Via TitusOneNine:
ELCA NEWS SERVICE
September 27, 2009
CHICAGO (ELCA) -- Community Church of Joy, Glendale, Ariz., ended its affiliation Sept. 27 with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States.
The congregation was the 10th largest in the ELCA with 6,800 baptized members. According to the 2009 ELCA Yearbook, Community Church of Joy's current operating expenses are more than $2.7 million. It gave more than $207,915 to the ELCA and other organizations in benevolence. By a unanimous vote of 129-0, Community Church of Joy terminated the relationship at a congregational meeting following worship.
"I was praying that (the vote) would be a clear direction from the congregation," said the Rev. Walter P. Kallestad, senior pastor of the congregation. Seeking to be consistent with the congregation's decision, Kallestad announced to the congregation his intention to resign from the ELCA's clergy roster.
Two votes were taken as part of a process to end the affiliation. An initial vote took place June 28, when 185 members voted 174-11 in favor of ending the relationship. Also in June, voting members chose to join Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ -- an association of 197 congregations in the United States "rooted in the Lutheran Confessions."
Community Church of Joy's vision, values and mission are no longer aligned with the ELCA, according to Kallestad. "There is such a different direction that the ELCA has chosen, a path they're traveling on, and we really believe that it just was not consistent to where God has called us. And so we're parting," he told the ELCA News Service.
On its Web site, Community Church of Joy cited three documents to help make clear the reasons for the congregation's actions. One document is about Israel and another is about Holy Scripture. A third document references the actions of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly on the topic of human sexuality.
The assembly approved a series of proposals to change ministry policies, including a change to allow Lutherans in lifelong, publicly accountable, monogamous same-gender relationships to serve as ELCA associates in ministry, clergy, deaconesses and diaconal ministers. The assembly also approved "Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust" -- the denomination's 10th social statement, which addresses a spectrum of topics relevant to human sexuality from a Lutheran perspective.
The Rev. Stephen S. Talmage, bishop of the ELCA Grand Canyon Synod, Phoenix, spoke to members of Community Church of Joy in early September. He said about 40 people were present, and about 20 of them were members of Community Church of Joy. Kallestad was not present.
"In the meeting I affirmed the ministry of Community Church of Joy," Talmage told the ELCA News Service. "I lifted up that Pastor Kallestad and the congregation have had a historical reputation of trying novel and creative things. They also, without a doubt, clearly have a heart for reaching the unchurched. They've pushed the envelope for the ELCA, having us look at how we do worship, how we evangelize and how we reach out."
Talmage said he also listed the ways in which Lutherans engage in mission and ministry across the country and overseas. "That will be lost, and that's sad," he said. "My hope is that, although they're leaving, we can still discover ways we can cooperate in ministry and celebrate our common commitment to growing disciples."
Talmage was not present for the Sept. 27 vote at Community Church of Joy. The Rev. John Q. Cockram, Shepherd of the Desert, Sun City, Ariz., represented the synod.
- - -
Information about Community Church of Joy is at http://www.joyonline.org on the Web.
For information contact:
John Brooks, Director (773) 380-2958 or news@elca.org
http://www.elca.org/news
ELCA News Blog: http://www.elca.org/news/blog
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
pecusa's lament
From Lionel Diemel's blog via Thinking Anglicans:
September 27, 2009
A Perspective on the Pawleys Island Case
It was with considerable dismay that I learned about the South Carolina Supreme Court decision in All Saints v. Campbell, the property dispute between the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and All Saints, Pawleys Island. In preparation for the weekly post on the news blog Pittsburgh Update last week, I asked attorney and Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh vice president Ken Stiles to read the opinion and provide some perspective on it. As it happened, Ken provided more perspective than Pittsburgh Update could use, so I asked him if I could post his thoughts on my own blog. He graciously agreed, and I hope that his remarks, now somewhat expanded, will help put the decision into perspective. (Readers who have not seen it should also see Nick Knisely’s post on The Lead concerning the decision.)
On September 18, 2009, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled against the Diocese of South Carolina and The Episcopal Church to allow the All Saints, Waccamaw (Pawleys Island), to disaffiliate from The Episcopal Church and join Rwanda’s Anglican Mission in America (AMiA, now Anglican Mission in the Americas) with its property. The Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling. This matter had been it litigation since 2000, when the diocese filled court papers claiming a trust interest in the parish’s property. In 2004, the parish vestry voted 9 to 1 to leave The Episcopal Church and join the AMiA.
The Supreme Court decision is a rare loss for The Episcopal Church in property litigation, but one has to look behind the immediate outcome to get a better sense of what this decision is and is not. The two issues of interest here are the Court’s treatment of the Dennis Canon and the cavalier way it approved the disassociation with The Episcopal Church.
The negation of the Dennis Canon is not as shocking as it seems. While all Episcopal Church parishes are assumed to have a trust relationship with their dioceses (and The Episcopal Church), the diocesan trust here was rendered null and void in 1903, when the Diocese of South Carolina signed a quitclaim deed giving any property interest the diocese had to the parish. (At issue was a question about the validity of the parish’s incorporation.) It is sometimes overlooked that the Dennis Canon did not and could not create a trust where none had existed before. The underlying assumption of the Dennis Canon is that there is always a trust relationship between a parish and the diocese dating from the establishment of the parish. To date, state courts have agreed with this. In this case, the diocese had given up its trust rights, so that there was nothing for the Dennis Canon to attach to.
The more troublesome aspect of this case is the Court’s holding that the parish had legally terminated its relationship with the diocese and The Episcopal Church:
Turning to the 2005 Action [in which a vestry loyal to The Episcopal Church sued for control of the parish], we find that the trial court applied the deference approach, determined that the congregation was part of a hierarchical organization, and deferred to the Diocese’s ecclesiastical authority’s determination that members of the minority vestry were the true officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. We disagree.
First, the Court held that the deference approach was no longer allowed in South Carolina. Instead, it applied the “neutral principles of law” test. Both approaches are allowed by the United States Supreme Court.
Church disputes that are resolved under the neutral principles of law approach do not turn on the single question of whether a church is congregational or hierarchical. Rather, the neutral principles of law approach permits the application of property, corporate, and other forms of law to church disputes. …
The 2005 case turns on a determination of whether the Articles of Amendment approved by the members of All Saints Waccamaw, Inc. on January 8, 2004 were adopted in compliance with the South Carolina Non-Profit Act. See S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1001, et. seq. We find that the Articles of Amendment were lawfully adopted and effectively severed the corporation’s legal ties to the ECUSA and the Diocese. Therefore, we find that the members of the majority vestry are the true officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. …
Pursuant to the South Carolina Non-Profit Act, a religious corporation may amend its Articles of Incorporation to add or change a provision permitted in the articles or delete a provision not required in the articles. … Amendment to a corporation’s articles, to be adopted, must be approved by (1) the board of directors, (2) the members “by two-thirds of the votes cast or a majority of the voting power, whichever is less,” and (3) any person whose approval is required by the Articles of Incorporation. … The passage of the Articles of Amendment approved by the congregation on January 8, 2004 complied with all three of these requirements. …
Finally, nothing in the All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. by-laws or the Constitutions and Canons of the ECUSA or Diocese requires third-party approval for amendments to the congregation’s corporate charter, therefore the congregation’s adoption of the Articles of Amendment complied with the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1003(a)(3). The statutory provisions pertaining to a religious corporation’s amendment of its corporate charter were amended in 1994 so as to add the option of third-party approval. See 1994 S.C. Acts 384. There is no evidence in the record that, since that time, the Diocese has ever attempted to gain approval power over amendments to the All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. corporate charter.
S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1003(a)(3) refers to S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1030, “Approval of the articles of incorporation and bylaws by third persons”:
The articles of only a religious corporation or public benefit corporation may require an amendment to the articles or bylaws to be approved in writing by a specified person or persons other than the board. The article provision may be amended only with the approval in writing of such person.
The Court is saying here that, since the diocese did not require the parish to add the “third-party approval” language to the parish charter after 1994, the parish was free to change its charter in any way it wanted.
This conclusion of the Court is troublesome because nowhere in the opinion was the accession clause of the diocesan constitution (see Article I) mentioned or explanation given as to why it did not apply to this case. If an accession clause had been found present and effective, the actions of the parish, even if they had been unanimous, would have been beyond their authority and therefore of no effect. Moreover, although it is difficult to do a complete analysis of the case in the absence of the corporate charter of All Saints—the charter does not seem to be on the Web—the Diocese of South Carolina’s Canon XXX, Section 1 (see canons here), would seem to prohibit what the Supreme Court of South Carolina has allowed:
It shall not be lawful for any Vestry, Trustees or other body authorized by laws of any State or Territory to hold property for any Diocese, Parish or Congregation, to encumber or alienate any dedicated and consecrated Church or Chapel, or any Church or Chapel which has been used solely for Divine Service, belonging to the Parish, Mission or Congregation which they represent, without the previous consent of the Bishop, acting with the advice and consent of the Standing Committee of the Diocese.
It would seem that the court is saying that the only document that need be considered is the parish charter; the diocesan constitution and canons count for naught. The failure of the South Carolina Supreme Court to address this issue is both surprising and distressing.
September 27, 2009
A Perspective on the Pawleys Island Case
It was with considerable dismay that I learned about the South Carolina Supreme Court decision in All Saints v. Campbell, the property dispute between the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and All Saints, Pawleys Island. In preparation for the weekly post on the news blog Pittsburgh Update last week, I asked attorney and Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh vice president Ken Stiles to read the opinion and provide some perspective on it. As it happened, Ken provided more perspective than Pittsburgh Update could use, so I asked him if I could post his thoughts on my own blog. He graciously agreed, and I hope that his remarks, now somewhat expanded, will help put the decision into perspective. (Readers who have not seen it should also see Nick Knisely’s post on The Lead concerning the decision.)
On September 18, 2009, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled against the Diocese of South Carolina and The Episcopal Church to allow the All Saints, Waccamaw (Pawleys Island), to disaffiliate from The Episcopal Church and join Rwanda’s Anglican Mission in America (AMiA, now Anglican Mission in the Americas) with its property. The Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling. This matter had been it litigation since 2000, when the diocese filled court papers claiming a trust interest in the parish’s property. In 2004, the parish vestry voted 9 to 1 to leave The Episcopal Church and join the AMiA.
The Supreme Court decision is a rare loss for The Episcopal Church in property litigation, but one has to look behind the immediate outcome to get a better sense of what this decision is and is not. The two issues of interest here are the Court’s treatment of the Dennis Canon and the cavalier way it approved the disassociation with The Episcopal Church.
The negation of the Dennis Canon is not as shocking as it seems. While all Episcopal Church parishes are assumed to have a trust relationship with their dioceses (and The Episcopal Church), the diocesan trust here was rendered null and void in 1903, when the Diocese of South Carolina signed a quitclaim deed giving any property interest the diocese had to the parish. (At issue was a question about the validity of the parish’s incorporation.) It is sometimes overlooked that the Dennis Canon did not and could not create a trust where none had existed before. The underlying assumption of the Dennis Canon is that there is always a trust relationship between a parish and the diocese dating from the establishment of the parish. To date, state courts have agreed with this. In this case, the diocese had given up its trust rights, so that there was nothing for the Dennis Canon to attach to.
The more troublesome aspect of this case is the Court’s holding that the parish had legally terminated its relationship with the diocese and The Episcopal Church:
Turning to the 2005 Action [in which a vestry loyal to The Episcopal Church sued for control of the parish], we find that the trial court applied the deference approach, determined that the congregation was part of a hierarchical organization, and deferred to the Diocese’s ecclesiastical authority’s determination that members of the minority vestry were the true officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. We disagree.
