Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, moderator of the Anglican Communion Network repeated this axiom at an ACN event in Pittsburgh about two years ago. We see this both nationally and locally. The fiasco at the House of Bishops with circumventing the clear dictates of the church canons to act against two bishops is a case in point. The work of the presiding bishop concerning the Diocese of San Joachin that is the subject of the post below is another case in point. Stress makes our ability to think clearly harder and the more the stress the more difficult it is to think clearly. So, in times of stress, like the persisting crisis in pecusa, the tendency is to react rather than act out of a rational sense, in these cases, of what is right and wrong.
Locally we have seen this in the Diocese of Central NY in the handling of the case against Fr. David Bollinger. From the inhibition, the calling of an emergency meeting of clergy based on the recommendations of a public relations firm, the withholding of evidence by the diocese, we see evidence of stressful regression. Honesty, openness and fairness are tossed out the window. What remains are manageriall machinations based on political calculations.
I am told that at the diocesan convention a resolution was brought forward to release the Shaffer Report. I was also told that the convention voted not to demand its release on the premise of "let's get beyond the past." This report is the evidence that the diocese refused to release to Fr. Bollinger and his defense team. The diocese determined that they would rather lose their ecclesiastical court case rather than release this document. The convention decided that they'd rather not know what's in that report.
That might make sense if the convention had some idea of what was in the Shaffer Report, but to blindly refuse to even see what's in the report smacks of denial more than prudent moving forward. What was the diocese afraid of? Was the convention afraid to find out about illegal actions on the part of the diocesan leadership? Poor decision making? You'd think that a good organization would want to know the truth about their leadership. The Diocese of Central NY would rather not know. Under stress we regress.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
San Joaquin Special Convention May Violate Canon Law
From The Living Church:
Posted on: March 24, 2008
Posted on: March 24, 2008
The Rev. James Snell, rector of St. Columba Church, Frenso, Calif., and president of the standing committee in the Diocese of San Joaquin, said he is concerned that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and the Rt. Rev. Jerry Lamb, retired Bishop of Northern California, may be violating canon law and may be liable for presentment if they make good on plans to convene a special convention scheduled to be held at St. John-the-Baptist Church in Lodi on March 29.
“It’s one thing for her not to ‘recognize’ us,” Fr. Snell said. “Acting contrary to the canons of this diocese and of The Episcopal Church is another matter. The Presiding Bishop is not the ecclesiastical authority of this diocese and the canons of this diocese and the national church do not grant her the authority to call a diocesan convention or nominate someone for election as bishop.”
At the conclusion of the House of Bishops spring retreat on March 12, Bishop Jefferts Schori announced that she had nominated Bishop Lamb to stand for election as provisional Bishop of San Joaquin. She also said she would personally convene the March 29 special convention at which Bishop Lamb’s nomination was to be ratified. The agenda for the special convention also calls for undoing the constitutional changes approved during the annual convention last December. The constitutional amendments were used at the convention in December as legal justification to leave The Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone.
The new constitution and canons to be proposed for adoption during the special convention on March 29 will be based largely on the constitution and canons of the Diocese of San Joaquin as they existed prior to December 2007. Under Article 5, Section 4 of the San Joaquin constitution, “special meetings of convention may be called by the ecclesiastical authority at any time provided at least thirty (30) days notice be given.” A proposed resolution seeks to insulate Bishop Jefferts Schori and other participants from legal action by calling “for the waiver and/or ratification of any potential defects in notice or other irregularities of calling the special convention.”
Fr. Snell said the controversy surrounding the number of bishops voting to depose Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin raised unanswered questions about the legality of the deposition. If Bishop Schofield was not validly deposed, then he remains the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese. If he has been deposed then under both national church and diocesan law, the standing committee becomes the ecclesiastical authority, not the Presiding Bishop.
“We are concerned that their presence within this diocese for the purpose they have announced will be confusing and misleading to faithful members,” Fr. Snell said. “Any action taken during that meeting will have no force or effect in the Diocese of San Joaquin.”
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Two Bishops Speak Out About Recent Actions
"I am deeply disappointed, but not at all surprised, at the gratuitous mis-statement of what the canons clearly say, and the vicious mis-use of raw power. However, I have come to expect nothing other than immoral and overreaching actions from the Presiding Bishop and her lawyer. One would think that the loss of over a dozen bishops within the past year, and close to a thousand members a week, would send a clear signal that something is very, very wrong with our Church."---The Rt. Rev. William Wantland (Eau Claire ret.)
"I am deeply troubled by the actions by our Presiding Bishop, which display unprecedented authority; authority which is not rightfully hers. With no regard for due process, let alone the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, I submit to you...that Bishop Schori is treading on extremely dangerous ground." –- John W. Howe Bishop of Central Florida
"I am deeply troubled by the actions by our Presiding Bishop, which display unprecedented authority; authority which is not rightfully hers. With no regard for due process, let alone the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, I submit to you...that Bishop Schori is treading on extremely dangerous ground." –- John W. Howe Bishop of Central Florida
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
DCNY Veil of Secrecy
To lend credence to the "veil of secrecy" tagline that I use for this blog, I was told today by a local reporter who inquired about the three buildings of the former St. Andrew's Episcopal Church that the diocese has put up for sale the following: when he asked for information about the buildings he was told that by an agent of the realtor (Realty USA) that she could only speak with him after receiving permission from the diocese.
This same reporter has called the diocesan offices to speak with either the bishop or Canon Lewis, but these diocesan officials will not speak with him. Our Senior Warden met the same stonewall when our parish was supposedly in negotiations with the diocese. Unreturned phone calls were the norm. Hence, the veil of secrecy is real, contrary to what DCNY officials say to the contrary.
This same reporter has called the diocesan offices to speak with either the bishop or Canon Lewis, but these diocesan officials will not speak with him. Our Senior Warden met the same stonewall when our parish was supposedly in negotiations with the diocese. Unreturned phone calls were the norm. Hence, the veil of secrecy is real, contrary to what DCNY officials say to the contrary.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
'Shadow' of litigation overcasts both houses
Editor's Note: The following is from Bishop David Bena, Suffragan Bishop of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA). Prior to his ministry with CANA, Bishop Bena was the Suffragan Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Albany. Bishop Bena has made two pastoral visitations to St. Andrew's Anglican Church, Vestal, NY, the CANA parish in Central NY.
From The Free Lance-Star of Fredericksburg, VA:
Date published: 3/18/2008
FAIRFAX--
The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia recently completed its Annual Council amid raging controversy over the biblical teachings of the church and vicious litigation. A lot of people are getting hurt in this strife. So I read with interest the press releases and statements in the newspapers and blogs regarding what took place at the DOV Council.
Given what was said and what has been written about a group of churches known as the Anglican District of Virginia, I must spend a moment correcting the record. I must defend the members of ADV, as any shepherd would defend his flock against attack.
Overwhelming majorities of the ADV congregations exercised their American rights of freedom of religion, freedom of affiliation, and freedom of choice when they voted 14 months ago to separate from The Episcopal Church. Their referendum was based on the unfortunate reality that The Episcopal Church is on a prodigal course away from its Christian and Anglican roots.
Contrary to what the DOV has been saying publicly, many of the individuals who chose not to vote with the majority are still active members of ADV churches. Every week, in fact, these members worship and volunteer in ADV buildings. ADV churches continue to work together with Episcopal parishes, whether it's by holding funeral and wedding services, or by cooperating in ministry projects like the Lamb Center, a daytime homeless shelter in Fairfax County.
The DOV has embroiled the ADV churches in litigation for over a year. Pressured by national leaders of The Episcopal Church based in New York City, the diocese abruptly broke off what had been amicable settlement negotiations and filed lawsuits against the ADV churches, their clergy, their lay vestries, and unpaid volunteers. The DOV initiated these lawsuits to seize ADV church property.
The majority of the worldwide Anglican Communion has embraced ADV for the stand it has taken. ADV is built around the vision of radical inclusion, of Jesus Christ's profound transformation of all people, and of inspired service to the least, the last, the lost, and the left-out.
In this way, ADV is fulfilling the biblical mission to spread the good news about Jesus the Messiah and to help people locally and around the world. Anyone and everyone who wants to join us in this mission is more than welcome to do so. It is ADV's commitment to the Bible and Jesus' teachings that defines the people of the ADV churches.
The DOV's own Bishop Peter Lee has rightly said that a "shadow" of litigation has been cast upon both our houses. This shadow has been unnecessary. The ADV churches all along have sought an amicable settlement without litigation.
We in ADV still stand dumbfounded that DOV leaders broke off our amicable negotiations to settle the property dispute. My hope is that clearer heads will prevail and faithful negotiations will begin again to end ridiculously expensive litigation.
As a shepherd of flocks, I ask that we seriously consider this course as the ending to this unfortunate drama. My hope, as we move further into the Lenten season, is perhaps deeper introspective --and retrospective--moments of reflection will draw DOV and ADV back to the negotiating table. We can then get about our proper business of serving others.
Bishop David Bena is a contact bishop in the Anglican District of Virginia and a suffragan bishop in the Convocation of Anglicans in North America.
From The Free Lance-Star of Fredericksburg, VA:
Date published: 3/18/2008
FAIRFAX--
The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia recently completed its Annual Council amid raging controversy over the biblical teachings of the church and vicious litigation. A lot of people are getting hurt in this strife. So I read with interest the press releases and statements in the newspapers and blogs regarding what took place at the DOV Council.
Given what was said and what has been written about a group of churches known as the Anglican District of Virginia, I must spend a moment correcting the record. I must defend the members of ADV, as any shepherd would defend his flock against attack.
Overwhelming majorities of the ADV congregations exercised their American rights of freedom of religion, freedom of affiliation, and freedom of choice when they voted 14 months ago to separate from The Episcopal Church. Their referendum was based on the unfortunate reality that The Episcopal Church is on a prodigal course away from its Christian and Anglican roots.
Contrary to what the DOV has been saying publicly, many of the individuals who chose not to vote with the majority are still active members of ADV churches. Every week, in fact, these members worship and volunteer in ADV buildings. ADV churches continue to work together with Episcopal parishes, whether it's by holding funeral and wedding services, or by cooperating in ministry projects like the Lamb Center, a daytime homeless shelter in Fairfax County.
The DOV has embroiled the ADV churches in litigation for over a year. Pressured by national leaders of The Episcopal Church based in New York City, the diocese abruptly broke off what had been amicable settlement negotiations and filed lawsuits against the ADV churches, their clergy, their lay vestries, and unpaid volunteers. The DOV initiated these lawsuits to seize ADV church property.
The majority of the worldwide Anglican Communion has embraced ADV for the stand it has taken. ADV is built around the vision of radical inclusion, of Jesus Christ's profound transformation of all people, and of inspired service to the least, the last, the lost, and the left-out.
In this way, ADV is fulfilling the biblical mission to spread the good news about Jesus the Messiah and to help people locally and around the world. Anyone and everyone who wants to join us in this mission is more than welcome to do so. It is ADV's commitment to the Bible and Jesus' teachings that defines the people of the ADV churches.
The DOV's own Bishop Peter Lee has rightly said that a "shadow" of litigation has been cast upon both our houses. This shadow has been unnecessary. The ADV churches all along have sought an amicable settlement without litigation.
We in ADV still stand dumbfounded that DOV leaders broke off our amicable negotiations to settle the property dispute. My hope is that clearer heads will prevail and faithful negotiations will begin again to end ridiculously expensive litigation.
As a shepherd of flocks, I ask that we seriously consider this course as the ending to this unfortunate drama. My hope, as we move further into the Lenten season, is perhaps deeper introspective --and retrospective--moments of reflection will draw DOV and ADV back to the negotiating table. We can then get about our proper business of serving others.
Bishop David Bena is a contact bishop in the Anglican District of Virginia and a suffragan bishop in the Convocation of Anglicans in North America.
HOB Secretary: 'No One Challenged' PB's Ruling
From The Living Church:
Posted on: March 17, 2008
The Rt. Rev. Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of Southern Ohio and secretary of the House of Bishops, said it is his understanding, “based on private conversations held prior to the meeting,” that the number of votes necessary to depose bishops John-David Schofield and William J. Cox was determined by David Booth Beers, chancellor for the Presiding Bishop, and the Rt. Rev. John Clark Buchanan, House of Bishops’ parliamentarian before the start of the house’s March 12 business session.
Bishop Price told The Living Church he was not consulted on the number of votes needed for a deposition and he does not recall the resolutions approving the depositions of bishops Schofield and Cox being “singled out” as requiring a higher threshold of consent prior to enactment.
Title 4, canon 9, section 2 states that the vote requires “a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote,” a higher threshold than that necessary to conduct business. There were 116 bishops registered at Camp Allen as of 6 a.m. on March 12. The total number of bishops eligible to vote is 294, according to online sources.
“None of the votes taken were unanimous, each having both negative votes and abstentions,” Bishop Price said. “However, the affirmative votes were so overwhelming that the Presiding Bishop declared them as having passed and no one challenged her ruling.”
In a statement published by Episcopal News Service, Mr. Beers contended that the vote conformed to the canons. His statement came following publication of an article on The Living Church News Service website on March 14 that raised the issue of whether the house had the canonically necessary number to depose two of its members.
“In consultation with the House of Bishops’ parliamentarian prior to the vote, we both agreed that the canon meant a majority of all those present and entitled to vote, because it is clear from the canon that the vote had to be taken at a meeting, unlike the situation where you poll the whole House of Bishops by mail. Therefore, it is our position that the vote was in order,” he said.
