Via Stand Firm:
Dear Fellow Clergy and Members of the Diocese of South Carolina,
We met in Salt Lake City, Utah, to consider our experience at Lambeth and to carry out the business of the House, which in this instance was the deposition under Title IV.9 of The Rt. Reverend Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh. I have known Bob for close to 20 years, as a fellow priest in the diocese of Pittsburgh, as my Bishop for a year or so in Pittsburgh, and then as a colleague in the struggles of The Episcopal Church. The discussion regarding Lambeth on Wednesday morning and afternoon included table conversation (with the mandatory newsprint) and discussion by the House collectively. It was uneventful and what one might expect…. It was suggested we communicate the spirit of this discussion to the various provinces of the Anglican Communion through the relationships we established in the Indaba groups and elsewhere at Lambeth.
After dinner on Wednesday evening we met in an informal session to hear and discuss the findings of the Review Committee on Property Disputes, and the subsequent charges against Bishop Duncan for Abandonment of Communion brought by the Presiding Bishop. The Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor explained his reading of Title IV.9 and the evidence against Bishop Duncan. This meeting was primarily a hearing to consider the case and to ask pertinent questions thereto. Bishop Stacy Sauls of Lexington presented the reasoning behind the need to consider deposing Bishop Duncan at this time, rather than after Pittsburgh’s Convention in October. As I remember, it centered on the intricacies of Pennsylvania Commonwealth Law, the establishment of a separate diocesan corporation by Bishop Duncan, and the connection to possible litigation over the ownership of property—that is to protect it for use by “loyal” Episcopalians in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, those who wish to remain in The Episcopal Church.
What Happened
The business session began Thursday morning with a committee of the whole, which means that we met with the whole House of Bishops to address the matter before us—not to take action yet, but rather to speak pro or con on the issue before us. Several bishops rose to speak on the virtue of postponing the vote until after the Pittsburgh Diocesan Convention. I also spoke during this session. What follows is a paraphrase of my words to the House. I offer it here because it remains my view to this day:
There are so many dubious dimensions to this current proceeding against Bishop Duncan that to continue on this path, trampling upon the plain reading and purpose of the Canon in the process, may well give pause to all and cause many of us to shudder. Consider:
• There is the torturous reading of the Canon in order to render moot the clear reference to the necessity of inhibition prior to deposition. The fact is that Bishop Duncan has not been inhibited. The fact is that the three Senior Bishops of this church have not consented.
• There is the disputed reading of that phrase in the Canon which reads “…a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.” The Constitution and Canons interpret that phrase in Article I:3, and in Canon IV itself, under section 15, which defines the very terminology used in the title! Under the ruling by the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor, it is possible for a smaller number of Bishops to consent to the deposition of a Bishop than the number required to consent to the resignation of a Bishop. It is respectfully submitted that such an interpretation makes no sense, and turns the Canon on its head.
• There are real questions regarding the adequacy of due process in this case—a sacred principle of judicial practice in our society.
• There are significant questions in this matter that may suggest to some minds a conflict of interest.
• Along with these above concerns, there are the pervasive moral and pastoral dimensions which cannot be so easily dismissed as some would like us to believe. The statement last evening regarding the case of All Saints’ Pawleys Island vs. Diocese of South Carolina may have been well intended, but the fact is that the lawsuit has brought financial cost (thereby diminishing the funds available for missions) and spiritual unrest within the Diocese of South Carolina. The suggestion that swift action averted discord and legal proceeding is just not accurate. The description last evening of the situation within the Diocese of San Joaquin, while it may be one person’s recent experience, bears little resemblance to what was my experience serving in that diocese for the last ten years and living there for the first 30 plus years of my life.
• Having served in the Diocese of Pittsburgh and the Diocese of San Joaquin for almost all of my ordained ministry, I can tell you that the pastoral and theological matters that have precipitated the actions of their conventions will not be resolved by depositions or litigation, especially when the principles of due process and rule of law seem to be high-handedly ignored.