First, the Court held that the deference approach was no longer allowed in South Carolina. Instead, it applied the “neutral principles of law” test. Both approaches are allowed by the United States Supreme Court.
Church disputes that are resolved under the neutral principles of law approach do not turn on the single question of whether a church is congregational or hierarchical. Rather, the neutral principles of law approach permits the application of property, corporate, and other forms of law to church disputes. …
The 2005 case turns on a determination of whether the Articles of Amendment approved by the members of All Saints Waccamaw, Inc. on January 8, 2004 were adopted in compliance with the South Carolina Non-Profit Act. See S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1001, et. seq. We find that the Articles of Amendment were lawfully adopted and effectively severed the corporation’s legal ties to the ECUSA and the Diocese. Therefore, we find that the members of the majority vestry are the true officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. …
Pursuant to the South Carolina Non-Profit Act, a religious corporation may amend its Articles of Incorporation to add or change a provision permitted in the articles or delete a provision not required in the articles. … Amendment to a corporation’s articles, to be adopted, must be approved by (1) the board of directors, (2) the members “by two-thirds of the votes cast or a majority of the voting power, whichever is less,” and (3) any person whose approval is required by the Articles of Incorporation. … The passage of the Articles of Amendment approved by the congregation on January 8, 2004 complied with all three of these requirements. …
Finally, nothing in the All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. by-laws or the Constitutions and Canons of the ECUSA or Diocese requires third-party approval for amendments to the congregation’s corporate charter, therefore the congregation’s adoption of the Articles of Amendment complied with the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1003(a)(3). The statutory provisions pertaining to a religious corporation’s amendment of its corporate charter were amended in 1994 so as to add the option of third-party approval. See 1994 S.C. Acts 384. There is no evidence in the record that, since that time, the Diocese has ever attempted to gain approval power over amendments to the All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. corporate charter.
S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1003(a)(3) refers to S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1030, “Approval of the articles of incorporation and bylaws by third persons”:
The articles of only a religious corporation or public benefit corporation may require an amendment to the articles or bylaws to be approved in writing by a specified person or persons other than the board. The article provision may be amended only with the approval in writing of such person.
The Court is saying here that, since the diocese did not require the parish to add the “third-party approval” language to the parish charter after 1994, the parish was free to change its charter in any way it wanted.
This conclusion of the Court is troublesome because nowhere in the opinion was the accession clause of the diocesan constitution (see Article I) mentioned or explanation given as to why it did not apply to this case. If an accession clause had been found present and effective, the actions of the parish, even if they had been unanimous, would have been beyond their authority and therefore of no effect. Moreover, although it is difficult to do a complete analysis of the case in the absence of the corporate charter of All Saints—the charter does not seem to be on the Web—the Diocese of South Carolina’s Canon XXX, Section 1 (see canons here), would seem to prohibit what the Supreme Court of South Carolina has allowed:
It shall not be lawful for any Vestry, Trustees or other body authorized by laws of any State or Territory to hold property for any Diocese, Parish or Congregation, to encumber or alienate any dedicated and consecrated Church or Chapel, or any Church or Chapel which has been used solely for Divine Service, belonging to the Parish, Mission or Congregation which they represent, without the previous consent of the Bishop, acting with the advice and consent of the Standing Committee of the Diocese.
It would seem that the court is saying that the only document that need be considered is the parish charter; the diocesan constitution and canons count for naught. The failure of the South Carolina Supreme Court to address this issue is both surprising and distressing.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Fort Worth to Vote on Southern Cone Ties
From The Living Church:
Posted on: September 28, 2009
A member diocese of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) will consider a resolution that maintains the diocese’s ties with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone.
The resolution is being proposed by the Diocese of Fort Worth’s standing committee. The diocese’s convention will meet on Nov. 6 and 7 in Arlington, Texas. The resolution commits the diocese to continued participation in the ACNA, but also “maintains its status as a member diocese in the Province of the Southern Cone while the formal process of recognition of [ACNA] continues in the Anglican Communion.”
“At this point, the Anglican Church in North America is not yet fully recognized as a province of the Anglican Communion,” the standing committee said in an explanation. “We are working towards that goal, but it is a lengthy process involving the primates, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Anglican Consultative Council.”
The standing committee also says it is important for the diocese to remain within ACNA, in order to “support and encourage an authentic Anglican witness in North America.”
Another resolution urges the diocese to adopt the Ridley Cambridge draft of the Anglican Communion’s proposed covenant. A third resolution would inform Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America that the diocese shares his vision to “live, to actualize, and to participate in the full integrity of the Catholic Church—the full integrity of Orthodox Catholicism.”
In other diocesan news, the reconstituted Diocese of Pittsburgh will consider a resolution that authorizes a study of reuniting that diocese with the Diocese of Northwestern Pennsylvania. Northwestern Pennsylvania has not planned a study of its own, although the Pittsburgh resolution would invite participation by that Northwestern Pennsylvania's bishop, the Rt. Rev. Sean Rowe, and other diocesan leaders.
The reunion study is one of 20 resolutions presented for Pittsburgh's diocesan convention, which is scheduled for Oct. 16 and 17 at Trinity Cathedral. Another resolution encourages congregations to submit their responses to the draft covenant “as a preliminary to a response by the diocese.” Fifteen more resolutions would offer the first of two necessary votes to reverse constitutional changes that were made as previous diocesan conventions prepared to separate the diocese from the Episcopal Church.
Posted on: September 28, 2009
A member diocese of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) will consider a resolution that maintains the diocese’s ties with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone.
The resolution is being proposed by the Diocese of Fort Worth’s standing committee. The diocese’s convention will meet on Nov. 6 and 7 in Arlington, Texas. The resolution commits the diocese to continued participation in the ACNA, but also “maintains its status as a member diocese in the Province of the Southern Cone while the formal process of recognition of [ACNA] continues in the Anglican Communion.”
“At this point, the Anglican Church in North America is not yet fully recognized as a province of the Anglican Communion,” the standing committee said in an explanation. “We are working towards that goal, but it is a lengthy process involving the primates, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Anglican Consultative Council.”
The standing committee also says it is important for the diocese to remain within ACNA, in order to “support and encourage an authentic Anglican witness in North America.”
Another resolution urges the diocese to adopt the Ridley Cambridge draft of the Anglican Communion’s proposed covenant. A third resolution would inform Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America that the diocese shares his vision to “live, to actualize, and to participate in the full integrity of the Catholic Church—the full integrity of Orthodox Catholicism.”
In other diocesan news, the reconstituted Diocese of Pittsburgh will consider a resolution that authorizes a study of reuniting that diocese with the Diocese of Northwestern Pennsylvania. Northwestern Pennsylvania has not planned a study of its own, although the Pittsburgh resolution would invite participation by that Northwestern Pennsylvania's bishop, the Rt. Rev. Sean Rowe, and other diocesan leaders.
The reunion study is one of 20 resolutions presented for Pittsburgh's diocesan convention, which is scheduled for Oct. 16 and 17 at Trinity Cathedral. Another resolution encourages congregations to submit their responses to the draft covenant “as a preliminary to a response by the diocese.” Fifteen more resolutions would offer the first of two necessary votes to reverse constitutional changes that were made as previous diocesan conventions prepared to separate the diocese from the Episcopal Church.
Where Have All the Christians Gone?
Via VirtueOnline:
by Bruce Feiler
http://opinion.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=17321&content=21812281&pageNum=-1
Sept. 25, 2009
Christianity is plummeting in America, while the number of non-believers is skyrocketing.
A shocking new study of Americans' religious beliefs shows the beginnings of a major realignment in Americans' relationship with God. The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reveals that Protestants now represent half of all Americans, down almost 20 percent in the last twenty years. In the coming months, America will become a minority Protestant nation for the first time since the pilgrims.
The number of people who claim no religious affiliation, meanwhile, has doubled since 1990 to fifteen percent, its highest point in history. Non-believers now represent the third-highest group of Americans, after Catholics and Baptists.
Other headlines:
1) The number of Christians has declined 12% since 1990, and is now 76%, the lowest percentage in American history.
2) The growth of non-believers has come largely from men. Twenty percent of men express no religious affiliation; 12% of women.
3) Young people are fleeing faith. Nearly a quarter of Americans in their 20's profess no organized religion.
4) But these non-believers are not particularly atheist. That number hasn't budged and stands at less than 1 percent. (Agnostics are similarly less than 1 percent.) Instead, these individuals have a belief in God but no interest in organized religion, or they believe in a personal God but not in a formal faith tradition.
The implications for American society are profound. Americans' relationship with God, which drove many of the country's great transformations from the pilgrims to the founding fathers, the Civil War to the civil rights movement, is still intact. Eighty-two percent of Americans believe in God or a higher power.
But at the same time, the study offers yet another wake-up call for religious institutions.
First, catering to older believers is a recipe for failure; younger Americans are tuning out.
Second, Americans are interested in God, but they don't think existing institutions are helping them draw closer to God.
Finally, Americans' interest in religion has not always been stable. It dipped following the Revolution and again following Civil War. In both cases it rebounded because religious institutions adapted and found new ways of relating to everyday Americans.
Today, the rise of disaffection is so powerful that different denominations needs to band together to find a shared language of God that can move beyond the fading divisions of the past and begin moving toward a partnership of different-but-equal traditions.
Or risk becoming Europe, where religion is fast becoming an afterthought.
----Bruce Feiler is bestselling author of eight books, including "Walking the Bible" and "Abraham," and the host of the PBS series on "Walking the Bible." A frequent commentator on National Public Radio, CNN and FOX News. His latest book "America's Prophet: Moses and the American Story" will be published in October.
by Bruce Feiler
http://opinion.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=17321&content=21812281&pageNum=-1
Sept. 25, 2009
Christianity is plummeting in America, while the number of non-believers is skyrocketing.
A shocking new study of Americans' religious beliefs shows the beginnings of a major realignment in Americans' relationship with God. The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reveals that Protestants now represent half of all Americans, down almost 20 percent in the last twenty years. In the coming months, America will become a minority Protestant nation for the first time since the pilgrims.
The number of people who claim no religious affiliation, meanwhile, has doubled since 1990 to fifteen percent, its highest point in history. Non-believers now represent the third-highest group of Americans, after Catholics and Baptists.
Other headlines:
1) The number of Christians has declined 12% since 1990, and is now 76%, the lowest percentage in American history.
2) The growth of non-believers has come largely from men. Twenty percent of men express no religious affiliation; 12% of women.
3) Young people are fleeing faith. Nearly a quarter of Americans in their 20's profess no organized religion.
4) But these non-believers are not particularly atheist. That number hasn't budged and stands at less than 1 percent. (Agnostics are similarly less than 1 percent.) Instead, these individuals have a belief in God but no interest in organized religion, or they believe in a personal God but not in a formal faith tradition.
The implications for American society are profound. Americans' relationship with God, which drove many of the country's great transformations from the pilgrims to the founding fathers, the Civil War to the civil rights movement, is still intact. Eighty-two percent of Americans believe in God or a higher power.
But at the same time, the study offers yet another wake-up call for religious institutions.
First, catering to older believers is a recipe for failure; younger Americans are tuning out.
Second, Americans are interested in God, but they don't think existing institutions are helping them draw closer to God.