Bishop Price said the House of Bishops had “well in excess” of the minimum 68 bishops needed for a quorum to conduct business. Article I, section 2 of the constitution of The Episcopal Church defines a quorum as 50 percent plus one of all bishops “exclusive of bishops who have resigned their jurisdiction or positions.” Assuming the canon specifies a majority of all bishops eligible to vote, the amount necessary for a canonically valid deposition would be 148.
(The Rev.) George Conger and Steve Waring
Posted on: March 17, 2008
The Rt. Rev. Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of Southern Ohio and secretary of the House of Bishops, said it is his understanding, “based on private conversations held prior to the meeting,” that the number of votes necessary to depose bishops John-David Schofield and William J. Cox was determined by David Booth Beers, chancellor for the Presiding Bishop, and the Rt. Rev. John Clark Buchanan, House of Bishops’ parliamentarian before the start of the house’s March 12 business session.
Bishop Price told The Living Church he was not consulted on the number of votes needed for a deposition and he does not recall the resolutions approving the depositions of bishops Schofield and Cox being “singled out” as requiring a higher threshold of consent prior to enactment.
Title 4, canon 9, section 2 states that the vote requires “a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote,” a higher threshold than that necessary to conduct business. There were 116 bishops registered at Camp Allen as of 6 a.m. on March 12. The total number of bishops eligible to vote is 294, according to online sources.
“None of the votes taken were unanimous, each having both negative votes and abstentions,” Bishop Price said. “However, the affirmative votes were so overwhelming that the Presiding Bishop declared them as having passed and no one challenged her ruling.”
In a statement published by Episcopal News Service, Mr. Beers contended that the vote conformed to the canons. His statement came following publication of an article on The Living Church News Service website on March 14 that raised the issue of whether the house had the canonically necessary number to depose two of its members.
“In consultation with the House of Bishops’ parliamentarian prior to the vote, we both agreed that the canon meant a majority of all those present and entitled to vote, because it is clear from the canon that the vote had to be taken at a meeting, unlike the situation where you poll the whole House of Bishops by mail. Therefore, it is our position that the vote was in order,” he said.
Bishop Price said the House of Bishops had “well in excess” of the minimum 68 bishops needed for a quorum to conduct business. Article I, section 2 of the constitution of The Episcopal Church defines a quorum as 50 percent plus one of all bishops “exclusive of bishops who have resigned their jurisdiction or positions.” Assuming the canon specifies a majority of all bishops eligible to vote, the amount necessary for a canonically valid deposition would be 148.
(The Rev.) George Conger and Steve Waring
Pittsburgh - Response to Presiding Bishop
http://www.pgh.anglican.org/news/local/filesforposting/schoriresponse.pdf=
14th March, A.D. 2008
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop
815 Second Avenue
New York NY 10017
Dear Katharine,
In response to the request set forth in your letter of January 15th which
enclosed the certification of the Title IV Review Committee), I state that I
consider myself "fully subject to the doctrine, discipline and worship of
this Church."
In particular:
1. I have striven to follow the Lord Jesus with all my heart and mind
and soul and strength, all the while relying on God=92s grace to accomplish
what my sinfulness and brokenness otherwise prevent.
2. I have kept my ordination vows -all of them- to the best of my ability,
including the vow I made on 28 October 1972 to "banish and drive away all
strange and erroneous doctrines contrary to God's Word."
3. I have preached and taught nothing but what faithful Anglicans and
mainstream Christians have always preached and taught, with the
exception only that I have supported and encouraged the ministry of women in Holy
Orders.
4. I have been present to all but two meetings of the House of Bishops(out
of twenty-four) during the last 12 years. In those meetings I have clearly
and openly opposed the theological and moral drift of the Episcopal Church,
often in the face of great hostility and sadly, at times, derision.
5. I have made no submission to any other authority or jurisdiction.
6. I have gathered Anglican fragments together from one hundred and
thirty-five years of Episcopal Church division, vastly increasing
understanding and cooperation, though preserving the jurisdictional
independence of all.
7. I have, with the clergy, people and para-church organizations of my
diocese, built missionary relationships all over the world, fielding both
missionaries and resources on five continents.
8. I have faithfully served and shepherded the clergy and people of the
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh through what has, by God's grace, been
one of its greatest periods of extension and blessing. My intention is to
continue in this call for what remains of my active ministry.
Faithfully in Christ,
The Rt. Rev. Robert Wm. Duncan
Bishop
Monday, March 17, 2008
On the Matter of Deposing Bishops at a Time of Communion Self-Assessment
Written by The Anglican Communion Institute
Monday, 17 March 2008
The current public dispute over the canonical legality of the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops' recent vote to depose Bishops Schofield and Cox amounts at best to a severe embarrassment to the Presiding Bishop, her advisors, and the House itself; at worst, it exposes a travesty of Christian justice and prudence. How was it possible that the process and definition of terms demanded by the canons were not openly examined, discussed, and agreed upon prior to this vote, so as to avoid the prima facie plausible accusations now being made that appropriate consents were not in fact given? Indeed, given the intrinsic seriousness of the matter - the deposition of a bishop - and the overwrought character of the moment within both TEC and the Anglican Communion and within which the deposition process has unfolded, and the general ecclesiological stakes at play within the Communion at large that are caught up in this moment, it is simply unconscionable that such preparation was not carried through. Trust in the good will and/or good sense of our leadership is no longer just frayed; it has been torn asunder. And the result of this dispute and the failures of good order leading up to it will inevitably be the further erosion of TEC's standing in the public's eye and in the Communion's councils. Although some will take this as vindication of their hostility towards TEC, it can only bring shame to the Christian gospel as a whole, given that the name of Christ is being abused in the process.
Complaints there will be aplenty. What we wish to emphasize at this point, however, is that the present fiasco is the inevitable outcome to a destructive mistake on the part of our leadership. And that mistake is the insistence on dealing with an ecclesial challenge, one bound up with the character of the Christian faith, on the basis of limited disciplinary canons that are incapable of and not designed to address such a major issue. The canons of TEC, and usually of any church, are meant to order the common life of those who are agreed as to the fundamental truths that the church in question exists to serve; such canons cannot act to discern those truths subsequent to their deployment. But the major dispute in question, the one within which charges and depositions are being thrown about, has to do with that which define the canons themselves, not the other way around.
This point is of fundamental importance and bears repeating. The matter at issue is that our canons are being used to conclude that someone has abandoned communion. They are not being used, as they should, to take appropriate actions after a clear determination has been reached that communion has in fact already been abandoned. A use of the canons in this way amounts to a political rather than a legal act and as such serves to undermine the order not only of TEC but of the Anglican Communion. Indeed, by such an act TEC hews perilously close to a describing itself as an idiosyncratic church within a larger Communion Body, making judgments about Communion membership from its own limited perspective and so calling into question its own place within that larger fellowship.
In this case, a central clue as to what is going on was given by Bp. Schofield's March 12 Statement in response to the vote to depose him on the basis of his having "abandoned the Communion of the Church" (Canon IV.9.2): "I have not abandoned the Faith," Schofield stated; "I resigned from the American House of Bishops and have been received into the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone. Both Houses are members of the Anglican Communion. They are not - or should not be - two separate Churches." Bp. Schofield's point is straightforward: if the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone is not a "separate church" from TEC, how can he have "abandoned" the "Communion" of TEC's own ecclesial existence? Does in fact TEC "recognize" the Southern Cone as an Anglican Church with which she is in communion? In what sense, then, is "abandonment" taken?
The basic ecclesial issue, then, is one of recognizability. Yet this is just the issue that is at stake in the Anglican Communion's current struggles. Archbishop Rowan Williams himself spoke to it straightforwardly last December in his Advent Letter to the Primates. The Anglican Communion's "unity", he wrote, "depends not on a canon law that can be enforced but on the ability of each part of the family to recognise that other local churches have received the same faith from the apostles and are faithfully holding to it in loyalty to the One Lord incarnate who speaks in Scripture and bestows his grace in the sacraments. To put it in slightly different terms, local churches acknowledge the same 'constitutive elements' in one another. This means in turn that each local church receives from others and recognises in others the same good news and the same structure of ministry, and seeks to engage in mutual service for the sake of our common mission." The issue of "recognisability", of course, is more than a matter of Anglican Communion concern; it has become a central feature of ecumenical discernment. And therefore, the fact that the Presiding Bishop, her advisors, and the House of Bishops as a whole can determine that Bishops Schofield and Cox are worthy of deposition under Canon IV.9.2 would seem to indicate that they believe that both bishops and the Province of the Southern Cone do not share with TEC in the "constitutive elements" of "church" in the fundamental ways that provide "communion".
Some may dispute whether the disciplinary canons for "abandonment of communion" are clearly designed to deal with the larger matter of impaired or broken "communion", that is, some level of non-recognizability. And the question is admittedly confused given that it is bound up with issue of the "worship and discipline" of the Episcopal Church, which itself, in other places like our Prayer Book, is linked to "constitution and canons". Perhaps all that is envisaged is the narrow world of American Episcopalian denominational polity. But it is precisely the fact that there is a dispute at all that would indicate that caution be taken in starkly applying the canon of "abandonment of communion" in the midst of context of fundamental argument. In our minds, at any rate, it seems proper that the language of "communion" ought to be directive of the interpretation of the canon in this case, given its larger meaning, both in the tradition and in the Constitution's Preamble: we are talking about recognizability among churches, not political legalities.
The issue of communion and the recognizability of churches has already surfaced as a canonical issue in 2000, with regards to the AMiA and those clergy who left TEC to go under the Provinces of Rwanda and (at the time) South-East Asia. Had these clergy "abandoned the Communion of the Church"? There was disagreement at the time, with the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor even then vigorously and sometimes angrily demanding that Title IV.9 be applied, while others (including one of the present writers) argued that, although there was a serious dispute taking place, the churches in question were indeed "one", and that the appropriate process was to issue the departing clergy Letters Dimissory. The disagreement of 8 years ago has not been resolved, we might add, on either side. For it appears that not only do the leaders of TEC not recognize some parts of the Anglican Communion as "in communion", but neither do some of these churches recognize TEC as truly a "church in communion", and for a variety of reasons, theological and disciplinary. After all, when Letters Dimissory were sent, they were never acknowledged nor formally received. Indeed, if TEC and the Province of the Southern Cone are not in fact "two separate churches", what exactly is going on from either side in this dispute? This is the territory of ecclesiological quicksand.
But given this fact, why would one wish to carry forward disciplinary proceedings on the basis of somehow having resolved the question of mutual ecclesial recognizability in one's own mind before the fact? The Presiding Bishop, her advisors, and the House of Bishops (or least a significant part of it) are plowing ahead with putative judgments about what is an Anglican Church, and who is in communion with whom and on what basis - even in the face of clear and admitted and contradictory views about this among Anglicans including American Anglicans. Do they really believe that this can do anything but add fuel to the fire? The current embarrassment or travesty, whichever it is, is proof that the attempt to cut the Gordian knot of Anglican ecclesiological ferment, disarray, and reordering - something many of us believe and pray will be a blessing and not a curse -- will lead to nothing more than further confusion and the stoking of the flames of mutual hostility.
There are already accusations that have been publicly expressed that the ongoing process leading to a vote over Bp. Duncan's deposition is fatally flawed by a failure to abide by canonical order, not to mention substantive truth. The situation in the Diocese of San Joaquin, in which the Presiding Bishop has intervened through the imposition of new oversight, in flagrant disregard of a legitimately functioning Standing Committee for that diocese, rises to the level of potential and serious canonical violation in its own right. Even if it turns out that, in both these cases as well as in the case of the latest vote for deposition, a persuasive case is eventually made that due process was followed, the failure to make that case prior to highly questionable actions displays an irresponsible lack of concern for the pastoral needs of the church and the consciences of the flock of Christ.
We have urged previously and we so urge again: that "TEC and other Anglican bishops pray for and take action so that this process of depositional discipline pauses indefinitely. They should do this for the sake of genuinely seeking discernment and resolution as to the ordering of our common life as Anglicans. There is nothing that legally demands that the process be carried through at this point and in the manner now laid out. There is every Christian reason to work for some other outcome."
As a consequence of this effort to settle things canonically when the timing is not proper or the tool the right one, we are now right where we were before: awaiting a judgment only the larger Communion can give. What now is Bishop Schofield's status? An effort to settle things has actually reopened them: a vote to accept a resignation appears deeply flawed, and so a cloud is now over the matter of ecclesiastical authority in the Diocese of San Joaquin. Either he remains that authority, or the standing committee -- and the issue is not resolved. That the Chancellor uses language like "it is our position" indicates clearly that a questionable use of a canon, and a questionable process to deploy it, has resulted only in questionable interpretation, and neither legal nor moral resolution.
Ephraim Radner, Christopher Seitz, Philip Turner
The Anglican Communion Institute
Monday, 17 March 2008
The current public dispute over the canonical legality of the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops' recent vote to depose Bishops Schofield and Cox amounts at best to a severe embarrassment to the Presiding Bishop, her advisors, and the House itself; at worst, it exposes a travesty of Christian justice and prudence. How was it possible that the process and definition of terms demanded by the canons were not openly examined, discussed, and agreed upon prior to this vote, so as to avoid the prima facie plausible accusations now being made that appropriate consents were not in fact given? Indeed, given the intrinsic seriousness of the matter - the deposition of a bishop - and the overwrought character of the moment within both TEC and the Anglican Communion and within which the deposition process has unfolded, and the general ecclesiological stakes at play within the Communion at large that are caught up in this moment, it is simply unconscionable that such preparation was not carried through. Trust in the good will and/or good sense of our leadership is no longer just frayed; it has been torn asunder. And the result of this dispute and the failures of good order leading up to it will inevitably be the further erosion of TEC's standing in the public's eye and in the Communion's councils. Although some will take this as vindication of their hostility towards TEC, it can only bring shame to the Christian gospel as a whole, given that the name of Christ is being abused in the process.