Many in this House have expressed concerns regarding the proposed Anglican Covenant—balking at what appears to them to be a “legalistic” solution to theological and pastoral problems. Yet isn’t that precisely how we are presently choosing to deal with what is at heart a theological and pastoral concern? It suggests we are willing to deal with difficult and controversial matters in legislative ways when the majority have the vote but not when the same group may be in a minority position. Yet in such a climate we are being encouraged to act with expediency, not for the sake of justice, but in order to put The Episcopal Church in the best position in order to litigate for property—for buildings which, in all likelihood, will stand empty of parishioners who have been alienated by the very actions of this House. When the Presiding Bishop ruled my first election as Bishop of South Carolina null and void in March of 2007, some urged us to take precipitous action. We chose instead to take a longer and canonically faithful path. Now we in this house are rushing to precipitous action. I would suggest this is the wrong canon, the wrong action, and the wrong time to proceed with this deposition. We need a new moratorium on lawsuits with Episcopalians in litigation with Episcopalians. We need to give one another a wider space to live among these difficult issues. If we fail to do so words such as inclusivity and diversity used so freely in this church must surely ring hollow to those both within and outside the Anglican Communion.
Of course others also spoke on various dimensions of the question. We then broke for the Eucharist, followed by lunch, and returned for the afternoon session. There were more appeals one way or another, each respectfully presented. When there seemed to be no one rising to speak at a microphone the PB appropriately moved us into parliamentary session. Two bishops stood to petition for a roll call vote. Since Bishop Love of Albany had a list of nine bishops who had signed a document (I was one of the nine) the motion was received without further question from the chair. Bishop Michael Smith of North Dakota and I then rose to speak at different microphones. He was first to the mike and was recognized. He appealed from the ruling of the chair on Title IV.9’s reference to the “inhibited bishop.” The PB and her chancellor had read the reference to inhibition as an optional part of the canon. The appeal needed a two-thirds vote to overrule the chair. On a voice vote it didn’t even come close. I then appealed the ruling of the chair on the reading of the canon as needing a “majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote.” Here, too, the chair’s reading was overwhelming supported by voice vote. With no one else rising to speak the House voiced its willingness to proceed to the vote. It was done by role call beginning with the most senior bishops according to their date of consecration. In the end there were 88 yes votes, 35 no and 4 abstaining. The Bishop of Pittsburgh, The Rt. Reverend Robert Duncan was deposed by the House of Bishops. There was somberness in the house. The Presiding Bishop urged us to take care how we communicate this to those within TEC, within the Anglican Communion and within the larger community of faith. Several rose to speak on the place of accountability to one another within the House of Bishops and how we have not always held one another accountable. After a break we returned for a final session before evening prayer. It was a difficult day for all.
What Does It Mean?
Once again within a few months the landscape of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion has changed—as if Gafcon and Lambeth were not enough. What does this deposition mean? Frankly, it is still unfolding, but I offer the following reflections:
• The House of Bishops whether intentionally or not has enhanced the power of the Presiding Bishop. With consequences far beyond the deposition of The Rt. Reverend Robert Duncan, this vote by interpretation and application of Title IV.9, has established invasive reach for the PB. It is now possible for a sitting bishop of TEC to be deposed without prior inhibition or trial, rendering superfluous the role of the three Senior Bishops of the House. Beyond this is the quizzical ruling that it takes more votes from the House to receive the resignation of a retiring bishop then to depose a sitting one! Then there is the curious fact that it takes a two-thirds vote of the house to overturn a ruling of the chair, thus when combined with rendering moot the role of the senior bishops and the plain reference to a needed “majority of the whole house entitled to vote” in Title IV.9—there is enhanced power to the PB regardless of who may hold the chair, now or in the future. A development mercurial indeed, when one considers the PB and House of Bishops have repeatedly declined the authority to speak on behalf of The Episcopal Church when queried for commitments by the Communion’s Instruments of Unity; deferring instead to the authority of General Convention.