Finally, Americans' interest in religion has not always been stable. It dipped following the Revolution and again following Civil War. In both cases it rebounded because religious institutions adapted and found new ways of relating to everyday Americans.
Today, the rise of disaffection is so powerful that different denominations needs to band together to find a shared language of God that can move beyond the fading divisions of the past and begin moving toward a partnership of different-but-equal traditions.
Or risk becoming Europe, where religion is fast becoming an afterthought.
----Bruce Feiler is bestselling author of eight books, including "Walking the Bible" and "Abraham," and the host of the PBS series on "Walking the Bible." A frequent commentator on National Public Radio, CNN and FOX News. His latest book "America's Prophet: Moses and the American Story" will be published in October.
Crossing the Rubicon
This blog essay undercuts Bishop Adams assessment of GC09 that nothing has changed in pecusa. Of course, so do the statements from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Integrity, etc... ed.
From the Episcopal Majority via Stand Firm:
Posted by Em
I’m out of hibernation because of two significant resolutions passed by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church on same-sex blessings and the ordination of non-celibate gays.
The real Episcopal majority ought to take notice, not just because General Convention has given the green light for non-celibate gay priests and bishops and for blessings of gay unions, but because this was done facing down the clear majority of the Anglican world.
The title above taps a powerful, if well-used, analogy. When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River at the head of an army, there was no turning back. It would now be conquer the capitol or burn it down or die trying. Observers from all sides at General Convention reported that the Bishops and Deputies (voting delegates made up of clergy and laity) understood that this was a Rubicon moment for gay issues. It is clear to all that there will be no going back.
Leaders at opposite ends of the spectrum (and those in the middle) interpret the resolutions differently. Read the words carefully and decide for yourself. Following are extracts of the exact words of the crucial paragraphs (in italics) with connectors in [brackets]. The form is altered to bullet-points with underlines added for important points. My commentary is in regular print.
Resolution D025 Title: “Anglican Communion: Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion”
Read the whole text.
The title of the resolution dodges the subject of the resolution—the ordination of partnered gays to all ministries of the church—but does show an awareness that the resolution has implications for the Anglican Communion. Notice the word “witness.” The Episcopal Church (TEC hereafter) leadership sees it as a gospel mission to spread the belief contained in the resolution. Read on.
>General Convention … acknowledge[s] that … the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships characterized by fidelity, monogamy… and …holy love….
After stating the reality that same-sex couples are members in good standing in this church, a foundational assertion is made that such relationships which have the qualities of fidelity and monogamy are also “holy.” Everything else in these two resolutions flows from that assertion. It is one thing for us as individuals to make an evaluation that gay unions demonstrate love; it is another thing for the church to declare that such unions are holy. “Holy”—applied to humans in the Bible and in Christian teaching—means “set apart by God and for God.” If this is the case for many gay unions, then who can stand in the way of ordination to all the ministries of the church or of liturgical blessings on these unions? In fact, the second resolution is the logical follow-up to this one.
>General Convention recognize[s] that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God’s call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst
Everyone will agree that there are many partnered gays in various ministries in TEC. But, this part of the resolution adds a crucial step: It says God has called such persons into these ministries. This “ups the stakes” from a simple assertion of fact by pronouncing that this is a work of God. General Convention could have restrained itself at this point; instead, it made a self-conscious declaration on behalf of God.
>General Convention affirm[s] that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church
Divide this compound sentence into two assertions. The first is that “God has called … such individuals” to all the ordained ministries of this church. This repetition of the previous strong assertion about God doing this confirms the purposefulness of the strong majority at General Convention to speak for God. Note that the only open example of such individuals in the office of bishop is the Bishop of New Hampshire. This part of the resolution declares officially, possibly for the first time. that the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson was the positive will of God.
The second part of the compound sentence is the prophetic prediction: “God…may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church.” Here’s the practical point. If it is God calling to this, how can anyone stand in the way? This is the greenest of green lights for the next consecration of a non-celibate gay bishop. The cover story of Episcopal Life (August 2009), written by the Editor, states: “…convention unambiguously stated that gay and lesbian people may be called to ordination at all levels.” Note that Episcopal Life is the official news organ of TEC. One very clear headline about these matters was altered at the insistence of the Presiding Bishop.
It is certain that more non-celibate gays will be made bishops. The Diocese of Minnesota has nominated a partnered lesbian for their next bishop. Los Angeles is considering two partnered gays for Suffragan Bishop.
Resolution C056 Title: Liturgies for Blessings
Read the whole text.
Remember this title throughout this commentary. Those seeking to keep the real meaning of this resolution under the radar of the Anglican Communion may have slipped here. While the resolution avoids the word “blessings,” it is highlighted in the title.
>Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music… collect and develop theological and liturgical resources, and report to the 77th [the next] General Convention
The opening resolve listed the various civil arrangements for same-sex marriage, civil unions, and other partnerships. Everyone understands at some level that this part of the resolution is a directive to develop liturgies that would work in various civil situations and in states with no such provisions. No one expects the next General Convention to reverse this movement toward liturgies. Episcopal Life reports that Convention “…authorized the church to collect and develop resources for blessing same-gender couples” (front page). Another article in the same paper, but a staff writer, puts it this way: Convention authorized “…developing resources that could be used for blessing same-gender relationships” (page 2)
>Bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church
Please note that this part of the resolution covers all bishops and particularly those detailed. And again, everyone understands that “generous pastoral response” includes sacramental blessings of various kinds. “May provide” is nothing other than clear permission. Any bishop who wishes to move forward with blessings, in whatever form, is now free to do so. This is the authorization.
SUMMARY: Virtually everyone recognizes that these resolutions open the way for additional non-celibate gay bishops and for widespread expansion of blessings for same-sex unions.
The resolutions are also a rejection of the personal appeal of the Archbishop of Canterbury to General Convention and of previous appeals by the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Presiding Bishop has tried to soften the meaning of the resolutions, but Episcopal Life is clear that D025 on ordination was proposed as “addressing Resolution [2006] B033” (Page 2—“Openness of Ordination).
Much has been made of these resolutions being descriptive, not prescriptive. Fine. They describe that the Episcopal Church has now officially affirmed (and no one thinks they will go back on this) that same-sex blessings are a matter of fidelity to the gospel and that people in same-sex relations have every right to be considered for ministry as priests and bishops. Furthermore, these both passed in each order with a super-majority (more than 66%). Roberts’Rules—the bible of parliamentary procedure—teaches that this is a definitive statement of the will of a deliberative assembly.
We at Episcopal Majority do not quibble with this. The strong majority in General Convention have spoken. The Episcopal Church has crossed the Rubicon; it will not go back.
We do wonder, though, about the majority of Episcopalians in the pews. We expect to see that many of them will quietly slip away to other churches. We worry for the souls of those who simply try to adapt to the new regime. We pray for those who keep trying to live out classic Christian faith and practice.
From the Episcopal Majority via Stand Firm:
Posted by Em
I’m out of hibernation because of two significant resolutions passed by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church on same-sex blessings and the ordination of non-celibate gays.
The real Episcopal majority ought to take notice, not just because General Convention has given the green light for non-celibate gay priests and bishops and for blessings of gay unions, but because this was done facing down the clear majority of the Anglican world.
The title above taps a powerful, if well-used, analogy. When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River at the head of an army, there was no turning back. It would now be conquer the capitol or burn it down or die trying. Observers from all sides at General Convention reported that the Bishops and Deputies (voting delegates made up of clergy and laity) understood that this was a Rubicon moment for gay issues. It is clear to all that there will be no going back.
Leaders at opposite ends of the spectrum (and those in the middle) interpret the resolutions differently. Read the words carefully and decide for yourself. Following are extracts of the exact words of the crucial paragraphs (in italics) with connectors in [brackets]. The form is altered to bullet-points with underlines added for important points. My commentary is in regular print.
Resolution D025 Title: “Anglican Communion: Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion”
Read the whole text.
The title of the resolution dodges the subject of the resolution—the ordination of partnered gays to all ministries of the church—but does show an awareness that the resolution has implications for the Anglican Communion. Notice the word “witness.” The Episcopal Church (TEC hereafter) leadership sees it as a gospel mission to spread the belief contained in the resolution. Read on.
>General Convention … acknowledge[s] that … the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships characterized by fidelity, monogamy… and …holy love….
After stating the reality that same-sex couples are members in good standing in this church, a foundational assertion is made that such relationships which have the qualities of fidelity and monogamy are also “holy.” Everything else in these two resolutions flows from that assertion. It is one thing for us as individuals to make an evaluation that gay unions demonstrate love; it is another thing for the church to declare that such unions are holy. “Holy”—applied to humans in the Bible and in Christian teaching—means “set apart by God and for God.” If this is the case for many gay unions, then who can stand in the way of ordination to all the ministries of the church or of liturgical blessings on these unions? In fact, the second resolution is the logical follow-up to this one.
>General Convention recognize[s] that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God’s call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst
Everyone will agree that there are many partnered gays in various ministries in TEC. But, this part of the resolution adds a crucial step: It says God has called such persons into these ministries. This “ups the stakes” from a simple assertion of fact by pronouncing that this is a work of God. General Convention could have restrained itself at this point; instead, it made a self-conscious declaration on behalf of God.
>General Convention affirm[s] that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church
Divide this compound sentence into two assertions. The first is that “God has called … such individuals” to all the ordained ministries of this church. This repetition of the previous strong assertion about God doing this confirms the purposefulness of the strong majority at General Convention to speak for God. Note that the only open example of such individuals in the office of bishop is the Bishop of New Hampshire. This part of the resolution declares officially, possibly for the first time. that the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson was the positive will of God.
The second part of the compound sentence is the prophetic prediction: “God…may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church.” Here’s the practical point. If it is God calling to this, how can anyone stand in the way? This is the greenest of green lights for the next consecration of a non-celibate gay bishop. The cover story of Episcopal Life (August 2009), written by the Editor, states: “…convention unambiguously stated that gay and lesbian people may be called to ordination at all levels.” Note that Episcopal Life is the official news organ of TEC. One very clear headline about these matters was altered at the insistence of the Presiding Bishop.
It is certain that more non-celibate gays will be made bishops. The Diocese of Minnesota has nominated a partnered lesbian for their next bishop. Los Angeles is considering two partnered gays for Suffragan Bishop.
Resolution C056 Title: Liturgies for Blessings
Read the whole text.
Remember this title throughout this commentary. Those seeking to keep the real meaning of this resolution under the radar of the Anglican Communion may have slipped here. While the resolution avoids the word “blessings,” it is highlighted in the title.
>Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music… collect and develop theological and liturgical resources, and report to the 77th [the next] General Convention
The opening resolve listed the various civil arrangements for same-sex marriage, civil unions, and other partnerships. Everyone understands at some level that this part of the resolution is a directive to develop liturgies that would work in various civil situations and in states with no such provisions. No one expects the next General Convention to reverse this movement toward liturgies. Episcopal Life reports that Convention “…authorized the church to collect and develop resources for blessing same-gender couples” (front page). Another article in the same paper, but a staff writer, puts it this way: Convention authorized “…developing resources that could be used for blessing same-gender relationships” (page 2)
>Bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church
Please note that this part of the resolution covers all bishops and particularly those detailed. And again, everyone understands that “generous pastoral response” includes sacramental blessings of various kinds. “May provide” is nothing other than clear permission. Any bishop who wishes to move forward with blessings, in whatever form, is now free to do so. This is the authorization.
SUMMARY: Virtually everyone recognizes that these resolutions open the way for additional non-celibate gay bishops and for widespread expansion of blessings for same-sex unions.