Complaints there will be aplenty. What we wish to emphasize at this point, however, is that the present fiasco is the inevitable outcome to a destructive mistake on the part of our leadership. And that mistake is the insistence on dealing with an ecclesial challenge, one bound up with the character of the Christian faith, on the basis of limited disciplinary canons that are incapable of and not designed to address such a major issue. The canons of TEC, and usually of any church, are meant to order the common life of those who are agreed as to the fundamental truths that the church in question exists to serve; such canons cannot act to discern those truths subsequent to their deployment. But the major dispute in question, the one within which charges and depositions are being thrown about, has to do with that which define the canons themselves, not the other way around.
This point is of fundamental importance and bears repeating. The matter at issue is that our canons are being used to conclude that someone has abandoned communion. They are not being used, as they should, to take appropriate actions after a clear determination has been reached that communion has in fact already been abandoned. A use of the canons in this way amounts to a political rather than a legal act and as such serves to undermine the order not only of TEC but of the Anglican Communion. Indeed, by such an act TEC hews perilously close to a describing itself as an idiosyncratic church within a larger Communion Body, making judgments about Communion membership from its own limited perspective and so calling into question its own place within that larger fellowship.
In this case, a central clue as to what is going on was given by Bp. Schofield's March 12 Statement in response to the vote to depose him on the basis of his having "abandoned the Communion of the Church" (Canon IV.9.2): "I have not abandoned the Faith," Schofield stated; "I resigned from the American House of Bishops and have been received into the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone. Both Houses are members of the Anglican Communion. They are not - or should not be - two separate Churches." Bp. Schofield's point is straightforward: if the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone is not a "separate church" from TEC, how can he have "abandoned" the "Communion" of TEC's own ecclesial existence? Does in fact TEC "recognize" the Southern Cone as an Anglican Church with which she is in communion? In what sense, then, is "abandonment" taken?
The basic ecclesial issue, then, is one of recognizability. Yet this is just the issue that is at stake in the Anglican Communion's current struggles. Archbishop Rowan Williams himself spoke to it straightforwardly last December in his Advent Letter to the Primates. The Anglican Communion's "unity", he wrote, "depends not on a canon law that can be enforced but on the ability of each part of the family to recognise that other local churches have received the same faith from the apostles and are faithfully holding to it in loyalty to the One Lord incarnate who speaks in Scripture and bestows his grace in the sacraments. To put it in slightly different terms, local churches acknowledge the same 'constitutive elements' in one another. This means in turn that each local church receives from others and recognises in others the same good news and the same structure of ministry, and seeks to engage in mutual service for the sake of our common mission." The issue of "recognisability", of course, is more than a matter of Anglican Communion concern; it has become a central feature of ecumenical discernment. And therefore, the fact that the Presiding Bishop, her advisors, and the House of Bishops as a whole can determine that Bishops Schofield and Cox are worthy of deposition under Canon IV.9.2 would seem to indicate that they believe that both bishops and the Province of the Southern Cone do not share with TEC in the "constitutive elements" of "church" in the fundamental ways that provide "communion".
Some may dispute whether the disciplinary canons for "abandonment of communion" are clearly designed to deal with the larger matter of impaired or broken "communion", that is, some level of non-recognizability. And the question is admittedly confused given that it is bound up with issue of the "worship and discipline" of the Episcopal Church, which itself, in other places like our Prayer Book, is linked to "constitution and canons". Perhaps all that is envisaged is the narrow world of American Episcopalian denominational polity. But it is precisely the fact that there is a dispute at all that would indicate that caution be taken in starkly applying the canon of "abandonment of communion" in the midst of context of fundamental argument. In our minds, at any rate, it seems proper that the language of "communion" ought to be directive of the interpretation of the canon in this case, given its larger meaning, both in the tradition and in the Constitution's Preamble: we are talking about recognizability among churches, not political legalities.
The issue of communion and the recognizability of churches has already surfaced as a canonical issue in 2000, with regards to the AMiA and those clergy who left TEC to go under the Provinces of Rwanda and (at the time) South-East Asia. Had these clergy "abandoned the Communion of the Church"? There was disagreement at the time, with the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor even then vigorously and sometimes angrily demanding that Title IV.9 be applied, while others (including one of the present writers) argued that, although there was a serious dispute taking place, the churches in question were indeed "one", and that the appropriate process was to issue the departing clergy Letters Dimissory. The disagreement of 8 years ago has not been resolved, we might add, on either side. For it appears that not only do the leaders of TEC not recognize some parts of the Anglican Communion as "in communion", but neither do some of these churches recognize TEC as truly a "church in communion", and for a variety of reasons, theological and disciplinary. After all, when Letters Dimissory were sent, they were never acknowledged nor formally received. Indeed, if TEC and the Province of the Southern Cone are not in fact "two separate churches", what exactly is going on from either side in this dispute? This is the territory of ecclesiological quicksand.
But given this fact, why would one wish to carry forward disciplinary proceedings on the basis of somehow having resolved the question of mutual ecclesial recognizability in one's own mind before the fact? The Presiding Bishop, her advisors, and the House of Bishops (or least a significant part of it) are plowing ahead with putative judgments about what is an Anglican Church, and who is in communion with whom and on what basis - even in the face of clear and admitted and contradictory views about this among Anglicans including American Anglicans. Do they really believe that this can do anything but add fuel to the fire? The current embarrassment or travesty, whichever it is, is proof that the attempt to cut the Gordian knot of Anglican ecclesiological ferment, disarray, and reordering - something many of us believe and pray will be a blessing and not a curse -- will lead to nothing more than further confusion and the stoking of the flames of mutual hostility.
There are already accusations that have been publicly expressed that the ongoing process leading to a vote over Bp. Duncan's deposition is fatally flawed by a failure to abide by canonical order, not to mention substantive truth. The situation in the Diocese of San Joaquin, in which the Presiding Bishop has intervened through the imposition of new oversight, in flagrant disregard of a legitimately functioning Standing Committee for that diocese, rises to the level of potential and serious canonical violation in its own right. Even if it turns out that, in both these cases as well as in the case of the latest vote for deposition, a persuasive case is eventually made that due process was followed, the failure to make that case prior to highly questionable actions displays an irresponsible lack of concern for the pastoral needs of the church and the consciences of the flock of Christ.
We have urged previously and we so urge again: that "TEC and other Anglican bishops pray for and take action so that this process of depositional discipline pauses indefinitely. They should do this for the sake of genuinely seeking discernment and resolution as to the ordering of our common life as Anglicans. There is nothing that legally demands that the process be carried through at this point and in the manner now laid out. There is every Christian reason to work for some other outcome."
As a consequence of this effort to settle things canonically when the timing is not proper or the tool the right one, we are now right where we were before: awaiting a judgment only the larger Communion can give. What now is Bishop Schofield's status? An effort to settle things has actually reopened them: a vote to accept a resignation appears deeply flawed, and so a cloud is now over the matter of ecclesiastical authority in the Diocese of San Joaquin. Either he remains that authority, or the standing committee -- and the issue is not resolved. That the Chancellor uses language like "it is our position" indicates clearly that a questionable use of a canon, and a questionable process to deploy it, has resulted only in questionable interpretation, and neither legal nor moral resolution.
Ephraim Radner, Christopher Seitz, Philip Turner
The Anglican Communion Institute
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Lawless
From the blog Hills of the North:
And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
--Sir Thomas More to Roper in the play (and film) A Man For All Seasons
Rule XXXI of the House of Bishops’ rules make the latest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order the governing rules for that body. It would be helpful if the members of the House, or at least the Presiding Bishop, the chancellor, and the parliamentarian had a rudimentary understanding of Robert’s, not to mention the church’s canons as well.
Apparently they don’t. They took a vote to depose Bishops Schofield and Cox, and although they had a quorum sufficient to conduct general business, they did not have sufficient votes to depose. Because they do not understand what a quorum is, however, the chancellor has now declared it is his and the parliamentarian’s “position” that the vote was sufficient for deposition simply because there was a quorum. In fact, the votes in both cases failed, meaning not only were the two bishops not deposed, their inhibitions are now lifted and they are restored fully to their position before any action was taken against them. The House of Bishops is in essence on record as declaring that these two bishops did not abandon the communion of the church.
A quorum is, very simply, the number of members of an organization required to be present in order to conduct business. That is not the same as the number of votes required for a particular matter. A quorum is usually (and under Robert’s is, by default) half of the members of an organization. A vote is usually a majority of those voting at a meeting. But a vote may also in extraordinary cases be based on a percentage of the entire membership. This is usually for matters of great importance (amendment of constitutive documents, for example) or to safeguard the rights of minorities (as in rescinding and expunging from the minutes without previous notice), or to protect the rights of individuals in serious displinary proceedings. So it's entirely possible to have a quorum sufficient for normal business, but not have sufficient numbers for a particular kind of vote.
Canon 3 recognizes the distinction between the usual case and such exceptions: “Except where the Constitution or Canons of the General Convention provide to the contrary, a quorum of any body of the General Convention consisting of several members, the whole having been duly cited to meet, shall be a majority of said members; and a majority of the quorum so convened shall be competent to act.”
In other words, a) unless the canons say otherwise a quorum is a majority of a body’s members and b) unless the canons say otherwise a majority of that quorum shall be competent to act. This makes sense, because if the canons elsewhere require more than a majority, it would be absurd for the lower requirement of a quorum to vitiate those provisions to the contrary. The higher requirement trumps the default.
In this case, the quorum was satisfied, but the competence of a majority of that quorum to act was not—since the canons in fact “say otherwise.”
We know they “say otherwise” because in a stark deviation from the canons’ usual “present and voting” requirements, the vote for a deposition of a bishop requires a super-majority. It reads, “If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent . . . .” This makes perfect sense, because in something as serious as deposing a bishop without trial for abandonment of communion, one would think that more than a mere majority of half of the bishops gathered would be required. Note, too, the emphasis here added by the word “whole,” so to ensure there is no ambiguity: this is not just the number of voting-eligible bishops gathered at a House of Bishops’ meeting, it is the whole number eligible to vote.
The quorum permitted the vote to be taken, but the numbers present were insufficient to pass the motion to depose, as there were not a majority of the "whole number of Bishops entitled to vote" voting to depose. The chancellor apparently acknowledges this, as he defends his position based on quorum, not based on the numbers. And he certainly understands the mistake as well, as he has now slipped into advocate’s language by saying it is their “position”—i.e., their legal posture.
There is no "correcting" this, as there was no procedural error. There was a proper vote taken with a proper result--the motion failed. Of course the Presiding Bishop can pretend that these two bishops are deposed, and her fellow bishops can hold to that fiction if they'd like. They can even hope the Archbishop of Canterbury plays along, too. But it would be highly unlikely for any court to recognize these depositions as valid, if the issue of who is the Bishop of San Joaquin is ever litigated, as 815 seems determined it will be. She also has the option of beginning the process all over again, and bringing the abandonment charge back before the House of Bishops for another vote at a future meeting, where presumably she would bring in enough bishops to get the majority of the "whole number of Bishops entitled to vote" that canon law requires her to have.
Given the lawlessness displayed so far, however, and the abuse of the canons, it's unlikely the Presiding Bishop will deal with this in honest, much less Christian, fashion. This is about the exercise of raw power to obtain a result, with the ends justifying the means. And save for a civil court's calling this what it is, there is little to stop her from Roper-like continuing to cut down every law to obtain what she wants. Remember, even the use of this canon in the first place was an abuse, since both bishops went over to another province of the Anglican Communion with which the American church presumably viewed itself in communion. It was simply a way to avoid giving the bishops the rights they would have in a proper trial.
Update: The always-wonderful BabyBlue adds this important bit of information. She reports that at the Righter heresy trial, the same "eligible to vote" language was read in its normal and more forbidable sense, not in the tortured and de minimis way the chancellor now tries to read it.
Is +Stacy Sauls On His Way Out At DioLex?
From the blog Still On Patrol:
March 14, 2008
A report issued by a Special Commission to the Diocese of Lexington in October 2007 was not, by any reasonable interpretation, a rousing endorsement of the tenure of +Stacy Sauls as Bishop of the Diocese of Lexington (KY). The report, which should be read between the lines as much as in the words and sentences themselves, declares “the Diocese of Lexington is systemically unwell.” While certainly not laying this situation entirely at +Sauls’ feet, by meting out blame to certain dissenting factions who have disagreed with mission decisions of the Diocese, it appears to also raise many questions about +Sauls’ ongoing tenure that may be answered in the coming months. If Bishop Sauls was looking for a ringing endorsement or a hearty vote of confidence when he appointed this Commission, it does not appear that he has received either of those results.
The full report is available for reading by clicking on the link at the end of this post.
+Stacy Sauls, 53, a former attorney and 1985 graduate of General Theological Seminary, became the Sixth Bishop of Lexington on September 30, 2000, succeeding +Don Wimberley. Membership, attendance, and pledge/plate giving all seemed on a general upward trend through 1999, but have been in decline since then. To be fair, the largest declines have occurred since the fateful decision of the General Convention 2003 to approve consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire and the ensuing, growing schism between liberals and orthodox in the Episcopal Church. It must nevertheless also be stated that +Sauls voted in favor of that decision and many members of the Diocese would characterize his attitude toward those who were dismayed by Robinson’s consecration as “Get Over It.” There have also been other incidents within and without DioLex that may have contributed to this downward trend.