• I fear that however reasoned or temperately the members of the House of Bishops or the Presiding Bishop’s Office explains this deposition it will further trouble the waters of discord. There are several reasons for this: While Title IV.9 mentions a bishop abandoning the communion by open renunciation of the Discipline of this church, (which is ostensibly the clearest rationale for why the presentment was brought against Bishop Duncan), it is also clear from the same canon that prior to mentioning renunciation of the Discipline of the Church there is the reference to the Doctrine of the Church. Many from within TEC itself, as well as those in the various provinces of the Anglican Communion, are not unaware that there have been more then a few bishops of this Church who have in public settings and in published writings, renounced or at least denied the Doctrine of TEC. Others have allowed rites of worship, which if not having actually crossed the authorized boundaries in their approval of pastoral liturgies for same-sex blessings, have all but done so—doing pirouettes on a knife’s edge. Doesn’t the House of Bishops look as if it is being selective in holding its theological “conservative” bishops and dioceses accountable in matters of the Church’s discipline (i.e. the Constitution & Canons), while having no will to hold “liberal” bishops, retired and active, accountable on matters of doctrine and worship? And even in this matter of the Church’s discipline we may look selective: For instance what does the Presiding Bishop and the HOB’s intend to do with those bishops who contrary to the canons allow or even invite open communion of the unbaptized?
• As you may already know Bishop Duncan has been received as a bishop in the Province of the Southern Cone. Rather then helping to mend the fabric of the Communion torn by TEC in 2003 by actions contrary to Lambeth 1.10, this recent action of the House of Bishops further tears the fabric of the communion. Even as I write this account voices of support for Bishop Duncan are being raised in various provinces of the Anglican Communion.
• I fear that while repeatedly asking other Provinces of the Communion to understand the uniqueness of our Church’s polity, and requesting a gracious patience towards the complexities of our local or provincial needs, we now appear to have limited capacity in offering this to one another within The Episcopal Church.
• There will be louder, more urgent, and convincing calls (indeed they have already been heard in several quarters) for another Anglican Province in North America.
All of this leads me to believe that the challenges that lie before a predominately conservative diocese like South Carolina have now been enormously increased if only because of the perception of our parishioners and clergy—but, more pertinently from what I fear is a failure of the present House of Bishops to realize just how far from historic Christianity our church has drifted. To many of our minds this, far more than Pittsburgh’s present challenge to TEC’s discipline and polity, is what has led to this current crisis. Beyond this the checks and balances previously given to us in the Constitution & Canons seem profoundly weakened. Phrases long understood as clear apparently can be spoken of as ambiguous. If what appears to be the plain meaning of a canon can be dismissed with apparent ease and with no recourse; if the request from such a monumental gathering as Lambeth 2008 urging greater dialogue and forthright conversation within the body of Christ seems to count for so little here in the first action of the House—even after so many TEC bishops report being profoundly moved by the grace exhibited toward us from those provinces grieved and hindered by our prior actions; and when there seems to be so little recognition that it has been the very actions of our General Convention and HOB in recent years that has so alienated dioceses like San Joaquin, Pittsburgh and others that their laity and clergy vote in such large majorities to remove accession clauses—judicious governance and Christian unity will drain like water from an opened hand. One might have wished for a more generous spirit and greater patience toward our own aggrieved members. Indeed one has to wonder where such tone deafness and purblindness come from.
I hesitate to write such words because I have been treated with respect within the House of Bishop since my first meeting in March 2008, then again at Lambeth, and most recently at this last meeting. But since to hold my words on such a crucial matter will serve no one well, including my own diocese of South Carolina, I try to present these concerns respectfully and for the purpose of more forthright conversations within the House of Bishops and the Church at large.
The Rt. Reverend Mark J. Lawrence
Bishop of South Carolina
No comments:
Post a Comment