The resolutions are also a rejection of the personal appeal of the Archbishop of Canterbury to General Convention and of previous appeals by the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Presiding Bishop has tried to soften the meaning of the resolutions, but Episcopal Life is clear that D025 on ordination was proposed as “addressing Resolution [2006] B033” (Page 2—“Openness of Ordination).
Much has been made of these resolutions being descriptive, not prescriptive. Fine. They describe that the Episcopal Church has now officially affirmed (and no one thinks they will go back on this) that same-sex blessings are a matter of fidelity to the gospel and that people in same-sex relations have every right to be considered for ministry as priests and bishops. Furthermore, these both passed in each order with a super-majority (more than 66%). Roberts’Rules—the bible of parliamentary procedure—teaches that this is a definitive statement of the will of a deliberative assembly.
We at Episcopal Majority do not quibble with this. The strong majority in General Convention have spoken. The Episcopal Church has crossed the Rubicon; it will not go back.
We do wonder, though, about the majority of Episcopalians in the pews. We expect to see that many of them will quietly slip away to other churches. We worry for the souls of those who simply try to adapt to the new regime. We pray for those who keep trying to live out classic Christian faith and practice.
Monday, September 28, 2009
THE GREAT ANGLICAN REALIGNMENT
COMMENTARY
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
Sept 24, 2009
The time is fast approaching, and might well be upon us, when we who are faithful to the gospel and Holy Scripture will thank Bishop V. Gene Robinson for what he has achieved.
No bishop, priest or lay person has galvanized a church more in six years than this one man. As a practicing homosexual and a bishop he has brought clarity like no other person. It has been a singular and remarkable achievement, recognized not just by Episcopalians and Anglicans around the world, but by other denominations of various liberal stripes. A sitting president of the United States included Robinson in inauguration ceremonies.
The homo-genital bishop of New Hampshire has brought clarity to the world stage of Anglicanism that is breath taking in its breadth and magnitude.
He has been so successful that he has, almost single-handedly, divided the Anglican Communion. He has forced the Archbishop of Canterbury into a corner from which there seems little way out except to offer a "two-track" solution that might, at the end of the day, be no solution at all. The Windsor Report is dead. A Covenant seems less likely as the months pass with few agreeing on its content. Any attempts at discipline of the errant bishop and his denomination are met with ridicule and scorn.
It is any wonder that the pansexual organization Integrity ran up the flag declaring General Convention 2009 a victory for all things sexual? "Integrity Celebrates Virtual Clean Sweep on GC2009 Legislative Agenda" http://tinyurl.com/m72qma Heterosexual sex within the confines of marriage between a man and a woman is officially dead or at least just one option among many. The new sexual order is lesbi/gay, bi-sexual and transgender.
The Episcopal Church is now officially the "Gay Church" of America and we have Gene Robinson to thank for this. While there have been other notable homosexuals in secular literature and politics, and not a few Episcopal bishops, priests and laity, it took "courage" for Robinson to out himself and make it all official.
He has enshrined narcissism as acceptable, whining in public lectures and books while daring anyone to defy him on his personal behavior. He has caused bishops and prelates to cower before him groveling in mortification at their failure to behold his superior sexuality. Mea culpa, mea culpa mea maxima culpa.
He has gone where no bishop has gone before and he has done it with the surety that he will, in the end, win the culture wars.
His was not a Calvary Road, however, only the faux crucifixion on the Phallic Cross of his own desires wrapped tightly in the condoms of prevention.
There are no nail-pierced hands or "riven side flowing with blood" on which to gaze in awe causing sinners to sink to their knees in adoration, confession and repentance. The new sexual cross of personal fulfillment will have none of it.
We must all now bow before Robinson who has brought sexual enlightenment to the masses, especially Episcopalians, defying 7000 years of Scripture, theology and history. Fiat Lux.
And so the Great Realignment has begun, thanks to Bishop Robinson.
Who would have thought that a 'mere bishop' from Pittsburgh could galvanize 28 ecclesiastical jurisdictions and 100,000 Anglican souls, more bent on arguing with each other over such weighty issues as women's ordination, sacramental theology and more, into forming a new province in the Anglican Communion? Such a thing, should you have mentioned it in 2003, would have seen you laughed out of court. (The St. Louis Convention brought about 58 Anglican subdivisions). Not this time. Robinson has made the impossible, possible.
It is not just the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) that is now a reality. We have GAFCON and the growing Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans spreading like wild fire across the globe defying the old order, holding conventions, and declaring the faith and true Anglican Way.
None of this would have happened without Gene Robinson. He has been the catalyst for change. This sort of action has not been seen since Henry VIII divorced his wife, married a strumpet and then beheaded her.
In the end we will thank Robinson in much the same way we thank the Borgia Popes for giving us Martin Luther who brought the Reformation gospel of God's free grace to us all. It is clear that the Protestant movement was not simply the result of (only) Leo X. Its roots can be found in the extreme corruption, violence and perversion of faith in the Borgia period.
So too with Robinson. Sexual liberation has brought about a swath of death and destruction in the lives of millions of Americans dating back from the Sixties.
No matter, Robinson has legitimized it all, bringing "freedom" and "hope" to persons caught in the downward spiral of self-loathing and hatred. With drugs, death may now be delayed indefinitely.
Robinson has "won" and so the Grand Realignment of the Anglican Communion has started.
Thank you Bishop Robinson.
END
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
Sept 24, 2009
The time is fast approaching, and might well be upon us, when we who are faithful to the gospel and Holy Scripture will thank Bishop V. Gene Robinson for what he has achieved.
No bishop, priest or lay person has galvanized a church more in six years than this one man. As a practicing homosexual and a bishop he has brought clarity like no other person. It has been a singular and remarkable achievement, recognized not just by Episcopalians and Anglicans around the world, but by other denominations of various liberal stripes. A sitting president of the United States included Robinson in inauguration ceremonies.
The homo-genital bishop of New Hampshire has brought clarity to the world stage of Anglicanism that is breath taking in its breadth and magnitude.
He has been so successful that he has, almost single-handedly, divided the Anglican Communion. He has forced the Archbishop of Canterbury into a corner from which there seems little way out except to offer a "two-track" solution that might, at the end of the day, be no solution at all. The Windsor Report is dead. A Covenant seems less likely as the months pass with few agreeing on its content. Any attempts at discipline of the errant bishop and his denomination are met with ridicule and scorn.
It is any wonder that the pansexual organization Integrity ran up the flag declaring General Convention 2009 a victory for all things sexual? "Integrity Celebrates Virtual Clean Sweep on GC2009 Legislative Agenda" http://tinyurl.com/m72qma Heterosexual sex within the confines of marriage between a man and a woman is officially dead or at least just one option among many. The new sexual order is lesbi/gay, bi-sexual and transgender.
The Episcopal Church is now officially the "Gay Church" of America and we have Gene Robinson to thank for this. While there have been other notable homosexuals in secular literature and politics, and not a few Episcopal bishops, priests and laity, it took "courage" for Robinson to out himself and make it all official.
He has enshrined narcissism as acceptable, whining in public lectures and books while daring anyone to defy him on his personal behavior. He has caused bishops and prelates to cower before him groveling in mortification at their failure to behold his superior sexuality. Mea culpa, mea culpa mea maxima culpa.
He has gone where no bishop has gone before and he has done it with the surety that he will, in the end, win the culture wars.
His was not a Calvary Road, however, only the faux crucifixion on the Phallic Cross of his own desires wrapped tightly in the condoms of prevention.
There are no nail-pierced hands or "riven side flowing with blood" on which to gaze in awe causing sinners to sink to their knees in adoration, confession and repentance. The new sexual cross of personal fulfillment will have none of it.
We must all now bow before Robinson who has brought sexual enlightenment to the masses, especially Episcopalians, defying 7000 years of Scripture, theology and history. Fiat Lux.
And so the Great Realignment has begun, thanks to Bishop Robinson.
Who would have thought that a 'mere bishop' from Pittsburgh could galvanize 28 ecclesiastical jurisdictions and 100,000 Anglican souls, more bent on arguing with each other over such weighty issues as women's ordination, sacramental theology and more, into forming a new province in the Anglican Communion? Such a thing, should you have mentioned it in 2003, would have seen you laughed out of court. (The St. Louis Convention brought about 58 Anglican subdivisions). Not this time. Robinson has made the impossible, possible.
It is not just the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) that is now a reality. We have GAFCON and the growing Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans spreading like wild fire across the globe defying the old order, holding conventions, and declaring the faith and true Anglican Way.
None of this would have happened without Gene Robinson. He has been the catalyst for change. This sort of action has not been seen since Henry VIII divorced his wife, married a strumpet and then beheaded her.
In the end we will thank Robinson in much the same way we thank the Borgia Popes for giving us Martin Luther who brought the Reformation gospel of God's free grace to us all. It is clear that the Protestant movement was not simply the result of (only) Leo X. Its roots can be found in the extreme corruption, violence and perversion of faith in the Borgia period.
So too with Robinson. Sexual liberation has brought about a swath of death and destruction in the lives of millions of Americans dating back from the Sixties.
No matter, Robinson has legitimized it all, bringing "freedom" and "hope" to persons caught in the downward spiral of self-loathing and hatred. With drugs, death may now be delayed indefinitely.
Robinson has "won" and so the Grand Realignment of the Anglican Communion has started.
Thank you Bishop Robinson.
END
Time for Logic in Fort Worth
Via VirtueOnline:
By A.S. Haley
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/09/time-for-logic-in-fort-worth.html
September 23, 2009
With the full transcripts posted of both sessions of the hearing held in Fort Worth on the defendants' motion under Rule 12 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, now it becomes possible to see more clearly where this case is headed. The defendants in the case, Bishop Iker's Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and the six trustees (including Bishop Iker) of the Corporation which holds the property of that Diocese, had brought the motion to disqualify the plaintiffs' attorneys from claiming to appear in court on behalf of that same Diocese and Corporation.
First, the condensed version of the proceedings to date. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit call themselves "The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth", "The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth", and -- of course -- "The Episcopal Church." They filed an original petition, and then amended it after Bishop Iker responded with a motion to dismiss it.
On the same day they filed the amended petition, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a "partial summary judgment" -- meaning they wanted the court to enter judgment in their favor on the first part of their petition without holding a trial. (Documents making up the motion are linked at this page.) The date set to hear the motion is October 15.
Before that date, however, the defendants brought two motions (linked at this page): the motion under Rule 12 challenging the authority of the plaintiffs and their counsel to file suit on behalf of the entities they claim to be and to represent; and a motion to bring in as third-party defendants (i.e., defendants to an additional petition to be filed by the original defendants) Bishop Gulick and the other five persons claiming to have been elected as "Trustees" of the Diocesan Corporation at a special convention held on February 7 of this year. The plaintiffs responded with a request to postpone the hearing on the second motion until after the hearing on their motion for a partial summary judgment. The hearing on the Rule 12 motion, however, began on September 9, and after the court ran out of time, the hearing resumed again on September 16.
From the very outset of the hearing on September 9, the court appeared to have grasped the larger picture -- that Bishop Iker's diocese had voted to leave the Episcopal Church (USA) the previous November, that the people filing the current lawsuit were the minority who had not agreed to leave, and that the main dispute was all about who owned the Diocese's property:
THE COURT: Okay. And I don't mind doing that. I mean, I've read through that. Even if we grant it [the motion to postpone the hearing], we may still stay here and talk for a while just to figure out what's going on. Is the basis of this the piece of property? I mean, in general, are we talking about whether or not the property goes back to the main --
MR. NELSON: Your Honor, it involves Diocesan property, it involves the use of the seal, it involves holding oneself out as being the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese, those kinds of things that are taken up in the declaratory judgment part of the petition.