One of the earliest controversies in +Sauls’ tenure came with the charges of embezzlement he lodged against his Canon to the Ordinary and Rector of St. Augustine’s Chapel, Christopher Platt. Chris was accused of theft from his discretionary accounts, when many of those who know him and were privy to the “evidence” would state to the contrary that probably all that occurred was bad or non-existent bookkeeping. Platt, when confronted with the charges, denied them but dutifully offered to submit to the Bishop’s discipline. Instead of dealing with the situation quietly, however, Platt was subjected to a show trial that resulted in his being defrocked. Many observers close to the Diocese believe that the real reason for the trial was for intimidation of the remaining Diocesan clergy, i.e., a warning to not cross Bishop Sauls. There have also been rumors that Platt "knew something" on the Bishop, but those have never been substantiated, not even by Platt himself. The accusations and being put through the wringer by +Sauls crushed Platt; he is living quietly in Kentucky on disability to this day. Many would say a great voice in the pulpit and a truly pastoral man has been silenced and sacrificed to the Church. And, I cannot help but observe that the swift hammering of orthodox Bishops by the national church in the last few days finds strategic echoes, if not +Sauls' fingerprints, in the deposition of Chris Platt.
Bishop Sauls was next confronted with a parish that, in his view, defied his ecclesiastical authority. St. John’s Parish in Versailles, KY, was in the process of searching for a new Rector. Documents produced in a later court proceeding between the old and new parish over the proceeds of a trust revealed that +Sauls had "spies" in St. John's who were reporting to him and may have followed his guidance on intra-parish strategies. St. John's eventually found Fr. David Brannen and, in +Sauls’ view, proceeded with a call without properly involving +Sauls in the process.
When asked by +Sauls whether he would vow to not take St. John’s Parish out of the Episcopal Church, Fr. Brannen honestly stated that he could make no such promises. +Sauls therefore refused to approve the call of Fr. Brannen. St. John’s Vestry proceeded with the call anyway. +Sauls immediately “fired” the Vestry and took over control of the accounts and assets of St. John’s, albeit without apparent Canonical authority to do so (perhaps one of the reasons for the proposed new Canon on discipline of the laity?). A significant number of the members of the parish left and formed St. Andrew’s Parish, affiliated with the Anglican Church of Uganda. The new Anglican church is still meeting in schools, but is soon to break ground on a new building.
One of the interesting upshots of this whole process was a meeting conducted by +Sauls with the membership of St. John’s parish shortly before its final defiance of him. +Sauls was asked several questions about his faith and personal theology; these have been widely circulated on the Internet, but this author has heard of this meeting from several who were present including the questioner, and the reports of +Sauls’ statements are generally accurate. He was asked, among other questions:
PARISHIONER: Do you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God?
SAULS: I believe the Bible is a book of poetry with a lot of history in it. I believe the Prayer Book has all that one needs for salvation
PARISHIONER: Do you believe there is a Satan?
SAULS: Not metaphorically speaking, no.
PARISHIONER: Do you believe in heaven and hell?
SAULS: I believe that an all-loving God would never send anyone to hell for eternity. I believe he works it out in the end for everyone.
I have been told by several current members of St. Andrew’s that these answers were significant in their decision to leave TEC and affiliate with the Anglican Church of Uganda.
Not long after the Versailles events, +Sauls discovered that the Vestry of a small parish in Maysville, KY, Nativity, had set up separate trusts and corporations to own the parish property, and had transferred some property, in anticipation that the Parish may in the future decide to leave TEC. No doubt still stung by the departure of a large portion of St. John’s, +Sauls acted swiftly to depose the Vestry members who had taken this action, and to place Nativity under Diocesan control.
Throughout this time, complaints started to circulate about the manner in which Bishop Sauls conducted his interpersonal relationships within the Diocese. Clergy were seen to be intimidated and cowed. Diocesan officials were pitted one against the other. It became known that anyone took great risks to disagree with +Sauls openly in meetings, as he had displayed a prodigious temper in responding to dissension. One person commented to me in recent months that “the next pastoral act by Stacy Sauls will be his first.” While this is perhaps extreme, it is indicative of the view held by many in DioLex of their Bishop, based upon their personal experiences, that he is much more an administrator and indeed still an attorney, and less so a pastor.
Bishop Sauls has had accomplishments during his tenure. The successful and quite beautiful renovation of Mission House (right) as a Diocesan Headquarters has been completed, although there have been complaints that +Sauls has declined too many opportunities to truly use the facility as an outreach or “mission” place. The funding for the renovation was a source of controversy as purportedly money which had been in a restricted endowment for the now-closed Lexington Theological Seminary was withdrawn and spent on the renovation, thus to some degree tarnishing the accomplishment.
+Sauls initiated a Reading Camp program that provides a summer camp for underprivileged children who do not read to grade-level, with fairly intensive instruction and training in basic reading and comprehension skills. In Kentucky, with its myriad problems with education, this is a worthy effort. Unlike some of his brethren in the House of Bishops, +Sauls has held to a regular schedule of Parish visits and thus makes his presence at least nominally known to the TEC flock in DioLex. And he has started two new congregations, St. Martha's and Apostles, to replace other departing Anglican parishes, although property questions in the form of some belief that part of the property should have been sold have plagued both of these parishes.
And, as a personal note, +Sauls was very supportive of my former parish through a difficult process of relieving a Rector of her duties and slogging through interims, supply priests, and a search process, including three to four (or more) personal meetings by +Sauls with the Vestry to discuss ongoing processes and options. Both in my service as parish Chancellor and then Senior Warden, +Sauls was available and supportive in one of the more difficult processes I ever hope to endure.
Many of +Sauls’ accomplishments have taken place outside the scope of DioLex. He was nominated for Presiding Bishop in the election that saw the elevation of Katherine Jefferts-Schori to that post. He chairs the HOB Committee on the property litigation and has made several presentations to various HOB meetings regarding litigation. There is little doubt he is involved in overall litigation strategy with Schori and David Booth-Beers, as well as the more recent efforts to propose new disciplinary Canons, and is a “player” among his brethren in the HOB. He has been invited to give speeches to many groups related to the Episcopal/Anglican world such as the December 2007 Chicago Consultation, where his topic was “Our Constitutional Heritage: Why Polity and Canon Law Matter.” Bishop Sauls is also in the process of obtaining an L.L.M. in Canon Law from the University of Wales, for which he is taking periodic “mini-sabbaticals” to complete the classroom work for this degree.
The events that brought about the appointment of the Special Commission took place primarily within Diocesan offices, the Executive Council, and to some extent the Standing Committee. As should be expected, there are diametrically different views of what transpired. It is clear, however, that the appointment of the Special Commission had a great deal to do with the financial management of the Diocese, the Bishop’s role in same, and disputes between Diocesan officers arising from these issues. The Special Commission was appointed in January 2007 in a very emotional letter sent by +Sauls to the Executive Council. In this letter, +Sauls evidenced being highly upset that the extent and nature of his financial oversight and decision-making had been questioned and, apparently, that accusations of improprieties had either been made outright or strongly implied. He asserted his authority as Bishop, but asked this Commission to study the situation and pronounce its judgment on whether these matters had been properly handled. Many who saw this letter at the time thought the Commission would end up being a rubber-stamp of approval for the Bishop; to their credit, they have not but seem to have generally taken an objective view.
Apparently at least part of the dispute arose when the former Diocesan Administrator and Financial Officer, a cradle Episcopalian and a CPA, questioned +Sauls’ use of restricted Diocesan funds for non-restricted purposes after discretionary funds had been exhausted. There were also issues being raised in the course of an annual Diocesan audit over the financial health, or lack thereof, of DioLex. Some, including the Special Commission report, have characterized these questions as improper interference in the mission of the Diocese by certain Diocesan officials once decisions had been made in Executive Council and/or by the Bishop. Others view this as the officials conscientiously doing their jobs and raising questions where they should have been raised. The truth is still not all that clear, and the Special Commission has recommended that at least some of the issues be treated as water over the dam and dropped.
In addition to the former Administrator named in the report, several other Diocesan officers have resigned in recent months, including the long-time Chancellor and more than one Treasurer. These conflicts and no doubt others are among those that caused the Special Commission to state: “At present, the Diocese of Lexington is not functioning as it should. The lines of authority set out in scripture, tradition and canon have been repeatedly and purposely crossed.”
The Special Commission has made many sound recommendations, including formation of a Diocesan Audit Committee and a change in the firm that will perform audits in the future; that no Diocesan bodies or committees meet without notice to all potentially interested parties, including the Bishop; that the Executive Council post its Agenda at least seven days before meetings, and its minutes be posted electronically within 30 days of each meeting; that Executive Council include in its minutes “action items” and the person(s) charged with those items so that heightened accountability can be fostered; that a professional Diocesan Administrator and Treasurer be hired immediately; and that in general, all who are involved in Diocesan operations, including elected officials and Diocesan staff, work to end an atmosphere of distrust, accusation, innuendo, and finger-pointing which has affected them all, and instead work to instill an atmosphere of civility in Diocesan dealings.
The recommendations to Bishop Sauls, however, are those that raise the question with which I have titled this post. As I stated above, if one reads between the lines with these recommendations, they are anything but a ringing endorsement of +Sauls’ Bishopric. For example, the Commission has recommended that the Vice Chancellor serve also as “Almoner” to be a confidential adviser to the Bishop regarding use of the Bishop’s discretionary account. With regard to the Diocesan budget, the Commission recommends “that the Bishop have little hand in developing the budget, but submit funding requests as do other agencies of the Diocese.” The Commission further recommends that hearings at the Diocesan Convention on the budget “be presented by the Budget Committee rather than the Bishop.” (If this latter recommendation is intended to spare the Bishop taking the heat spawned by any new budget, I feel fairly sure he should not object to this move.)
Near the end of the report, the Special Commission makes several specific recommendations to Bishop Sauls, which I will quote in their entirety:
1. To the degree it is practicable, avoid involvement in Diocesan finance
a. Your input is critical to the budget process if the mission of the Diocese is to move forward, but that should be the extent of your involvement beyond turning in receipts.
b. When possible, avoid even signing checks.
c. Learn to trust the Treasurer and Finance Committee.
d. Be our Leader, not our manager.
i. Articulate a vision and hold us to it. Each year the Convention is invigorated by your words and the words of our invited guests. Follow up on the vision you present. The Stewardship presentation by Greg Rickel would be an excellent place to begin.
ii. Lead with confidence, not caution.
2. Do your best to resist overreaction
a. It is difficult for someone to disagree with you openly and honestly if they fear what your reaction might be.
3. Explain your rationale. Inspire us. Sell us on your program.
a. Many decisions are yours alone to make. The leadership of the Diocese will be more inclined to trust you if they understand your reasoning,
4. Feed the flock of Christ committed to your charge.
a. We are proud to have you represent us to the wider Church,
b. But we need you as servant and pastor, not just as overseer.
c. Understanding the importance of your work in the National Church,
d. We ask you to understand the importance of your presence here with us.
e. As you stated you would in your first address to us, we ask you to "walk among us."
5. Decide whether, despite the hurts you and your family have endured, remaining as our Bishop is worth the work of reconciliation that will be required.
The Special Commission should be commended on its efforts, by its usage of this gentle language, to try to not worsen the situation in a Diocese that they have already described in their report as “systemically unwell” and “dysfunctional.” But, trying to distill these points down to their essence, are they not saying to Bishop Sauls:
Stay out of the financial affairs of the Diocese (with the implication that he has caused some problems by past actions);
You have a bad temper and need to work on it;
You have to trust us if you want to be trusted;
We would prefer that you do your job here in DioLex instead of running around with the national church and its issues so much, i.e., we think your personal priorities as Bishop of DioLex are out of order; and
If you can’t handle this job and what we ask of you, maybe you should be looking elsewhere?
I have heard nothing of how Bishop Sauls reacted to this report, so anything I would say would be rank speculation. With that large grain of salt in mind, I cannot imagine that this report was very well-received in +Sauls’ corner office at Mission House. The Commission did slap quite a number of other hands in the Diocesan hierarchy and did scold everyone within its reach for helping to foster the poisonous atmosphere that has apparently filled Diocesan offices and meetings for quite some time. There is little question, however, that Bishop Sauls did not avoid the Commission’s approbation and criticism. There is likewise little question that, as Bishop with the ultimate power and authority, as the Commission recited in the preamble to its report, any and all Diocesan “dysfunction” is ultimately +Sauls’ responsibility, particularly in light of the fact that he could not himself, in his pastoral capacity, work to resolve these differences but instead had to enlist the aid of a “Special Commission.”
So, again, the question is whether this report is the harbinger of the end of +Sauls’ Bishopric in the Diocese of Lexington? Given his national-level work and his efforts to gain the advanced degree in Canon Law, is a position at 815 with the national church in his future? Could he be lining up as the successor to David Booth Beers? What does it mean that he apparently plans to take at least half of calendar 2008 on sabbatical/vacation and will be out of DioLex? Or, does he have his eye on any one of several Bishoprics in more significant locations than DioLex, financially and otherwise? Or, will he instead decide to gut it out and stay at DioLex and “live into” these recommendations? Only time will tell, and my crystal ball is very cloudy on this question. Nevertheless, stay tuned, dear readers, because things they are a-happenin’ with +Stacy Sauls, one of the “players” in the HOB.
