality and the fight or flight posture of many of our leaders is strongly indicative of our plight. I further believe that our current tension and polarization has gone on for so long that we are in danger of becoming, if we are not already, a chronically anxious community without the inner resources to turn toward health and healing.

I should mention that when I try to say this, those strongly caught up in the reactivity usually respond in very negative ways. They argue for the rightness of their side, or the importance of “rights” or “belief.” I want to make it clear, before you hit the “comment” button to my blog that I am not saying that the issues on both sides are not important. I am saying that we are dealing with them poorly because we have become so reactive.

What we do know about reactivity is that reason and understanding are pushed aside by emotion and passion. One continuing example of this is the way Episcopal leaders talk about, and the terms we use to describe, those we “see on the other side.” (One rule of thumb that I learned as a consultant is always to use the terms and descriptions that people and groups use about themselves WITHOUT giving these a pejorative definition.)

Those who have read articles from me already know that I have said all this before. What I want to answer in my blog is this question that is seldom asked: “What are we anxious about?” In other words, what is driving our present anxiety? I would say that the answer to this is complex, but it is knowable if we stop and thing about it.

First of all, as a Church with strong connections to American culture, we are anxious about all the things our general society is anxious about. Try this for a starting list:
The Post-cold war transitional world community
9/11 and global terrorism, our incursion into Afghanistan, and our disastrous quagmire in Iraq
Globalization (which includes all of the above)
The changing definitions of humanity and human sexuality, which corresponds to the diminishing identity we once found in our tribe, race or national origin.
The rise of violence in our society
The complexity of our society
The tremendous changes brought about by technology, the internet and computers
The decline of the family as the basic unit of culture and the emergence of the peer community as its replacement
The explosive growth in our understanding of the Universe and the diminishing place we humans find in it
The consequences of our dependence upon carbon fuels and the results, be they global warming or $5.00 a gallon gasoline

Then as a church:
40 years of decline
The loss of our “English” identity and the Americanization of ECUSA
The change from being a New York and East Coast elitist Community into a more upper middle-class community post WWII
The changing and emerging power of women
The declining number of African-Americans and blue collar workers who represented our previous “diversity and inclusion.”
The failure of Anglo-Catholics, Evangelicals, and Charismatics to gain control of our community combined with the absolute control of our national leadership by Progressives
The use of a Prayer Book that does not create a common sense of language and community – too many options for that
An aging membership that remains highly educated, largely Anglo and that can’t find many ways to live out the diversity that we value so much
A lack of consensus as to the role and place of Anglicanism in North America and a growing tension with Anglicanism in the rest of the world

Add to these, Post-Christendom, Post-denominationalism, and Post-modernism and you get a lot of anxiety.

So, what are we to do? When I suggested in a previous post that it will be 2010 before we will have the opportunity to move beyond our present stuckness, one reader, Sarah, stated her opinion that this will go on much longer. It certainly could. The result of such on-going anxiety will be the essential demise of our community. Sure, a remnant will remain, but it will be the remnant so burned out and dysfunctional that it will have no future.

Or we could simply have it out by fight or flight. The 2009 General Convention could be an essential sweep of the issues even at the expense of our membership in the wider Anglican Community. I have certainly heard this attitude expressed by some Progressives. We could see the withdrawal of more leaders, congregations and even dioceses. We (and they) kid ourselves if we think that such flight does not affect those who leave. I think a few folks who have left have managed to move beyond our present situation, but most clearly have not.

The answer in another way is quite simple, keep engaged and refuse to either win or withdraw. This is not a very easy road to take, nor a very comfortable one. Finally, one way to survive this is to surrender “the illusion of control.” As I said in my sermon May 25th, most human beings greatly over-estimate what we can really control. Worse, in believing we can control, we only create greater anxiety in ourselves and in our communities. Here is my summary comment for myself and the church I love, “When control is the issue, Jesus has left the building!”