THE COURT: Because if 30,000 people want to leave a church, I mean, they can, and they can go somewhere else and start their own church. I don't think that that's the problem. The problem is whether they get to keep the property, and whether or not they get to keep the seal and -- okay; is that basically what we're talking about?
MR. NELSON: Yes, Your Honor.
We see right away from this exchange the slanted view of the big picture which Mr. Nelson, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, is trying to sell to the Court: that the plaintiffs have a claim to the property of the Diocese, because it is Bishop Iker who is "holding [him]self out as being the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese . . .". This, of course, is untrue, and just leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion later. The one thing Bishop Iker is not doing is "holding himself out as the Bishop" of a Diocese within the Episcopal Church (USA). He merely says he remains the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, and that is not the same thing (although the plaintiffs want to claim it is).
"Episcopal" simply means "of or pertaining to a bishop." It is not a trademark of the Episcopal Church (USA), as may be seen from a glance at a list of the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion. There are eight other provinces with that word in their title, including the Scottish Episcopal Church, from which the American Church took its name. The fact that the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth left the Episcopal Church (USA) in no way required it to drop the word "Episcopal" from its name. ECUSA's insistence that it has to shows, in fact, the category confusion that is rampant at 815, in its promotion of the name "The Episcopal Church", or "TEC". 815 would like everyone to believe there is only one "Episcopal Church, and that they are it. (That is why I refuse to use that name or acronym to describe them on this Weblog.) In doing so, ECUSA has forgotten the very meaning of the word "Episcopal" -- even if, for the moment, it is about the most bishop-driven Protestant church I know.
The problem, in fact, has not been created by Bishop Iker. All his Diocese did was meet in an Annual Convention which he (as Bishop) had duly called in November 2008, with a full quorum of both laity and clergy present, and vote overwhelmingly in both orders to adopt on second reading amendments which removed the language by which the Diocese acceded to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church (USA). As Judge Chupp made clear several times in the course of the hearing, they acted perfectly within their powers under Texas law when they did so (09/09/09, pp. 60-61):
THE COURT: Yeah, but, I mean, you're still talking about a body that voted to do something, and they voted something that you didn't like. And what I've got to figure out is, I guess, did they have the -- obviously, they have the authority to do that. They can vote and do what they want to do, that group of people. I -- well, I say that, I don't see where it says they can't.
Counsel for Bishop Gulick tried virtually every trick in the book to get the Judge to see things his way. First he overstated the law, and misrepresented what "courts" had decided (id. at 51):
MR. NELSON: And you're absolutely right, there isn't anything in there that says that specifically, nevertheless, the Courts have held that they cannot leave.
In actual fact, of course no appellate court of record anywhere has held that a Diocese may not leave ECUSA. When the Judge asked Mr. Nelson to see the "cases" decided by "the courts" to that effect, all Mr. Nelson could point him to was the interim ruling by the trial court in the San Joaquin litigation. (Trial courts are not published courts of record -- meaning that their rulings and decisions are not collected and published anywhere for other courts to read and follow. Citing to the ruling of a trial court -- and not a final one, but an interim one at that -- is about as useful as citing to your grandpa. And in California, attorneys are actually forbidden by Court rule from citing to unpublished and unpublishable decisions.)
Next, Mr. Nelson told the Court another whopper, and claimed that the Bishop Iker's Diocese could not keep its property when it voted to leave, because of the Dennis Canon (id. at 52):
THE COURT: But they [the Episcopal Church] claim that they own-do they really claim that they own the property, or does the diocese own the property?
MR. NELSON: It depends on what property we're talking about. Some property is held by the diocese and some is held by the corporation.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, either way, do they-the group on top, the Province, the Episcopal Church Province, do they claim they own any of the property?
MR. NELSON: Yes, under the Dennis Canon, which is 1.7.4, there is a trust provision that imposes a trust on property for the use and benefit of the-the wording is the Episcopal Church and a Diocese thereof; that is, of the Episcopal Church.
Now here is the actual language of the Dennis Canon:
All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. . . .
The Dennis Canon has no language that would apply to any property owned by a Diocese, but Mr. Nelson tried to claim that it would allow his group to take over Bishop Iker's diocesan bank accounts. The Judge could see that the fight was all about property, and that he did not have to resolve the ownership issue just yet. The Rule 12 motion challenged only the authority of the persons who hired the plaintiffs' attorneys -- whether they had the authority to represent the Diocese and the Corporation which they claimed to represent.
The Court was also troubled by the illogic of Mr. Nelson's argument that the vote to leave was ultra vires (beyond the Convention's powers, and hence void), but that by virtue of the Convention's holding the vote, the elected Trustees of the Corporation had automatically lost their seats on the Corporation (id. at 67-68):
THE COURT: Here's what I want y'all to do. I want y'all to write something to me, and I want you to write something to me saying that the convention in November didn't have the authority to vote. And what ultra vires means is they did something that's outside what they can do, I mean, whether it's illegal activity or anything like that. And you don't have to give me the whole booklet of canons, just cut and paste them, and show me where it says they don't have the authority to do that. And if they don't have the authority to do that, then what they did is probably -- could be void, and at that point in time they would have the authority to be here, because the board would be the board.
Well, in actuality, if -- here's the problem I think y'all have, too, though, if the board was voted on, regardless of the actions that they did, aren't they the ones that still have to hire you?
MR. NELSON: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Because if their actions become void, then they're still the board.
MR. NELSON: No.
THE COURT: Sure they are. They were voted on to be the board. That -- you're not going to tell me that them becoming board members is somehow void, are you?
MR. NELSON: That's exactly right. What I'm saying is in November of 2006, when they voted to align, everyone who was on those boards is gone, because they are no longer loyal Episcopalians.
"November 2006" may have been a slip of the tongue (the Convention actually passed the amendment in November 2008). But the argument that votes by elected deputies to a Diocesan Convention could automatically unseat the elected Trustees of a Board (who were not shown to have been deputies, or to have voted any particular way) struck the Judge as particularly bizarre, and inconsistent with the way such things work. Bodies who do things which are ultra vires and void accomplish nothing. If the vote to leave was null and void, then the Diocese did not leave, and then the elected Board members remain in their positions until their normal terms expire -- so the "Trustees" who were elected in February 2009, and who hired Mr. Nelson to file suit, did not have any authority:
THE COURT: Well, then you don't have the authority.
MR. NELSON: No, we had a special convention.
THE COURT: I don't think you have the authority if you're going to say that, I don't, because the problem I think you have is the Fort Worth Diocese voted, and they made a vote, and you're claiming their vote is void. And then, if you want to claim their vote is void, then they're still the board, because they didn't leave, right? I mean, what -- because the -- they voted -- you're saying two things. You're saying that they didn't have the right to leave, okay, and that should be void based on this case, right? And so if they didn't leave, then the board that was in place in November is still the board, because they would have been the board then, and your meeting wouldn't have been inclusive of them.
MS. WELLS: They're gone.
MR. NELSON: Their act --
THE COURT: They're not gone. If it's void, they're not gone, right? I mean, if that action is void, then your church is -- or the Diocese is still part of the Episcopal Church Province, isn't that -- that's what this case says, is that the Fort Worth Diocese is still part of the Province, the Episcopal Church Province. If I follow this case, that's what that would say. And, therefore, the board, which is the Fort Worth Diocese board is still the same board, except y'all went in and elected a different one at a special meeting, which I think is void, then.
The Judge was telling counsel he can't have it both ways: either the vote was invalid and the Diocese did not leave, in which case the Trustees would have had to resign their positions for their seats to become vacant; or the vote was valid, and the Diocese went to the Southern Cone Province -- along with its Corporation. In either case, the plaintiffs' attorneys could not have been hired by anyone with authority for the Diocese or for the Corporation. The Judge's logic was impeccable.
And this is the fatal flaw that lies at the heart of ECUSA's "winner-take-all" strategy. It tries to argue that a Diocese may never vote to leave, and that the only result of such a vote is that people leave, but the structure remains intact. But the people in question do not conveniently resign their positions, because in their view, they are leaving and taking the entire diocesan legal structure with them. So in their view, they are keeping their positions. Thus ECUSA has to come up with a way of claiming that those positions are in fact vacant. It goes through the charade of "deposing" the Bishop with far less than the required number of votes, but that does not solve the problem. The clergy deputies who voted for the amendment cannot be summarily removed without deposing them as well -- a process that takes six months. And there is no mechanism whatsoever for summarily "deposing" or "removing" a lay deputy from office.
Without such resignations, and without any mechanism for removing lay Convention deputies, the very next "special meeting" of the Diocese which is called is null and void itself. For the duly elected deputies from the last Convention are the ones who should be seated, but they are barred from attending by the unconstitutional device of imposing a "loyalty oath". And there cannot be a legal (one-third) quorum of loyalist clergy, because nearly nine-tenths of them went with Bishop Iker.
The problem of ECUSA and its remnant "Diocese" is that they just will not follow their own procedures to organize and become legitimate in the eyes of the law. Mr. Nelson, Bishop Gulick's attorney, even (unwittingly) described his own clients to the court and spelled out what they ought to have done (id. at 57):
MR. NELSON: What I'm saying is that the body gets together, and then it must be approved by the general convention in order to be a valid diocese. It can get together and call itself a diocese, but until it's approved and until that diocese agrees to accede to the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church, it is not a diocese and cannot be a diocese.
Precisely, Mr. Nelson, precisely. Your clients are not a "diocese", and cannot be one until they have gone through the requirements to be approved, and admitted into union with General Convention.
It remains to be seen what the plaintiffs will now do, in light of the trial court's order barring them from representing the "Diocese or Corporation associated with Bishop Iker." Their motion for partial summary judgment (75-page .pdf download link at this page) is unequivocal that one of the plaintiffs seeking the partial summary judgment is the Diocesan Corporation that was formed in 1983 (from p. 20 of the motion):
In February 1983, the Diocesan Corporation, which is the corporate plaintiff in this action, was formed in accordance with these constitutional and canonical requirements.
There is, and can be, in fact only one Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that was formed under Texas law in 1983, and that is the Corporation currently associated with Bishop Iker. The court has already in effect recognized its existence in its Rule 12 Order, because it ordered
. . . that Jonathan D. F. Nelson and Kathleen Wells are barred from appearing in this suit as attorneys for The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that is associated with Bishop Iker.
The language in bold was written into the Order in the Judge's own hand, and thus there can be no mistake about what it means: the plaintiffs' attorneys are barred from representing the Corporation which they claim is seeking the partial summary judgment.
It would appear that the plaintiffs and their counsel are utterly blind to this problem. On their Web page appears the following "explanation" of the Judge's Rule 12 order (bold emphasis in text added):
What the legal language of the September 16 order means
What the legal language of the order (click here to read it and note that the hand-written portions of the order are in the judge's own hand) means is this: essentially the court refused to strike the pleadings i.e. it ruled that the reorganized Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and the Corporation had the right to continue to sue the defendants and establish our right to seek declarative judgment. The defendants lost on their main argument that we should not be able to sue the defendants because they are the rightful diocese. This was the main objective of former Bishop Iker's attorneys, and they did not achieve it. The court left that determination for a later hearing.