Download specialcommissionreport.pdf
March 14, 2008
A report issued by a Special Commission to the Diocese of Lexington in October 2007 was not, by any reasonable interpretation, a rousing endorsement of the tenure of +Stacy Sauls as Bishop of the Diocese of Lexington (KY). The report, which should be read between the lines as much as in the words and sentences themselves, declares “the Diocese of Lexington is systemically unwell.” While certainly not laying this situation entirely at +Sauls’ feet, by meting out blame to certain dissenting factions who have disagreed with mission decisions of the Diocese, it appears to also raise many questions about +Sauls’ ongoing tenure that may be answered in the coming months. If Bishop Sauls was looking for a ringing endorsement or a hearty vote of confidence when he appointed this Commission, it does not appear that he has received either of those results.
The full report is available for reading by clicking on the link at the end of this post.
+Stacy Sauls, 53, a former attorney and 1985 graduate of General Theological Seminary, became the Sixth Bishop of Lexington on September 30, 2000, succeeding +Don Wimberley. Membership, attendance, and pledge/plate giving all seemed on a general upward trend through 1999, but have been in decline since then. To be fair, the largest declines have occurred since the fateful decision of the General Convention 2003 to approve consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire and the ensuing, growing schism between liberals and orthodox in the Episcopal Church. It must nevertheless also be stated that +Sauls voted in favor of that decision and many members of the Diocese would characterize his attitude toward those who were dismayed by Robinson’s consecration as “Get Over It.” There have also been other incidents within and without DioLex that may have contributed to this downward trend.
One of the earliest controversies in +Sauls’ tenure came with the charges of embezzlement he lodged against his Canon to the Ordinary and Rector of St. Augustine’s Chapel, Christopher Platt. Chris was accused of theft from his discretionary accounts, when many of those who know him and were privy to the “evidence” would state to the contrary that probably all that occurred was bad or non-existent bookkeeping. Platt, when confronted with the charges, denied them but dutifully offered to submit to the Bishop’s discipline. Instead of dealing with the situation quietly, however, Platt was subjected to a show trial that resulted in his being defrocked. Many observers close to the Diocese believe that the real reason for the trial was for intimidation of the remaining Diocesan clergy, i.e., a warning to not cross Bishop Sauls. There have also been rumors that Platt "knew something" on the Bishop, but those have never been substantiated, not even by Platt himself. The accusations and being put through the wringer by +Sauls crushed Platt; he is living quietly in Kentucky on disability to this day. Many would say a great voice in the pulpit and a truly pastoral man has been silenced and sacrificed to the Church. And, I cannot help but observe that the swift hammering of orthodox Bishops by the national church in the last few days finds strategic echoes, if not +Sauls' fingerprints, in the deposition of Chris Platt.
Bishop Sauls was next confronted with a parish that, in his view, defied his ecclesiastical authority. St. John’s Parish in Versailles, KY, was in the process of searching for a new Rector. Documents produced in a later court proceeding between the old and new parish over the proceeds of a trust revealed that +Sauls had "spies" in St. John's who were reporting to him and may have followed his guidance on intra-parish strategies. St. John's eventually found Fr. David Brannen and, in +Sauls’ view, proceeded with a call without properly involving +Sauls in the process.
When asked by +Sauls whether he would vow to not take St. John’s Parish out of the Episcopal Church, Fr. Brannen honestly stated that he could make no such promises. +Sauls therefore refused to approve the call of Fr. Brannen. St. John’s Vestry proceeded with the call anyway. +Sauls immediately “fired” the Vestry and took over control of the accounts and assets of St. John’s, albeit without apparent Canonical authority to do so (perhaps one of the reasons for the proposed new Canon on discipline of the laity?). A significant number of the members of the parish left and formed St. Andrew’s Parish, affiliated with the Anglican Church of Uganda. The new Anglican church is still meeting in schools, but is soon to break ground on a new building.
One of the interesting upshots of this whole process was a meeting conducted by +Sauls with the membership of St. John’s parish shortly before its final defiance of him. +Sauls was asked several questions about his faith and personal theology; these have been widely circulated on the Internet, but this author has heard of this meeting from several who were present including the questioner, and the reports of +Sauls’ statements are generally accurate. He was asked, among other questions:
PARISHIONER: Do you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God?
SAULS: I believe the Bible is a book of poetry with a lot of history in it. I believe the Prayer Book has all that one needs for salvation
PARISHIONER: Do you believe there is a Satan?
SAULS: Not metaphorically speaking, no.
PARISHIONER: Do you believe in heaven and hell?
SAULS: I believe that an all-loving God would never send anyone to hell for eternity. I believe he works it out in the end for everyone.
I have been told by several current members of St. Andrew’s that these answers were significant in their decision to leave TEC and affiliate with the Anglican Church of Uganda.
Not long after the Versailles events, +Sauls discovered that the Vestry of a small parish in Maysville, KY, Nativity, had set up separate trusts and corporations to own the parish property, and had transferred some property, in anticipation that the Parish may in the future decide to leave TEC. No doubt still stung by the departure of a large portion of St. John’s, +Sauls acted swiftly to depose the Vestry members who had taken this action, and to place Nativity under Diocesan control.
Throughout this time, complaints started to circulate about the manner in which Bishop Sauls conducted his interpersonal relationships within the Diocese. Clergy were seen to be intimidated and cowed. Diocesan officials were pitted one against the other. It became known that anyone took great risks to disagree with +Sauls openly in meetings, as he had displayed a prodigious temper in responding to dissension. One person commented to me in recent months that “the next pastoral act by Stacy Sauls will be his first.” While this is perhaps extreme, it is indicative of the view held by many in DioLex of their Bishop, based upon their personal experiences, that he is much more an administrator and indeed still an attorney, and less so a pastor.
Bishop Sauls has had accomplishments during his tenure. The successful and quite beautiful renovation of Mission House (right) as a Diocesan Headquarters has been completed, although there have been complaints that +Sauls has declined too many opportunities to truly use the facility as an outreach or “mission” place. The funding for the renovation was a source of controversy as purportedly money which had been in a restricted endowment for the now-closed Lexington Theological Seminary was withdrawn and spent on the renovation, thus to some degree tarnishing the accomplishment.
+Sauls initiated a Reading Camp program that provides a summer camp for underprivileged children who do not read to grade-level, with fairly intensive instruction and training in basic reading and comprehension skills. In Kentucky, with its myriad problems with education, this is a worthy effort. Unlike some of his brethren in the House of Bishops, +Sauls has held to a regular schedule of Parish visits and thus makes his presence at least nominally known to the TEC flock in DioLex. And he has started two new congregations, St. Martha's and Apostles, to replace other departing Anglican parishes, although property questions in the form of some belief that part of the property should have been sold have plagued both of these parishes.
And, as a personal note, +Sauls was very supportive of my former parish through a difficult process of relieving a Rector of her duties and slogging through interims, supply priests, and a search process, including three to four (or more) personal meetings by +Sauls with the Vestry to discuss ongoing processes and options. Both in my service as parish Chancellor and then Senior Warden, +Sauls was available and supportive in one of the more difficult processes I ever hope to endure.
Many of +Sauls’ accomplishments have taken place outside the scope of DioLex. He was nominated for Presiding Bishop in the election that saw the elevation of Katherine Jefferts-Schori to that post. He chairs the HOB Committee on the property litigation and has made several presentations to various HOB meetings regarding litigation. There is little doubt he is involved in overall litigation strategy with Schori and David Booth-Beers, as well as the more recent efforts to propose new disciplinary Canons, and is a “player” among his brethren in the HOB. He has been invited to give speeches to many groups related to the Episcopal/Anglican world such as the December 2007 Chicago Consultation, where his topic was “Our Constitutional Heritage: Why Polity and Canon Law Matter.” Bishop Sauls is also in the process of obtaining an L.L.M. in Canon Law from the University of Wales, for which he is taking periodic “mini-sabbaticals” to complete the classroom work for this degree.
The events that brought about the appointment of the Special Commission took place primarily within Diocesan offices, the Executive Council, and to some extent the Standing Committee. As should be expected, there are diametrically different views of what transpired. It is clear, however, that the appointment of the Special Commission had a great deal to do with the financial management of the Diocese, the Bishop’s role in same, and disputes between Diocesan officers arising from these issues. The Special Commission was appointed in January 2007 in a very emotional letter sent by +Sauls to the Executive Council. In this letter, +Sauls evidenced being highly upset that the extent and nature of his financial oversight and decision-making had been questioned and, apparently, that accusations of improprieties had either been made outright or strongly implied. He asserted his authority as Bishop, but asked this Commission to study the situation and pronounce its judgment on whether these matters had been properly handled. Many who saw this letter at the time thought the Commission would end up being a rubber-stamp of approval for the Bishop; to their credit, they have not but seem to have generally taken an objective view.
Apparently at least part of the dispute arose when the former Diocesan Administrator and Financial Officer, a cradle Episcopalian and a CPA, questioned +Sauls’ use of restricted Diocesan funds for non-restricted purposes after discretionary funds had been exhausted. There were also issues being raised in the course of an annual Diocesan audit over the financial health, or lack thereof, of DioLex. Some, including the Special Commission report, have characterized these questions as improper interference in the mission of the Diocese by certain Diocesan officials once decisions had been made in Executive Council and/or by the Bishop. Others view this as the officials conscientiously doing their jobs and raising questions where they should have been raised. The truth is still not all that clear, and the Special Commission has recommended that at least some of the issues be treated as water over the dam and dropped.
In addition to the former Administrator named in the report, several other Diocesan officers have resigned in recent months, including the long-time Chancellor and more than one Treasurer. These conflicts and no doubt others are among those that caused the Special Commission to state: “At present, the Diocese of Lexington is not functioning as it should. The lines of authority set out in scripture, tradition and canon have been repeatedly and purposely crossed.”
The Special Commission has made many sound recommendations, including formation of a Diocesan Audit Committee and a change in the firm that will perform audits in the future; that no Diocesan bodies or committees meet without notice to all potentially interested parties, including the Bishop; that the Executive Council post its Agenda at least seven days before meetings, and its minutes be posted electronically within 30 days of each meeting; that Executive Council include in its minutes “action items” and the person(s) charged with those items so that heightened accountability can be fostered; that a professional Diocesan Administrator and Treasurer be hired immediately; and that in general, all who are involved in Diocesan operations, including elected officials and Diocesan staff, work to end an atmosphere of distrust, accusation, innuendo, and finger-pointing which has affected them all, and instead work to instill an atmosphere of civility in Diocesan dealings.
The recommendations to Bishop Sauls, however, are those that raise the question with which I have titled this post. As I stated above, if one reads between the lines with these recommendations, they are anything but a ringing endorsement of +Sauls’ Bishopric. For example, the Commission has recommended that the Vice Chancellor serve also as “Almoner” to be a confidential adviser to the Bishop regarding use of the Bishop’s discretionary account. With regard to the Diocesan budget, the Commission recommends “that the Bishop have little hand in developing the budget, but submit funding requests as do other agencies of the Diocese.” The Commission further recommends that hearings at the Diocesan Convention on the budget “be presented by the Budget Committee rather than the Bishop.” (If this latter recommendation is intended to spare the Bishop taking the heat spawned by any new budget, I feel fairly sure he should not object to this move.)
Near the end of the report, the Special Commission makes several specific recommendations to Bishop Sauls, which I will quote in their entirety:
1. To the degree it is practicable, avoid involvement in Diocesan finance
a. Your input is critical to the budget process if the mission of the Diocese is to move forward, but that should be the extent of your involvement beyond turning in receipts.
b. When possible, avoid even signing checks.
c. Learn to trust the Treasurer and Finance Committee.
d. Be our Leader, not our manager.
i. Articulate a vision and hold us to it. Each year the Convention is invigorated by your words and the words of our invited guests. Follow up on the vision you present. The Stewardship presentation by Greg Rickel would be an excellent place to begin.
ii. Lead with confidence, not caution.
2. Do your best to resist overreaction
a. It is difficult for someone to disagree with you openly and honestly if they fear what your reaction might be.
3. Explain your rationale. Inspire us. Sell us on your program.
a. Many decisions are yours alone to make. The leadership of the Diocese will be more inclined to trust you if they understand your reasoning,
4. Feed the flock of Christ committed to your charge.
a. We are proud to have you represent us to the wider Church,
b. But we need you as servant and pastor, not just as overseer.
c. Understanding the importance of your work in the National Church,
d. We ask you to understand the importance of your presence here with us.
e. As you stated you would in your first address to us, we ask you to "walk among us."
5. Decide whether, despite the hurts you and your family have endured, remaining as our Bishop is worth the work of reconciliation that will be required.
The Special Commission should be commended on its efforts, by its usage of this gentle language, to try to not worsen the situation in a Diocese that they have already described in their report as “systemically unwell” and “dysfunctional.” But, trying to distill these points down to their essence, are they not saying to Bishop Sauls:
Stay out of the financial affairs of the Diocese (with the implication that he has caused some problems by past actions);
You have a bad temper and need to work on it;
You have to trust us if you want to be trusted;
We would prefer that you do your job here in DioLex instead of running around with the national church and its issues so much, i.e., we think your personal priorities as Bishop of DioLex are out of order; and
If you can’t handle this job and what we ask of you, maybe you should be looking elsewhere?
I have heard nothing of how Bishop Sauls reacted to this report, so anything I would say would be rank speculation. With that large grain of salt in mind, I cannot imagine that this report was very well-received in +Sauls’ corner office at Mission House. The Commission did slap quite a number of other hands in the Diocesan hierarchy and did scold everyone within its reach for helping to foster the poisonous atmosphere that has apparently filled Diocesan offices and meetings for quite some time. There is little question, however, that Bishop Sauls did not avoid the Commission’s approbation and criticism. There is likewise little question that, as Bishop with the ultimate power and authority, as the Commission recited in the preamble to its report, any and all Diocesan “dysfunction” is ultimately +Sauls’ responsibility, particularly in light of the fact that he could not himself, in his pastoral capacity, work to resolve these differences but instead had to enlist the aid of a “Special Commission.”
So, again, the question is whether this report is the harbinger of the end of +Sauls’ Bishopric in the Diocese of Lexington? Given his national-level work and his efforts to gain the advanced degree in Canon Law, is a position at 815 with the national church in his future? Could he be lining up as the successor to David Booth Beers? What does it mean that he apparently plans to take at least half of calendar 2008 on sabbatical/vacation and will be out of DioLex? Or, does he have his eye on any one of several Bishoprics in more significant locations than DioLex, financially and otherwise? Or, will he instead decide to gut it out and stay at DioLex and “live into” these recommendations? Only time will tell, and my crystal ball is very cloudy on this question. Nevertheless, stay tuned, dear readers, because things they are a-happenin’ with +Stacy Sauls, one of the “players” in the HOB.
Download specialcommissionreport.pdf
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Scripture, Authority and Relevance
First posted at VirtueOnline:
Submission to Scripture. Submission to Scripture is for us evangelicals a sign of our submission to Christ, a test of our loyalty to him. We find it extremely impressive that our incarnate Lord, whose own authority amazed his contemporaries, should have subordinated himself to the authority of the Old Testament Scriptures as he did, regarding them as his Father's written Word. --- From "Essentials", by David L. Edwards and John Stott Authority and relevance.
The modern world detests authority but worships relevance. So to bracket these two words in relation to the Bible is to claim for it one quality (authority) which people fear it has but wish it had not, and another (relevance) which they fear it has not but wish it had. Our Christian conviction is that the Bible has both authority and relevance - to a degree quite extraordinary in so ancient a book - and that the secret of both is in Jesus Christ. Indeed, we should never think of Christ and the Bible apart. 'The Scriptures ... bear witness to me,' he said (Jn. 5:39), and in so saying also bore his witness to them. This reciprocal testimony between the living Word and the written Word is the clue to our Christian understanding of the Bible. For his testimony to it assures us of its authority, and its testimony to him of its relevance. The authority and the relevance are his. --- From "The Authority and Relevance of the Bible in the Modern World" (Canberra: The Bible Society in Australia)
Submission to Scripture. Submission to Scripture is for us evangelicals a sign of our submission to Christ, a test of our loyalty to him. We find it extremely impressive that our incarnate Lord, whose own authority amazed his contemporaries, should have subordinated himself to the authority of the Old Testament Scriptures as he did, regarding them as his Father's written Word. --- From "Essentials", by David L. Edwards and John Stott Authority and relevance.
The modern world detests authority but worships relevance. So to bracket these two words in relation to the Bible is to claim for it one quality (authority) which people fear it has but wish it had not, and another (relevance) which they fear it has not but wish it had. Our Christian conviction is that the Bible has both authority and relevance - to a degree quite extraordinary in so ancient a book - and that the secret of both is in Jesus Christ. Indeed, we should never think of Christ and the Bible apart. 'The Scriptures ... bear witness to me,' he said (Jn. 5:39), and in so saying also bore his witness to them. This reciprocal testimony between the living Word and the written Word is the clue to our Christian understanding of the Bible. For his testimony to it assures us of its authority, and its testimony to him of its relevance. The authority and the relevance are his. --- From "The Authority and Relevance of the Bible in the Modern World" (Canberra: The Bible Society in Australia)
Friday, March 14, 2008
A Message from Bishop Anderson
Friday, March 14 , 2008
"Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?"
1 Corinthians 3:16 NIV
________________________________________
Beloved in Christ,
The situation in the Episcopal Church is very complex and not apt to be sorted out neatly and cleanly for some time. It is clear to those who are willing to look that the leadership of TEC has left the historic Christian faith in pursuit of a new religion, called Anglican, but with the contents changed. It sees Jesus as a religious figure, a way to find God, but not as Jesus himself put it, "...the Way, and the Truth and the Life..." The attack on historic Christian beliefs within TEC began with undermining confidence in Holy Scripture and challenging its authority as described, for example, in II Tim 3:16. The second line of attack has been on Jesus-who he is and what he has done, including his sacrificial atonement itself. A third attack has been the spiritual version of the 1970's book, I'm OK, You're OK, by Thomas A. Harris. If we would believe the premise of the spiritual version of this, who are we to "judge" the wrongdoing of others and their breach of core doctrines of Christianity? If we are all OK then there is no sin (except continuing to reject this new progressivism). With no sin, there is no need for Atonement and no need for a Savior, for after all "I'm OK, You're OK". In order to arrive at this foolish and incorrect assessment it is necessary to "reinterpret" or "deconstruct" Holy Scripture, otherwise many verses in the Bible would create a problem, such as "For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God." (Rom 3:23)
Within the "progressive" movement, which many of us usually call liberal or revisionist, the TEC leadership is intent on using every resource available to woo or coerce and to invite or threaten the remaining orthodox Episcopalians to fall into line. If you have a bishop who isn't persecuting you at the moment, the natural tendency for many orthodox Episcopalians is to keep the head down, try and not be noticed, say your prayers and stay out of the line of fire. This is a formula for short term safety and long term annihilation. TEC is a train going somewhere you don't want to go, and you don't want to find out by staying on until the final stop. Spiritually, the cost of staying on to the final destination could cost you your faith, your relationship with God and everything else that is of primary importance. This earthly segment of our eternal life has eternal consequences, and I fear for and pray for those who are trapped for various reasons.
For some in TEC the immediate cost of realigning to an orthodox portion of global Anglicanism seems way too high. I visited a little church that had just enlarged their property; they had bought and paid for everything themselves. They had painted it, carpeted it, roofed it, and used it, and it was their home. The bishop of that diocese says it's his, not theirs. If they want to leave, put the keys on the table and get out. They could do this and start over worshipping in a school perhaps, but for a very small congregation that also might break the congregation into such small pieces that nothing survives. In many of these cases the cost to defend law suits brought by the bishop and the national Episcopal Church are many times greater than the value of the property-to buy or sell it-and the small congregation simply doesn't have the financial resources to fight. Some are walking away and starting over, some are leaving with the property and trying hard to finance the litigation brought against them, and many are caught and feel trapped.
In parishes throughout TEC, there are individuals who know that things aren't right and can tell that the false teaching of TEC's "progressives" are working their way into what is preached and taught, but the problem is where to go. Many small towns in America only have one Episcopal church. They can leave Anglicanism and go to a Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregational or other flavor mainline church, but the same problems in TEC are generally found there also. Some leave TEC and opt for evangelical churches. Others go to Roman Catholic Churches, and some go to the Eastern Orthodox. If there are enough people who are looking for an Anglican alternative, a small home church can be formed and led by a lay person or available Anglican clergy. Many people, however, are staying in TEC because they are older, more frail, and don't have options they can readily turn to, and some are just staying home.
The intent of TEC to use its resources is far reaching. The Executive Council of TEC has approved using $500,000 of income from trust funds for litigation and harassment of the orthodox, and especially to be used against Bishop John-David Schofield, Bishop Robert Duncan and Bishop Jack Iker. This week the House of Bishops attempted to depose Bishop Schofield and retired Bishop Bill Cox. At the same time they are preparing to try several orthodox bishops, including retired Bishop Edward MacBurney (Quincy) for the canonical crime of ministering to one of the Southern Cone Anglican parishes in the "territory" of the Diocese of San Diego. We have learned that Presiding Bishop Jefforts Schori intends to try to depose Bishop Duncan in May, before Lambeth, even though the three senior members of the House of Bishops did not agree with her proposal to inhibit him for abandonment of communion. We should know more about this soon, but the clear message is fear and terror. If you try and leave they will still come after you. If you try and hold onto the property that is yours, they will sue you and keep you in court until your funds for defense run out.
With other sources of funds they are working the field, "visiting" primates and bishops who have a desperate need for funding for their ministries and handing them the keys to brand new Land Rover SUVs. They appear to be working with the Anglican Communion Office staff, Lambeth Palace staff and the Archbishop of Canterbury himself to strengthen TEC's position and divide the conservative orthodox.
Within the conservative orthodox in the USA there are those who either have separated from TEC (often at significant cost) or are in the planning stage of doing so. Others are not quite there, but are evaluating their options about leaving. There are those, however, for whom the emotional and cultural and perhaps, some would argue, spiritual tie to Canterbury is so great that even though there is the equivalent of spiritual abuse coming from the father, the children are trying to decide whether it is better to leave and stop the abuse or to stay, maintain the relationship, and continue to be abused. Some orthodox in the USA and perhaps in the UK are struggling with this decision. A simple answer is to stay and put a stop to the abuse, but alas, that is what the Communion and specifically the Global South primates have been trying to do since the 1998 Lambeth Conference, and although significant progress has been made, the tide of battle has not been turned yet.
The realignment that is afoot in the United States and Canada is based on the most basic doctrines of Christianity, and compromise with heresy and apostasy is not an acceptable alternative. In other areas of the Communion the issues and the divide may not be as crystal clear as it is in the USA. This pernicious false gospel of theological revisionism and cultural adaptation is nevertheless spreading throughout global Anglicanism; Western European and Western hemisphere churches are heavily impacted. It is true, however, that exceptions do exist: the Anglican Communion Network in the USA, groups in Canada, and missionary outreaches of Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, and the Province of the Southern Cone, and in these can be found the faith once delivered to the Saints.
The question remains, however, what of the many people who are orthodox and are still in TEC and the Church of England? How can the witness and work of the orthodox provinces change the Anglican Communion in such a way that real help comes to those who presently have no viable options? If we look at the tools available, the so-called Instruments of Unity are not uniformly helpful. The leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury has been concerned with holding together a badly damaged Communion rather than fixing the Communion. The Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) receives more than a fourth of its funding from TEC, and Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, as a member of the Primates Standing Committee, also sits on the ACC Standing Committee. Needless to say, the ACC on a good day is not helpful to reforming and refining the Communion, and on a bad day it works in concert with the aims of TEC. The third Instrument of Unity is the Primates, meeting together. Some good work has come from this body, but in each case the Archbishop of Canterbury has been able to summarize the issues, shape the remit to a body charged with doing something, massage the reports coming forth, and manipulate the way the Primates do or don't address these as they meet together.
Unless the ABC repents of his direction and style and becomes more concerned about the deep issues of "who is Jesus" and what obedient moral discipleship means, there is little likelihood that the Anglican Communion can proceed in its established form. If the future is uncertain, some questions need to be asked before the day of crisis is fully upon us, and one of those questions is "What is the essence of Anglicanism/Anglican Christianity and what does it look like if Canterbury and England are not at the center?" As I ask the question, I myself don't have the answer, but the time to begin asking the question has arrived, even as we beseech our Lord Jesus to honor and accomplish his prayer that all might be one.
Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President, The American Anglican Council
Deposition Votes Failed to Achieve Canonically Required Majority
From The Living Church:
Posted on: March 14, 2008
Slightly more than one-third of all bishops eligible voted to depose bishops John-David Schofield and William J. Cox during the House of Bishops' spring retreat, far fewer than the 51 percent required by the canons.
The exact number is impossible to know, because both resolutions were approved by voice vote. Only 131 bishops registered for the meeting March 7-12 at Camp Allen, and at least 15 of them left before the business session began on Wednesday. There were 294 members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote on March 12.
When questioned about canonical inconsistencies during a telephone press conference at the conclusion of the meeting, Bishop Michael Curry of North Carolina said the bishops had relied on advice provided to them by canonical experts, and did not examine canonical procedure during plenary debate prior to the votes to depose bishops Schofield and Cox.
Bishop Schofield was consecrated Bishop of San Joaquin in 1989. Last December, he presided over a diocesan convention at which clergy and lay delegates voted overwhelmingly to leave The Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone. Bishop Cox was consecrated Bishop Suffragan of Maryland in 1972. He resigned in 1980, later serving as Assisting Bishop of Oklahoma from 1980 to 1988. In 2005, Bishop Cox ordained two priests and a deacon at Christ Church, Overland Park, Kan. Christ Church affiliated with the Anglican Church of Uganda after purchasing its property from the Diocese of Kansas.
Both bishops were charged with abandonment of communion. The procedure for deposing a bishop under this charge is specified in Title IV, canon 9, sections 1-2. The canon stipulates that the vote requires "a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote," not merely a majority of those present. At least a dozen bishops voted either not to depose Bishop Schofield or to abstain, according to several bishops. The number voting in favor of deposing Bishop Cox was reportedly slightly larger than the number in favor of deposing Bishop Schofield.
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was questioned about the history of the canonical proceedings against Bishop Cox. At first she said during the press conference that she had not sought the canonically required consent of the three senior bishops of the church for permission to inhibit Bishop Cox pending his trial. However Title IV, Canon 9, sections 1-2 do not describe a procedure for deposing a bishop who has not first been inhibited.
Consent Never Sought
Later in the press conference, Bishop Jefferts Schori clarified and extended her remarks, saying she had been "unable to get the consent of the three senior bishops last spring. That's why we didn't bring it to the September meeting" of the House of Bishops. One of the three senior bishops with jurisdiction confirmed to The Living Church that his consent to inhibit Bishop Cox was never sought.