The order also barred our attorneys from appearing on this suit as attorneys for the entities associated with Jack Iker. Our attorneys have, of course, never asserted that.
As is clear in the order, no other rulings were made. The judge did make comments and he did ask questions, but he made no other rulings.
Balderdash and poppycock. If there is and can be only one Diocesan Corporation organized in 1983, and that Corporation is still in the control of Bishop Iker and his co-Trustees, as plaintiffs admit on page 32 of their motion, then how can the plaintiffs still pretend to represent it, and to seek relief in its name? And how can they say they never claimed to represent it before?
There is only one way out of this quandary for the plaintiffs. They are going to have to form a new corporation under Texas law, and call it whatever they want. But it will not be the same Corporation as the one incorporated in 1983. Nor, for the same reason, will the "Diocese" which will now have to re-convene and re-appoint new Trustees, be the same Diocese which formed and was admitted to General Convention in 1983. To become a Diocese of the Episcopal Church, that group will have to follow the procedures spelled out by their attorney, Mr. Nelson, in the quote I gave above. By 2012, they should have their house in order -- if they can first remove the scales from their eyes.
Note: the same home Web page of the Fort Worth group under Bishop Gulick reports that the defendants have filed a motion to continue the hearing on the motion for partial summary judgment. Judge Chupp has set the motion for a continuance for hearing on October 2. Look for him to grant the motion, if only on the ground that the attorneys who filed it, Mr. Nelson and Ms. Wells, are barred from arguing it, for the reasons set out above.
The force of logic is about to be felt in Fort Worth.
END
By A.S. Haley
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/09/time-for-logic-in-fort-worth.html
September 23, 2009
With the full transcripts posted of both sessions of the hearing held in Fort Worth on the defendants' motion under Rule 12 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, now it becomes possible to see more clearly where this case is headed. The defendants in the case, Bishop Iker's Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and the six trustees (including Bishop Iker) of the Corporation which holds the property of that Diocese, had brought the motion to disqualify the plaintiffs' attorneys from claiming to appear in court on behalf of that same Diocese and Corporation.
First, the condensed version of the proceedings to date. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit call themselves "The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth", "The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth", and -- of course -- "The Episcopal Church." They filed an original petition, and then amended it after Bishop Iker responded with a motion to dismiss it.
On the same day they filed the amended petition, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a "partial summary judgment" -- meaning they wanted the court to enter judgment in their favor on the first part of their petition without holding a trial. (Documents making up the motion are linked at this page.) The date set to hear the motion is October 15.
Before that date, however, the defendants brought two motions (linked at this page): the motion under Rule 12 challenging the authority of the plaintiffs and their counsel to file suit on behalf of the entities they claim to be and to represent; and a motion to bring in as third-party defendants (i.e., defendants to an additional petition to be filed by the original defendants) Bishop Gulick and the other five persons claiming to have been elected as "Trustees" of the Diocesan Corporation at a special convention held on February 7 of this year. The plaintiffs responded with a request to postpone the hearing on the second motion until after the hearing on their motion for a partial summary judgment. The hearing on the Rule 12 motion, however, began on September 9, and after the court ran out of time, the hearing resumed again on September 16.
From the very outset of the hearing on September 9, the court appeared to have grasped the larger picture -- that Bishop Iker's diocese had voted to leave the Episcopal Church (USA) the previous November, that the people filing the current lawsuit were the minority who had not agreed to leave, and that the main dispute was all about who owned the Diocese's property:
THE COURT: Okay. And I don't mind doing that. I mean, I've read through that. Even if we grant it [the motion to postpone the hearing], we may still stay here and talk for a while just to figure out what's going on. Is the basis of this the piece of property? I mean, in general, are we talking about whether or not the property goes back to the main --
MR. NELSON: Your Honor, it involves Diocesan property, it involves the use of the seal, it involves holding oneself out as being the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese, those kinds of things that are taken up in the declaratory judgment part of the petition.
THE COURT: Because if 30,000 people want to leave a church, I mean, they can, and they can go somewhere else and start their own church. I don't think that that's the problem. The problem is whether they get to keep the property, and whether or not they get to keep the seal and -- okay; is that basically what we're talking about?
MR. NELSON: Yes, Your Honor.
We see right away from this exchange the slanted view of the big picture which Mr. Nelson, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, is trying to sell to the Court: that the plaintiffs have a claim to the property of the Diocese, because it is Bishop Iker who is "holding [him]self out as being the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese . . .". This, of course, is untrue, and just leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion later. The one thing Bishop Iker is not doing is "holding himself out as the Bishop" of a Diocese within the Episcopal Church (USA). He merely says he remains the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, and that is not the same thing (although the plaintiffs want to claim it is).
"Episcopal" simply means "of or pertaining to a bishop." It is not a trademark of the Episcopal Church (USA), as may be seen from a glance at a list of the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion. There are eight other provinces with that word in their title, including the Scottish Episcopal Church, from which the American Church took its name. The fact that the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth left the Episcopal Church (USA) in no way required it to drop the word "Episcopal" from its name. ECUSA's insistence that it has to shows, in fact, the category confusion that is rampant at 815, in its promotion of the name "The Episcopal Church", or "TEC". 815 would like everyone to believe there is only one "Episcopal Church, and that they are it. (That is why I refuse to use that name or acronym to describe them on this Weblog.) In doing so, ECUSA has forgotten the very meaning of the word "Episcopal" -- even if, for the moment, it is about the most bishop-driven Protestant church I know.
The problem, in fact, has not been created by Bishop Iker. All his Diocese did was meet in an Annual Convention which he (as Bishop) had duly called in November 2008, with a full quorum of both laity and clergy present, and vote overwhelmingly in both orders to adopt on second reading amendments which removed the language by which the Diocese acceded to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church (USA). As Judge Chupp made clear several times in the course of the hearing, they acted perfectly within their powers under Texas law when they did so (09/09/09, pp. 60-61):
THE COURT: Yeah, but, I mean, you're still talking about a body that voted to do something, and they voted something that you didn't like. And what I've got to figure out is, I guess, did they have the -- obviously, they have the authority to do that. They can vote and do what they want to do, that group of people. I -- well, I say that, I don't see where it says they can't.
Counsel for Bishop Gulick tried virtually every trick in the book to get the Judge to see things his way. First he overstated the law, and misrepresented what "courts" had decided (id. at 51):
MR. NELSON: And you're absolutely right, there isn't anything in there that says that specifically, nevertheless, the Courts have held that they cannot leave.
In actual fact, of course no appellate court of record anywhere has held that a Diocese may not leave ECUSA. When the Judge asked Mr. Nelson to see the "cases" decided by "the courts" to that effect, all Mr. Nelson could point him to was the interim ruling by the trial court in the San Joaquin litigation. (Trial courts are not published courts of record -- meaning that their rulings and decisions are not collected and published anywhere for other courts to read and follow. Citing to the ruling of a trial court -- and not a final one, but an interim one at that -- is about as useful as citing to your grandpa. And in California, attorneys are actually forbidden by Court rule from citing to unpublished and unpublishable decisions.)
Next, Mr. Nelson told the Court another whopper, and claimed that the Bishop Iker's Diocese could not keep its property when it voted to leave, because of the Dennis Canon (id. at 52):
THE COURT: But they [the Episcopal Church] claim that they own-do they really claim that they own the property, or does the diocese own the property?
MR. NELSON: It depends on what property we're talking about. Some property is held by the diocese and some is held by the corporation.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, either way, do they-the group on top, the Province, the Episcopal Church Province, do they claim they own any of the property?
MR. NELSON: Yes, under the Dennis Canon, which is 1.7.4, there is a trust provision that imposes a trust on property for the use and benefit of the-the wording is the Episcopal Church and a Diocese thereof; that is, of the Episcopal Church.
Now here is the actual language of the Dennis Canon:
All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. . . .
The Dennis Canon has no language that would apply to any property owned by a Diocese, but Mr. Nelson tried to claim that it would allow his group to take over Bishop Iker's diocesan bank accounts. The Judge could see that the fight was all about property, and that he did not have to resolve the ownership issue just yet. The Rule 12 motion challenged only the authority of the persons who hired the plaintiffs' attorneys -- whether they had the authority to represent the Diocese and the Corporation which they claimed to represent.
The Court was also troubled by the illogic of Mr. Nelson's argument that the vote to leave was ultra vires (beyond the Convention's powers, and hence void), but that by virtue of the Convention's holding the vote, the elected Trustees of the Corporation had automatically lost their seats on the Corporation (id. at 67-68):
THE COURT: Here's what I want y'all to do. I want y'all to write something to me, and I want you to write something to me saying that the convention in November didn't have the authority to vote. And what ultra vires means is they did something that's outside what they can do, I mean, whether it's illegal activity or anything like that. And you don't have to give me the whole booklet of canons, just cut and paste them, and show me where it says they don't have the authority to do that. And if they don't have the authority to do that, then what they did is probably -- could be void, and at that point in time they would have the authority to be here, because the board would be the board.
Well, in actuality, if -- here's the problem I think y'all have, too, though, if the board was voted on, regardless of the actions that they did, aren't they the ones that still have to hire you?
MR. NELSON: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Because if their actions become void, then they're still the board.
MR. NELSON: No.
THE COURT: Sure they are. They were voted on to be the board. That -- you're not going to tell me that them becoming board members is somehow void, are you?
MR. NELSON: That's exactly right. What I'm saying is in November of 2006, when they voted to align, everyone who was on those boards is gone, because they are no longer loyal Episcopalians.
"November 2006" may have been a slip of the tongue (the Convention actually passed the amendment in November 2008). But the argument that votes by elected deputies to a Diocesan Convention could automatically unseat the elected Trustees of a Board (who were not shown to have been deputies, or to have voted any particular way) struck the Judge as particularly bizarre, and inconsistent with the way such things work. Bodies who do things which are ultra vires and void accomplish nothing. If the vote to leave was null and void, then the Diocese did not leave, and then the elected Board members remain in their positions until their normal terms expire -- so the "Trustees" who were elected in February 2009, and who hired Mr. Nelson to file suit, did not have any authority:
THE COURT: Well, then you don't have the authority.
MR. NELSON: No, we had a special convention.
THE COURT: I don't think you have the authority if you're going to say that, I don't, because the problem I think you have is the Fort Worth Diocese voted, and they made a vote, and you're claiming their vote is void. And then, if you want to claim their vote is void, then they're still the board, because they didn't leave, right? I mean, what -- because the -- they voted -- you're saying two things. You're saying that they didn't have the right to leave, okay, and that should be void based on this case, right? And so if they didn't leave, then the board that was in place in November is still the board, because they would have been the board then, and your meeting wouldn't have been inclusive of them.
MS. WELLS: They're gone.
MR. NELSON: Their act --
THE COURT: They're not gone. If it's void, they're not gone, right? I mean, if that action is void, then your church is -- or the Diocese is still part of the Episcopal Church Province, isn't that -- that's what this case says, is that the Fort Worth Diocese is still part of the Province, the Episcopal Church Province. If I follow this case, that's what that would say. And, therefore, the board, which is the Fort Worth Diocese board is still the same board, except y'all went in and elected a different one at a special meeting, which I think is void, then.
The Judge was telling counsel he can't have it both ways: either the vote was invalid and the Diocese did not leave, in which case the Trustees would have had to resign their positions for their seats to become vacant; or the vote was valid, and the Diocese went to the Southern Cone Province -- along with its Corporation. In either case, the plaintiffs' attorneys could not have been hired by anyone with authority for the Diocese or for the Corporation. The Judge's logic was impeccable.