In 2007, Bishop Cox sent a written letter to Bishop Jefferts Schori, announcing his resignation from the House of Bishops. Since he was already retired, he did not have jurisdiction, and therefore unlike Bishop Schofield, his resignation did not require consent from a majority of the House of Bishops. A trial of Bishop Cox was not mandatory.
Bishop Cox also does not appear to have been granted due process with respect to a speedy trial. Once the disciplinary review committee formally certifies that a bishop has abandoned communion, the canons state "it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the house." The review committee provided certification to Bishop Jefferts Schori on May 29, 2007. His case should have been heard during the fall meeting in New Orleans last September. When asked about the apparent inconsistency, Bishop Jefferts Schori said initially she did not include Bishop Cox's case on the agenda for the New Orleans meeting "due to the press of business."
Title IV, canon 9, section 1 requires the Presiding Bishop to inform the accused bishop "forthwith," in other words immediately, after the review committee has provided a certificate of abandonment, but Bishop Jefferts Schori did not write to Bishop Cox until Jan. 8, 2008, more than seven months afterward.
The two-hour business session at which the deposition votes were taken ran slightly longer than originally scheduled. First a resolution was read followed by prayer from the chaplain. A period of silence followed the prayer. After the silence was broken, the bishops discussed the resolution in small table groups followed by plenary discussion. When it appeared that everyone who wanted to speak had done so, the voice vote was taken. Each resolution was read and voted on separately.
(The Rev.) George Conger and Steve Waring
Posted on: March 14, 2008
Slightly more than one-third of all bishops eligible voted to depose bishops John-David Schofield and William J. Cox during the House of Bishops' spring retreat, far fewer than the 51 percent required by the canons.
The exact number is impossible to know, because both resolutions were approved by voice vote. Only 131 bishops registered for the meeting March 7-12 at Camp Allen, and at least 15 of them left before the business session began on Wednesday. There were 294 members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote on March 12.
When questioned about canonical inconsistencies during a telephone press conference at the conclusion of the meeting, Bishop Michael Curry of North Carolina said the bishops had relied on advice provided to them by canonical experts, and did not examine canonical procedure during plenary debate prior to the votes to depose bishops Schofield and Cox.
Bishop Schofield was consecrated Bishop of San Joaquin in 1989. Last December, he presided over a diocesan convention at which clergy and lay delegates voted overwhelmingly to leave The Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone. Bishop Cox was consecrated Bishop Suffragan of Maryland in 1972. He resigned in 1980, later serving as Assisting Bishop of Oklahoma from 1980 to 1988. In 2005, Bishop Cox ordained two priests and a deacon at Christ Church, Overland Park, Kan. Christ Church affiliated with the Anglican Church of Uganda after purchasing its property from the Diocese of Kansas.
Both bishops were charged with abandonment of communion. The procedure for deposing a bishop under this charge is specified in Title IV, canon 9, sections 1-2. The canon stipulates that the vote requires "a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote," not merely a majority of those present. At least a dozen bishops voted either not to depose Bishop Schofield or to abstain, according to several bishops. The number voting in favor of deposing Bishop Cox was reportedly slightly larger than the number in favor of deposing Bishop Schofield.
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was questioned about the history of the canonical proceedings against Bishop Cox. At first she said during the press conference that she had not sought the canonically required consent of the three senior bishops of the church for permission to inhibit Bishop Cox pending his trial. However Title IV, Canon 9, sections 1-2 do not describe a procedure for deposing a bishop who has not first been inhibited.
Consent Never Sought
Later in the press conference, Bishop Jefferts Schori clarified and extended her remarks, saying she had been "unable to get the consent of the three senior bishops last spring. That's why we didn't bring it to the September meeting" of the House of Bishops. One of the three senior bishops with jurisdiction confirmed to The Living Church that his consent to inhibit Bishop Cox was never sought.
In 2007, Bishop Cox sent a written letter to Bishop Jefferts Schori, announcing his resignation from the House of Bishops. Since he was already retired, he did not have jurisdiction, and therefore unlike Bishop Schofield, his resignation did not require consent from a majority of the House of Bishops. A trial of Bishop Cox was not mandatory.
Bishop Cox also does not appear to have been granted due process with respect to a speedy trial. Once the disciplinary review committee formally certifies that a bishop has abandoned communion, the canons state "it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the house." The review committee provided certification to Bishop Jefferts Schori on May 29, 2007. His case should have been heard during the fall meeting in New Orleans last September. When asked about the apparent inconsistency, Bishop Jefferts Schori said initially she did not include Bishop Cox's case on the agenda for the New Orleans meeting "due to the press of business."
Title IV, canon 9, section 1 requires the Presiding Bishop to inform the accused bishop "forthwith," in other words immediately, after the review committee has provided a certificate of abandonment, but Bishop Jefferts Schori did not write to Bishop Cox until Jan. 8, 2008, more than seven months afterward.
The two-hour business session at which the deposition votes were taken ran slightly longer than originally scheduled. First a resolution was read followed by prayer from the chaplain. A period of silence followed the prayer. After the silence was broken, the bishops discussed the resolution in small table groups followed by plenary discussion. When it appeared that everyone who wanted to speak had done so, the voice vote was taken. Each resolution was read and voted on separately.
(The Rev.) George Conger and Steve Waring
Easter, resurrection of the Messiah? Not in pecusa
Presiding Bishop's Message for Easter 2008
March 11, 2008
[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori offers the following message for Easter 2008, which is also included in the March 23 (Easter Sunday) bulletin inserts available here.
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop
The Episcopal Church
Your Easter celebration undoubtedly has included lots of physical signs of new life -- eggs, flowers, new green growth. As the Easter season continues, consider how your daily living can be an act of greater life for other creatures. How can you enact the new life we know in Jesus the Christ? In other words, how can you be the sacrament, the outward and visible sign, of the grace that you know in the resurrected Christ? How can your living let others live more abundantly?
The Judaeo-Christian tradition has been famously blamed for much of the current environmental crisis, particularly for our misreading of Genesis 1:28 as a charge to "fill the earth and subdue it." Our forebears were so eager to distinguish their faith from the surrounding Canaanite religion and its concern for fertility that some of them worked overtime to separate us from an awareness of "the hand of God in the world about us," especially in a reverence for creation. How can we love God if we do not love what God has made?
We base much of our approach to loving God and our neighbors in this world on our baptismal covenant. Yet our latest prayer book was written just a bit too early to include caring for creation among those explicit baptismal promises. I would invite you to explore those promises a bit more deeply -- where and how do they imply caring for the rest of creation?
We are beginning to be aware of the ways in which our lack of concern for the rest of creation results in death and destruction for our neighbors. We cannot love our neighbors unless we care for the creation that supports all our earthly lives. We are not respecting the dignity of our fellow creatures if our sewage or garbage fouls their living space. When atmospheric warming, due in part to the methane output of the millions of cows we raise each year to produce hamburger, begins to slowly drown the island homes of our neighbors in the South Pacific, are we truly sharing good news?
The food we eat, the energy we use, the goods and foods we buy, the ways in which we travel, are all opportunities -- choices and decisions -- to be for others, both human and other. Our Christian commitment is for this -- that we might live that more abundant life, and that we might do it in a way that is for the whole world.
Abundant blessings this Easter, and may those blessings abound through the coming days and years.
March 11, 2008
[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori offers the following message for Easter 2008, which is also included in the March 23 (Easter Sunday) bulletin inserts available here.
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop
The Episcopal Church
Your Easter celebration undoubtedly has included lots of physical signs of new life -- eggs, flowers, new green growth. As the Easter season continues, consider how your daily living can be an act of greater life for other creatures. How can you enact the new life we know in Jesus the Christ? In other words, how can you be the sacrament, the outward and visible sign, of the grace that you know in the resurrected Christ? How can your living let others live more abundantly?
The Judaeo-Christian tradition has been famously blamed for much of the current environmental crisis, particularly for our misreading of Genesis 1:28 as a charge to "fill the earth and subdue it." Our forebears were so eager to distinguish their faith from the surrounding Canaanite religion and its concern for fertility that some of them worked overtime to separate us from an awareness of "the hand of God in the world about us," especially in a reverence for creation. How can we love God if we do not love what God has made?
We base much of our approach to loving God and our neighbors in this world on our baptismal covenant. Yet our latest prayer book was written just a bit too early to include caring for creation among those explicit baptismal promises. I would invite you to explore those promises a bit more deeply -- where and how do they imply caring for the rest of creation?
We are beginning to be aware of the ways in which our lack of concern for the rest of creation results in death and destruction for our neighbors. We cannot love our neighbors unless we care for the creation that supports all our earthly lives. We are not respecting the dignity of our fellow creatures if our sewage or garbage fouls their living space. When atmospheric warming, due in part to the methane output of the millions of cows we raise each year to produce hamburger, begins to slowly drown the island homes of our neighbors in the South Pacific, are we truly sharing good news?
The food we eat, the energy we use, the goods and foods we buy, the ways in which we travel, are all opportunities -- choices and decisions -- to be for others, both human and other. Our Christian commitment is for this -- that we might live that more abundant life, and that we might do it in a way that is for the whole world.
Abundant blessings this Easter, and may those blessings abound through the coming days and years.
Former Quincy Bishop Charged
FiF North America
Mar 13, 2008
Bishop Edward MacBurney, bishop retired of the Diocese of Quincy, has been formally charged with canonical violations by the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. These charges stem from events occurring in June, 2007 when Bishop MacBurney was invited to make a pastoral visit to a non-Episcopal church in San Diego, California. MacBurney, 80 years old, retired from his position as a diocesan bishop in 1994, but as a bishop in good standing still actively ministers to churches throughout the country and also in other parts of the Anglican Communion..
The basis of the charges against MacBurney relate to the allegation that he did not receive permission to perform liturgical rites from the sitting Episcopal diocesan bishop in San Diego. Even though the church MacBurney visited had severed ties with the Episcopal Church in the United States and had re-affiliated with the Anglican Bishop of Argentina, a primate of the worldwide Anglican Communion, the charges allege that MacBurney impermissibly crossed Diocesan boundaries.
Although MacBurney is retired, he remains a member of the Episcopal House of Bishops with seat and voice. The essence of the charge is the claim that MacBurney is prohibited from ministering within the geographical territory of another Episcopal diocese even if the church to which he ministers is no longer affiliated with the Episcopal Church. Attorneys for MacBurney state that the charges raise the theoretical question as to whether an Episcopal bishop exercises total control over a certain geographical territory or whether a Bishop merely exercises control over the Episcopal churches within that territory. The Episcopal Church has suffered internal turmoil for a number of years and it has been common practice for certain retired bishops to minister to parishes experiencing ideological differences from their bishops.
The Right Revd Keith L. Ackerman, President of Forward in Faith North America and the current Bishop of Quincy, when asked said, “We support Bishop MacBurney fully in his willingness to provide pastoral care for this non- Episcopal Church parish in California. Because of his love for people and his commitment to serve and uphold the Gospel, Bishop MacBurney acted in good faith with the permission of Archbishop Venables, Bishop of Argentina and Primate of the Southern Cone. Bishop MacBurney is a loving man and is not the kind of man who would refuse to respond to the needs of God’s people in any part of the world.”
Mar 13, 2008
Bishop Edward MacBurney, bishop retired of the Diocese of Quincy, has been formally charged with canonical violations by the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. These charges stem from events occurring in June, 2007 when Bishop MacBurney was invited to make a pastoral visit to a non-Episcopal church in San Diego, California. MacBurney, 80 years old, retired from his position as a diocesan bishop in 1994, but as a bishop in good standing still actively ministers to churches throughout the country and also in other parts of the Anglican Communion..
The basis of the charges against MacBurney relate to the allegation that he did not receive permission to perform liturgical rites from the sitting Episcopal diocesan bishop in San Diego. Even though the church MacBurney visited had severed ties with the Episcopal Church in the United States and had re-affiliated with the Anglican Bishop of Argentina, a primate of the worldwide Anglican Communion, the charges allege that MacBurney impermissibly crossed Diocesan boundaries.
Although MacBurney is retired, he remains a member of the Episcopal House of Bishops with seat and voice. The essence of the charge is the claim that MacBurney is prohibited from ministering within the geographical territory of another Episcopal diocese even if the church to which he ministers is no longer affiliated with the Episcopal Church. Attorneys for MacBurney state that the charges raise the theoretical question as to whether an Episcopal bishop exercises total control over a certain geographical territory or whether a Bishop merely exercises control over the Episcopal churches within that territory. The Episcopal Church has suffered internal turmoil for a number of years and it has been common practice for certain retired bishops to minister to parishes experiencing ideological differences from their bishops.
The Right Revd Keith L. Ackerman, President of Forward in Faith North America and the current Bishop of Quincy, when asked said, “We support Bishop MacBurney fully in his willingness to provide pastoral care for this non- Episcopal Church parish in California. Because of his love for people and his commitment to serve and uphold the Gospel, Bishop MacBurney acted in good faith with the permission of Archbishop Venables, Bishop of Argentina and Primate of the Southern Cone. Bishop MacBurney is a loving man and is not the kind of man who would refuse to respond to the needs of God’s people in any part of the world.”
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Peter Toon: Reading Scripture
God reveals himself in modern experience - true or false? Peter Toon investigates the real foundation of the view that same-sex affection can be a form of holiness
Further background to this particular debate and the framework for this call to orthodox biblical reading can be found at www.pbsusa.org
Today, within the old-line Protestant churches, and not least within The Episcopal Church, any traditional church member, if he/she is paying attention, hears often, in a clear or veiled way, a novel view of both divine revelation and human religious experience.