And this is the fatal flaw that lies at the heart of ECUSA's "winner-take-all" strategy. It tries to argue that a Diocese may never vote to leave, and that the only result of such a vote is that people leave, but the structure remains intact. But the people in question do not conveniently resign their positions, because in their view, they are leaving and taking the entire diocesan legal structure with them. So in their view, they are keeping their positions. Thus ECUSA has to come up with a way of claiming that those positions are in fact vacant. It goes through the charade of "deposing" the Bishop with far less than the required number of votes, but that does not solve the problem. The clergy deputies who voted for the amendment cannot be summarily removed without deposing them as well -- a process that takes six months. And there is no mechanism whatsoever for summarily "deposing" or "removing" a lay deputy from office.
Without such resignations, and without any mechanism for removing lay Convention deputies, the very next "special meeting" of the Diocese which is called is null and void itself. For the duly elected deputies from the last Convention are the ones who should be seated, but they are barred from attending by the unconstitutional device of imposing a "loyalty oath". And there cannot be a legal (one-third) quorum of loyalist clergy, because nearly nine-tenths of them went with Bishop Iker.
The problem of ECUSA and its remnant "Diocese" is that they just will not follow their own procedures to organize and become legitimate in the eyes of the law. Mr. Nelson, Bishop Gulick's attorney, even (unwittingly) described his own clients to the court and spelled out what they ought to have done (id. at 57):
MR. NELSON: What I'm saying is that the body gets together, and then it must be approved by the general convention in order to be a valid diocese. It can get together and call itself a diocese, but until it's approved and until that diocese agrees to accede to the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church, it is not a diocese and cannot be a diocese.
Precisely, Mr. Nelson, precisely. Your clients are not a "diocese", and cannot be one until they have gone through the requirements to be approved, and admitted into union with General Convention.
It remains to be seen what the plaintiffs will now do, in light of the trial court's order barring them from representing the "Diocese or Corporation associated with Bishop Iker." Their motion for partial summary judgment (75-page .pdf download link at this page) is unequivocal that one of the plaintiffs seeking the partial summary judgment is the Diocesan Corporation that was formed in 1983 (from p. 20 of the motion):
In February 1983, the Diocesan Corporation, which is the corporate plaintiff in this action, was formed in accordance with these constitutional and canonical requirements.
There is, and can be, in fact only one Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that was formed under Texas law in 1983, and that is the Corporation currently associated with Bishop Iker. The court has already in effect recognized its existence in its Rule 12 Order, because it ordered
. . . that Jonathan D. F. Nelson and Kathleen Wells are barred from appearing in this suit as attorneys for The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that is associated with Bishop Iker.
The language in bold was written into the Order in the Judge's own hand, and thus there can be no mistake about what it means: the plaintiffs' attorneys are barred from representing the Corporation which they claim is seeking the partial summary judgment.
It would appear that the plaintiffs and their counsel are utterly blind to this problem. On their Web page appears the following "explanation" of the Judge's Rule 12 order (bold emphasis in text added):
What the legal language of the September 16 order means
What the legal language of the order (click here to read it and note that the hand-written portions of the order are in the judge's own hand) means is this: essentially the court refused to strike the pleadings i.e. it ruled that the reorganized Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and the Corporation had the right to continue to sue the defendants and establish our right to seek declarative judgment. The defendants lost on their main argument that we should not be able to sue the defendants because they are the rightful diocese. This was the main objective of former Bishop Iker's attorneys, and they did not achieve it. The court left that determination for a later hearing.
The order also barred our attorneys from appearing on this suit as attorneys for the entities associated with Jack Iker. Our attorneys have, of course, never asserted that.
As is clear in the order, no other rulings were made. The judge did make comments and he did ask questions, but he made no other rulings.
Balderdash and poppycock. If there is and can be only one Diocesan Corporation organized in 1983, and that Corporation is still in the control of Bishop Iker and his co-Trustees, as plaintiffs admit on page 32 of their motion, then how can the plaintiffs still pretend to represent it, and to seek relief in its name? And how can they say they never claimed to represent it before?
There is only one way out of this quandary for the plaintiffs. They are going to have to form a new corporation under Texas law, and call it whatever they want. But it will not be the same Corporation as the one incorporated in 1983. Nor, for the same reason, will the "Diocese" which will now have to re-convene and re-appoint new Trustees, be the same Diocese which formed and was admitted to General Convention in 1983. To become a Diocese of the Episcopal Church, that group will have to follow the procedures spelled out by their attorney, Mr. Nelson, in the quote I gave above. By 2012, they should have their house in order -- if they can first remove the scales from their eyes.
Note: the same home Web page of the Fort Worth group under Bishop Gulick reports that the defendants have filed a motion to continue the hearing on the motion for partial summary judgment. Judge Chupp has set the motion for a continuance for hearing on October 2. Look for him to grant the motion, if only on the ground that the attorneys who filed it, Mr. Nelson and Ms. Wells, are barred from arguing it, for the reasons set out above.
The force of logic is about to be felt in Fort Worth.
END
Diocese of Rio Grande: St. Marks on the Mesa Splits, Majority Found New Anglican Church
from Stand Firm by Sarah Hey:
[Note: since this is from several sources, I've tried to post only what I believe to be fairly reliable. If I find further details or have to correct, I'll try to remember to note it in the comments.]
This morning it was announced at the worship service that all but one vestry member, and all staff save Deacons Beth and Emilio Torres are departing St. Mark's on the Mesa, Albuquerque, and are founding Christ the King Anglican parish. Estimates of the numbers of parishioners that will leave for the new church vary -- it looks as if it will be somewhere between 70 to 80%. The new church's bishop is Bishop John Guernsey.
St. Mark's is one of the largest parishes in Rio Grande -- if not the largest -- with an ASA of about 300 in 2007.
In addition, I understand the small parish of Our Saviour, in Albuquerque, along with its priest, Father Harold Trott has departed TEC; that parish had around 70 ASA.
The priest in charge at St. Mark's will be, I believe, Interim Bishop Bill Frey.
While the departures are understandable -- as I've pointed out for a while, many people do not wish to be a part of a national organization that is as corrupt and heretical as TEC even if their diocesan leadership is fantastic -- from my own perspective it also represents a stunning repudiation of the interminable and turgid bishop search process that has been winding its way through the institutional maw since the departure of Bishop Steenson for Rome [please note -- my mentioning Bishop Steenson does not mean that this post is now about Bishop Steenson]. Much of the length of that search process seems to be because the diocesan leaders have a belief that the diocese will be "unified" by a reconciliation process while dragging out the bishop search process over a long period of time.
Of course . . . in the light of the departures of the many parishioners that have taken place in this diocese, it does appear as if the diocese will be more "unified" . . . in the customary TEC way . . . by the departure of many conservatives.
Although I am sorry to see them go, I do wish these Anglican Christians well, and great joy and peace in a new place.
[Note: since this is from several sources, I've tried to post only what I believe to be fairly reliable. If I find further details or have to correct, I'll try to remember to note it in the comments.]
This morning it was announced at the worship service that all but one vestry member, and all staff save Deacons Beth and Emilio Torres are departing St. Mark's on the Mesa, Albuquerque, and are founding Christ the King Anglican parish. Estimates of the numbers of parishioners that will leave for the new church vary -- it looks as if it will be somewhere between 70 to 80%. The new church's bishop is Bishop John Guernsey.
St. Mark's is one of the largest parishes in Rio Grande -- if not the largest -- with an ASA of about 300 in 2007.
In addition, I understand the small parish of Our Saviour, in Albuquerque, along with its priest, Father Harold Trott has departed TEC; that parish had around 70 ASA.
The priest in charge at St. Mark's will be, I believe, Interim Bishop Bill Frey.
While the departures are understandable -- as I've pointed out for a while, many people do not wish to be a part of a national organization that is as corrupt and heretical as TEC even if their diocesan leadership is fantastic -- from my own perspective it also represents a stunning repudiation of the interminable and turgid bishop search process that has been winding its way through the institutional maw since the departure of Bishop Steenson for Rome [please note -- my mentioning Bishop Steenson does not mean that this post is now about Bishop Steenson]. Much of the length of that search process seems to be because the diocesan leaders have a belief that the diocese will be "unified" by a reconciliation process while dragging out the bishop search process over a long period of time.
Of course . . . in the light of the departures of the many parishioners that have taken place in this diocese, it does appear as if the diocese will be more "unified" . . . in the customary TEC way . . . by the departure of many conservatives.
Although I am sorry to see them go, I do wish these Anglican Christians well, and great joy and peace in a new place.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Conscience Without Sunset
From The Living Church:
Posted on: September 25, 2009
By Edward S. Little II
Four years ago I wrote an article, “Living With Tares,” responding to an editorial in the evangelical magazine Christianity Today that had described schism as sometimes necessary and offered the Episcopal Church as its primary cautionary tale. I argued that I remain in the Episcopal Church because biblical faithfulness requires me to do so; because Jesus is Lord of the Church, and it’s up to him—and not us—to sort things out in the end.
In light of the actions of the 76th General Convention, I find myself revisiting that article and asking the question again: Why do I stay? Does our Lord have a continuing purpose for people like me, a bridge-building conservative and evangelical Catholic, in the Episcopal Church? If so, what is it? And what are the conditions required for continuing and faithful engagement with the church?
I ask these questions with a heavy heart. The bonds of affection in this church are deep. I minister, and gratefully so, to gay and lesbian parishioners all around my diocese. Many of my most beloved friends are colleague bishops who vote on the opposite side of the issues that divide us. I see Jesus in them, and I pray they see him in me. They are brothers and sisters in Christ.
Yet reality forces hard questions. General Convention took definitive action. Resolutions D025 and C056 answered two questions with clarity. The first has to do with human sexuality. “[S]ame-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships ... have responded to God’s call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. ... God has called and may call such individuals to any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church” (D025). “[T]he Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music ... [shall] collect and develop theological and liturgical resources”; and, in the meantime, “bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church” (C056).
We have made our decision. The restraint called for in B033 of the 75th General Convention has been set aside. Bishops may authorize blessings (that’s the clear implication of the “generous pastoral response”), and liturgies are on their way. Our course has been inexorably determined. The conversation about human sexuality is effectively over.
We answered a second question at General Convention as well: The question of the Anglican Communion, and its life and ministry. The Windsor Report presents a nuanced and balanced picture of the Church, a Catholic vision of interdependent life, carefully weighing the need for autonomy on one side of the scale and the need for accountability on the other. Our actions put us clearly on the autonomy side of the spectrum. In approving Resolutions D025 and C056, we have said No to the Anglican Communion. We have rejected two of the three moratoria requested by the Windsor Report and the four Instruments of Communion (most recently, at its May meeting, by the Anglican Consultative Council), and ignored the plea of the Archbishop of Canterbury in his General Convention sermon that we do nothing to exacerbate our divisions. The trajectory of the Episcopal Church propels us to the fringe of the Anglican Communion. Again, the conversation about ecclesiology is effectively over.
During General Convention a host of colleagues assured me of their love and friendship and their appreciation of conservative voices like mine. For that I am profoundly grateful; their expressions were heartfelt and deeply moving. But given the margins by which D025 and C056 were approved, it’s clear the traditional perspective is a dwindling minority in the church. There aren’t many of us left. What do people like me need from the church? We need the ability to live and to act according to our convictions, and to be assured that we have a permanent place in the church. This may seem like a simple and obvious matter, but it isn’t.