In the submission of The Episcopal Church to the Anglican Consultative Council in Nottingham in June 2005 (entitled To Set our Hope on Christ: Response to the Windsor Report), this novel view was presented in a way that sought to hide its radical nature and make it to be sound, widely-held, biblical interpretation.
I responded to this TEC essay in a large booklet entitled Same-Sex Affection, Holiness & Ordination (available from www.anglicanmarketplace.com), seeking not to deal with sexuality as such but to make clear the presence and foundational nature of this innovatory doctrine of Scripture in the response of TEC to the Anglican Communion.
The innovatory doctrine
A few weeks ago, I listened to Bishop Gene Robinson on TV stating this same doctrine with clarity and apparent winsomeness in a lecture to students in Florida, as a means of defending his own 'modern' sexual practices.
The TEC doctrine is simple: that in the two Testaments of the canon of Scripture we have the account of the developing experience of God by the Israelites and then by Jesus and the Christians. Both the experience and the account of it naturally reflect the conditions of the times when it was received and described.
So the received revelation from God recorded in the Bible is a developing and maturing - though very much incomplete - revelation. Further, it has always to be distinguished in its essence from the cultural form in which it is received and understood. In this development the high point, but not the final point (for that is yet to be), is Jesus, in what he is, says and does.
God's revelation
Importantly, God does not cease to reveal himself after the time of Jesus, for being the God of not only history but also of nature; that is, the God of space and time reveals his/her/its mind and will through the varied searching and researching of human beings. And this is obvious, they say, to moderns in the tremendous growth of knowledge by human beings in recent times, of both human beings as complex creatures and of the massive cosmos in which they live. Further, this new revelation both corrects and perfects knowledge gleaned from the religious experience of the Jews and early Christians and recorded in the Bible.
So on the basis that God is alive and well and making himself known to human beings who have eyes to see, the Church has to move on in its worship, doctrine, morals and discipline to pay attention to the God of today; that is, to where Deity is in relation to humanity and the cosmos in 2008. And so the new prophetic agenda of the elite of The Episcopal Church is based on reality as they see it, the God in process revealing himself!
They can hold no other position, they say, for they are committed to the God who is, like the cosmos, in evolution and progress! Part of this reality is that same-sex affection is a reflection of the holiness of God.
Conservative response
But what about the conservative Episcopal opposition to this innovatory approach and in particular to its new stance on sexuality?
There does not seem to be one so-called 'orthodox' mindset within the Anglican or Episcopal movement in opposition to that of the Episcopal elite. However, the varied approaches, in opposition to the development and process theory of the progressive liberals, all seem to believe that there are clear and final words of God about sexual relations and other basic matters written not only in the New but also in the Old Testament. And these they quote and cite. But there are problems.
Most Evangelical clergy seem to come out of a seminary training where they daily saw the Department of Old Testament Studies and the Department of New Testament Studies having little dialogue - as a maximum cooperating, and as a minimum going in parallel lines. It was as though the one canon of Scripture was made up of two very different Testaments, and what really connected them was the binding of the Bible in which they were placed.
A crucial omission
Further, there was in the seminary usually no regular worship (i.e. Morning and Evening Prayer) where the Old Testament and the Psalter are read/prayed daily in the context of their fulfilment in Christ in the New Testament readings and Canticles.
This omission makes it difficult for students to establish a mindset wherein the right relation of the two Testaments is known intellectually and experientially The theme of 'according to the Scriptures' (i.e. the OT) is critical for early Christian doctrine and devotion and this is caught and imbibed in classic Christian worship.
Two Testaments
From such a background as that of the typical seminary, it is difficult to make a reasoned case against the liberal doctrine of the progressive nature of revelation. And, in the present crisis over sexuality, it is also difficult in a modern context to use successfully the Old Testament texts which declare that homosexual practice is sinful.
The position of the Apostles and early Church leaders with regard to the Bible seems to have been different, and may be instructive. For them the Bible, the inspired, written Word of God, was without doubt the Jewish Bible, which most read in Greek.
Jesus as Saviour
Together with this they had the teaching of, and facts concerning, Jesus as the Saviour and how he fulfilled the Scriptures by his words, works and life, death and resurrection.
On the basis of the Bible and with the guidance of the Apostolic Testimony and Tradition (which was simultaneously and slowly being put into writing and circulated), they possessed what has been called the 'Rule of Faith', which amounted to a Christ-centred reading and interpretation of the Jewish Bible, as from the God and Father of the same Lord Jesus Christ. Thus they read the Bible in both its common sense mode, and as the text not only approved, but also fulfilled in various ways, by Jesus, the Lord and Saviour.
Therefore they cited the Old Testament, as did Jesus, as the Word of God written, nothing less and nothing more! Then later the 'Rule of Faith' gave way to
(a) the collection and acceptance of the books we call the New Testament; and
(b) the fixed Creeds for Baptism of which the Apostles and Nicene are the most well known.
One canon
It would do us no harm today to regard the Old Testament as the primary Scriptures of the Lord and the New Testament as the divinely authenticated interpretation of them by the Spirit of the Lord. Hereby we would have a sense of a fixed order of salvation in Christ from one God and Father, made available for revelation to the Gentiles and for us and for our salvation, in the Spirit.
I would suggest that the modern use of the Bible to support innovatory sexual relations, as is the norm in The Episcopal Church in 2008, cannot be overturned by the typical Evangelical use of the Bible. We need to recover the sense that the Bible is first one canon, and then within the canon there are two Testaments, united in and by Christ. If we begin from the presenting doctrine of the seminary and many text-books, that 'Two Testaments make up one canon', then we are sure to get things wrong.
(My learned friend Professor C. Seitz of Toronto University is working on the relation of the Rule of Faith to the two Testaments and his insights contain important lessons for Anglicans to learn and utilize in their use of sacred Scripture in worship, doctrine and apologetics.)
The orthodox response
But there is one more thing. Since the scholarly and social elite of The Episcopal Church is advancing a claim for revelation based on the reality of process within both God and cosmos, the orthodox response has to be clear and robust. This will need to hold and expound a sound view of the relation between the Old Testament and the New, within the context of the Rule of Faith, but also with the use and understanding of natural law.
Here much help can be gained especially from modern Catholic writers, who are developing a body of theological work, to show that both homosexual practice and same-sex marriage are 'unnatural' in terms of nature as created by God, the Lord of creation. The support by the modern State for these 'unnatural' relations and practices will be a means of actually undermining the State in the long term.Further background to this particular debate and the framework for this call to orthodox biblical reading can be found at www.pbsusa.org
Peter Toon: Reading Scripture
God reveals himself in modern experience - true or false? Peter Toon investigates the real foundation of the view that same-sex affection can be a form of holiness
Further background to this particular debate and the framework for this call to orthodox biblical reading can be found at www.pbsusa.org
Today, within the old-line Protestant churches, and not least within The Episcopal Church, any traditional church member, if he/she is paying attention, hears often, in a clear or veiled way, a novel view of both divine revelation and human religious experience.
In the submission of The Episcopal Church to the Anglican Consultative Council in Nottingham in June 2005 (entitled To Set our Hope on Christ: Response to the Windsor Report), this novel view was presented in a way that sought to hide its radical nature and make it to be sound, widely-held, biblical interpretation.
I responded to this TEC essay in a large booklet entitled Same-Sex Affection, Holiness & Ordination (available from www.anglicanmarketplace.com), seeking not to deal with sexuality as such but to make clear the presence and foundational nature of this innovatory doctrine of Scripture in the response of TEC to the Anglican Communion.
The innovatory doctrine
A few weeks ago, I listened to Bishop Gene Robinson on TV stating this same doctrine with clarity and apparent winsomeness in a lecture to students in Florida, as a means of defending his own 'modern' sexual practices.
The TEC doctrine is simple: that in the two Testaments of the canon of Scripture we have the account of the developing experience of God by the Israelites and then by Jesus and the Christians. Both the experience and the account of it naturally reflect the conditions of the times when it was received and described.
So the received revelation from God recorded in the Bible is a developing and maturing - though very much incomplete - revelation. Further, it has always to be distinguished in its essence from the cultural form in which it is received and understood. In this development the high point, but not the final point (for that is yet to be), is Jesus, in what he is, says and does.
God's revelation
Importantly, God does not cease to reveal himself after the time of Jesus, for being the God of not only history but also of nature; that is, the God of space and time reveals his/her/its mind and will through the varied searching and researching of human beings. And this is obvious, they say, to moderns in the tremendous growth of knowledge by human beings in recent times, of both human beings as complex creatures and of the massive cosmos in which they live. Further, this new revelation both corrects and perfects knowledge gleaned from the religious experience of the Jews and early Christians and recorded in the Bible.
So on the basis that God is alive and well and making himself known to human beings who have eyes to see, the Church has to move on in its worship, doctrine, morals and discipline to pay attention to the God of today; that is, to where Deity is in relation to humanity and the cosmos in 2008. And so the new prophetic agenda of the elite of The Episcopal Church is based on reality as they see it, the God in process revealing himself!
They can hold no other position, they say, for they are committed to the God who is, like the cosmos, in evolution and progress! Part of this reality is that same-sex affection is a reflection of the holiness of God.
Conservative response
But what about the conservative Episcopal opposition to this innovatory approach and in particular to its new stance on sexuality?
There does not seem to be one so-called 'orthodox' mindset within the Anglican or Episcopal movement in opposition to that of the Episcopal elite. However, the varied approaches, in opposition to the development and process theory of the progressive liberals, all seem to believe that there are clear and final words of God about sexual relations and other basic matters written not only in the New but also in the Old Testament. And these they quote and cite. But there are problems.
Most Evangelical clergy seem to come out of a seminary training where they daily saw the Department of Old Testament Studies and the Department of New Testament Studies having little dialogue - as a maximum cooperating, and as a minimum going in parallel lines. It was as though the one canon of Scripture was made up of two very different Testaments, and what really connected them was the binding of the Bible in which they were placed.
A crucial omission
Further, there was in the seminary usually no regular worship (i.e. Morning and Evening Prayer) where the Old Testament and the Psalter are read/prayed daily in the context of their fulfilment in Christ in the New Testament readings and Canticles.
This omission makes it difficult for students to establish a mindset wherein the right relation of the two Testaments is known intellectually and experientially The theme of 'according to the Scriptures' (i.e. the OT) is critical for early Christian doctrine and devotion and this is caught and imbibed in classic Christian worship.
Two Testaments
From such a background as that of the typical seminary, it is difficult to make a reasoned case against the liberal doctrine of the progressive nature of revelation. And, in the present crisis over sexuality, it is also difficult in a modern context to use successfully the Old Testament texts which declare that homosexual practice is sinful.
The position of the Apostles and early Church leaders with regard to the Bible seems to have been different, and may be instructive. For them the Bible, the inspired, written Word of God, was without doubt the Jewish Bible, which most read in Greek.
Jesus as Saviour
Together with this they had the teaching of, and facts concerning, Jesus as the Saviour and how he fulfilled the Scriptures by his words, works and life, death and resurrection.
On the basis of the Bible and with the guidance of the Apostolic Testimony and Tradition (which was simultaneously and slowly being put into writing and circulated), they possessed what has been called the 'Rule of Faith', which amounted to a Christ-centred reading and interpretation of the Jewish Bible, as from the God and Father of the same Lord Jesus Christ. Thus they read the Bible in both its common sense mode, and as the text not only approved, but also fulfilled in various ways, by Jesus, the Lord and Saviour.
Therefore they cited the Old Testament, as did Jesus, as the Word of God written, nothing less and nothing more! Then later the 'Rule of Faith' gave way to
(a) the collection and acceptance of the books we call the New Testament; and
(b) the fixed Creeds for Baptism of which the Apostles and Nicene are the most well known.
One canon
It would do us no harm today to regard the Old Testament as the primary Scriptures of the Lord and the New Testament as the divinely authenticated interpretation of them by the Spirit of the Lord. Hereby we would have a sense of a fixed order of salvation in Christ from one God and Father, made available for revelation to the Gentiles and for us and for our salvation, in the Spirit.
I would suggest that the modern use of the Bible to support innovatory sexual relations, as is the norm in The Episcopal Church in 2008, cannot be overturned by the typical Evangelical use of the Bible. We need to recover the sense that the Bible is first one canon, and then within the canon there are two Testaments, united in and by Christ. If we begin from the presenting doctrine of the seminary and many text-books, that 'Two Testaments make up one canon', then we are sure to get things wrong.
(My learned friend Professor C. Seitz of Toronto University is working on the relation of the Rule of Faith to the two Testaments and his insights contain important lessons for Anglicans to learn and utilize in their use of sacred Scripture in worship, doctrine and apologetics.)
The orthodox response
But there is one more thing. Since the scholarly and social elite of The Episcopal Church is advancing a claim for revelation based on the reality of process within both God and cosmos, the orthodox response has to be clear and robust. This will need to hold and expound a sound view of the relation between the Old Testament and the New, within the context of the Rule of Faith, but also with the use and understanding of natural law.
Here much help can be gained especially from modern Catholic writers, who are developing a body of theological work, to show that both homosexual practice and same-sex marriage are 'unnatural' in terms of nature as created by God, the Lord of creation. The support by the modern State for these 'unnatural' relations and practices will be a means of actually undermining the State in the long term.Further background to this particular debate and the framework for this call to orthodox biblical reading can be found at www.pbsusa.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)