The final resolve of D025 recognizes that “members of the Episcopal Church ... are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.” True enough. But our recent history demonstrates that people in the position of a theological minority may ultimately find their position canonically outlawed. That was certainly the experience of those who cannot affirm the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate.
In 1977, the year following canonical provision for the ordination of women, the House of Bishops — in its famous statement drawn up at Port St. Lucie, Fla.—said that “no Bishop, Priest, Deacon or Lay person should be coerced or penalized in any manner nor suffer any canonical disabilities as a result of his or her conscientious objection to or support of the 65th General Convention’s action with regard to the ordination of women to the priesthood or episcopate.” To be sure, these words emanated from one house alone, and thus do not carry the full weight of the church’s highest governing body; but nonetheless, Port St. Lucie is a classic restatement of the priority of conscience when Christians disagree on matters of deep conviction.
This provision for what our Lutheran friends call “bound conscience” was not to last, however. I was a member of the House of Deputies in 1997 when General Convention — by amending Canon III.8.1 — declared objection to the ordination of women canonically illegal. It is no longer possible, under the canons, to be ordained in the Episcopal Church if one cannot support women in all orders of ministry. Speech after speech supporting the change in 1997 ended with some variation of the claim that: “This is not a conscience issue. It’s a justice issue.”
Twelve years later, there are very few left in our church who do not affirm the ordination of women. As a strong supporter of the ordination of women to all orders, I grieve that there is no longer a place in the church for those who cannot conscientiously support this practice. Will the same fate befall those who oppose the theological, ethical, and ecclesiological decisions of the 76th General Convention? I fear that the answer is Yes. Not immediately; not, perhaps, in 2012 or 2015. But someday people like me will find ourselves on the margins, without the ability to test a vocation to ordained ministry, our position banned, theological uniformity imposed. The speeches of 1997 will find new expression.
Lord Carey of Clifton, the 103rd Archbishop of Canterbury, asked a difficult question in April at a conference sponsored by the Anglican Communion Institute: “Can conservative believers be assured that they have a future place in TEC without censure or opposition?” This question is both apt and pressing. We need a conscience clause with canonical and constitutional authority, a conscience clause that contains no sunset provision, that cannot be revoked. If the Episcopal Church is to be truly diverse — if conservative Christians are to find a place in our life in the next decade or the one following—then the 77th General Convention must turn its attention to the inclusion of theological minorities. Without that assurance, the unraveling of our church, already a tragic reality, will continue apace. The inevitable pattern will re-emerge, as conservatives move from honored minority to tolerated dissidents to canonical outlaws. I (and others like me) will not be among those who leave; but we may well be among the last conservatives left. And so we must, I believe, bend heart, mind, and will to the protection and permanent place of traditional voices in our church.
The Rt. Rev. Edward S. Little II is the Bishop of Northern Indiana, and a member of the Communion Partners coalition.
Posted on: September 25, 2009
By Edward S. Little II
Four years ago I wrote an article, “Living With Tares,” responding to an editorial in the evangelical magazine Christianity Today that had described schism as sometimes necessary and offered the Episcopal Church as its primary cautionary tale. I argued that I remain in the Episcopal Church because biblical faithfulness requires me to do so; because Jesus is Lord of the Church, and it’s up to him—and not us—to sort things out in the end.
In light of the actions of the 76th General Convention, I find myself revisiting that article and asking the question again: Why do I stay? Does our Lord have a continuing purpose for people like me, a bridge-building conservative and evangelical Catholic, in the Episcopal Church? If so, what is it? And what are the conditions required for continuing and faithful engagement with the church?
I ask these questions with a heavy heart. The bonds of affection in this church are deep. I minister, and gratefully so, to gay and lesbian parishioners all around my diocese. Many of my most beloved friends are colleague bishops who vote on the opposite side of the issues that divide us. I see Jesus in them, and I pray they see him in me. They are brothers and sisters in Christ.
Yet reality forces hard questions. General Convention took definitive action. Resolutions D025 and C056 answered two questions with clarity. The first has to do with human sexuality. “[S]ame-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships ... have responded to God’s call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. ... God has called and may call such individuals to any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church” (D025). “[T]he Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music ... [shall] collect and develop theological and liturgical resources”; and, in the meantime, “bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church” (C056).
We have made our decision. The restraint called for in B033 of the 75th General Convention has been set aside. Bishops may authorize blessings (that’s the clear implication of the “generous pastoral response”), and liturgies are on their way. Our course has been inexorably determined. The conversation about human sexuality is effectively over.
We answered a second question at General Convention as well: The question of the Anglican Communion, and its life and ministry. The Windsor Report presents a nuanced and balanced picture of the Church, a Catholic vision of interdependent life, carefully weighing the need for autonomy on one side of the scale and the need for accountability on the other. Our actions put us clearly on the autonomy side of the spectrum. In approving Resolutions D025 and C056, we have said No to the Anglican Communion. We have rejected two of the three moratoria requested by the Windsor Report and the four Instruments of Communion (most recently, at its May meeting, by the Anglican Consultative Council), and ignored the plea of the Archbishop of Canterbury in his General Convention sermon that we do nothing to exacerbate our divisions. The trajectory of the Episcopal Church propels us to the fringe of the Anglican Communion. Again, the conversation about ecclesiology is effectively over.
During General Convention a host of colleagues assured me of their love and friendship and their appreciation of conservative voices like mine. For that I am profoundly grateful; their expressions were heartfelt and deeply moving. But given the margins by which D025 and C056 were approved, it’s clear the traditional perspective is a dwindling minority in the church. There aren’t many of us left. What do people like me need from the church? We need the ability to live and to act according to our convictions, and to be assured that we have a permanent place in the church. This may seem like a simple and obvious matter, but it isn’t.
The final resolve of D025 recognizes that “members of the Episcopal Church ... are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.” True enough. But our recent history demonstrates that people in the position of a theological minority may ultimately find their position canonically outlawed. That was certainly the experience of those who cannot affirm the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate.
In 1977, the year following canonical provision for the ordination of women, the House of Bishops — in its famous statement drawn up at Port St. Lucie, Fla.—said that “no Bishop, Priest, Deacon or Lay person should be coerced or penalized in any manner nor suffer any canonical disabilities as a result of his or her conscientious objection to or support of the 65th General Convention’s action with regard to the ordination of women to the priesthood or episcopate.” To be sure, these words emanated from one house alone, and thus do not carry the full weight of the church’s highest governing body; but nonetheless, Port St. Lucie is a classic restatement of the priority of conscience when Christians disagree on matters of deep conviction.
This provision for what our Lutheran friends call “bound conscience” was not to last, however. I was a member of the House of Deputies in 1997 when General Convention — by amending Canon III.8.1 — declared objection to the ordination of women canonically illegal. It is no longer possible, under the canons, to be ordained in the Episcopal Church if one cannot support women in all orders of ministry. Speech after speech supporting the change in 1997 ended with some variation of the claim that: “This is not a conscience issue. It’s a justice issue.”
Twelve years later, there are very few left in our church who do not affirm the ordination of women. As a strong supporter of the ordination of women to all orders, I grieve that there is no longer a place in the church for those who cannot conscientiously support this practice. Will the same fate befall those who oppose the theological, ethical, and ecclesiological decisions of the 76th General Convention? I fear that the answer is Yes. Not immediately; not, perhaps, in 2012 or 2015. But someday people like me will find ourselves on the margins, without the ability to test a vocation to ordained ministry, our position banned, theological uniformity imposed. The speeches of 1997 will find new expression.
Lord Carey of Clifton, the 103rd Archbishop of Canterbury, asked a difficult question in April at a conference sponsored by the Anglican Communion Institute: “Can conservative believers be assured that they have a future place in TEC without censure or opposition?” This question is both apt and pressing. We need a conscience clause with canonical and constitutional authority, a conscience clause that contains no sunset provision, that cannot be revoked. If the Episcopal Church is to be truly diverse — if conservative Christians are to find a place in our life in the next decade or the one following—then the 77th General Convention must turn its attention to the inclusion of theological minorities. Without that assurance, the unraveling of our church, already a tragic reality, will continue apace. The inevitable pattern will re-emerge, as conservatives move from honored minority to tolerated dissidents to canonical outlaws. I (and others like me) will not be among those who leave; but we may well be among the last conservatives left. And so we must, I believe, bend heart, mind, and will to the protection and permanent place of traditional voices in our church.
The Rt. Rev. Edward S. Little II is the Bishop of Northern Indiana, and a member of the Communion Partners coalition.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Anglican Bishop Minns tells Lutherans to leave
By Julia Duin on Sept. 25, 2009 into Belief Blog (of the Washington Times):
I was just about to go to bed at 1 a.m. today when I saw that the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) - one of several groups representing the 100,000 or so Episcopalians who have left their denomination for more conservative climes - has posted a video for the benefit of a this weekend's Lutheran CORE meeting near Indianapolis.
Lutheran CORE has drawn 1,200+ folks to a meeting to discuss what future - if any - conservatives have in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America now that that the denomination has OK'd gay clergy as of last month. The CORE folks have given every indication they're heading out the door to form a new group or join with other dissident Lutheran groups.
And CANA is encouraging them to move out, according to a short video posted on YouTube. CANA's lead bishop, Martyn Minns, until recently the rector of Truro Church in Fairfax, Va., shows up in somewhat informal garb with a number of icons and religious paintings behind him. Am not sure the reason for the rodeo music accompaniment but sure enough, the bishop tells Lutherans that "We know the pain; we've been there" in reference to how his parish and 14 other churches left the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia from 2005-2007 - and the ensuing lawsuit that occurred when they tried to take their property with them. (They won the suit on the local level but it is on appeal).
"We know the joy and freedom that came when we move away from a church that has frankly lost its way," the bishop said. "You're not alone..."
I was just about to go to bed at 1 a.m. today when I saw that the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) - one of several groups representing the 100,000 or so Episcopalians who have left their denomination for more conservative climes - has posted a video for the benefit of a this weekend's Lutheran CORE meeting near Indianapolis.
Lutheran CORE has drawn 1,200+ folks to a meeting to discuss what future - if any - conservatives have in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America now that that the denomination has OK'd gay clergy as of last month. The CORE folks have given every indication they're heading out the door to form a new group or join with other dissident Lutheran groups.
And CANA is encouraging them to move out, according to a short video posted on YouTube. CANA's lead bishop, Martyn Minns, until recently the rector of Truro Church in Fairfax, Va., shows up in somewhat informal garb with a number of icons and religious paintings behind him. Am not sure the reason for the rodeo music accompaniment but sure enough, the bishop tells Lutherans that "We know the pain; we've been there" in reference to how his parish and 14 other churches left the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia from 2005-2007 - and the ensuing lawsuit that occurred when they tried to take their property with them. (They won the suit on the local level but it is on appeal).
"We know the joy and freedom that came when we move away from a church that has frankly lost its way," the bishop said. "You're not alone..."
Friday, September 25, 2009
Conservative Lutherans overflow upcoming conference
Via the American Anglican Council:
By Julia Duin on Sept. 23, 2009
Belief Blog (of the Washington Times)
There seems to be no shortage of folks from the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America who are upset about several votes last month at the denomination's convention in Minneapolis. For those of you who weren't reading about how -- despite a tornado that showed up on a key day of the conference -- the denomination voted to approve gay clergy and, by implication, same-sex blessings -- a huge switch that placed the ELCA as America's largest mainline Protestant denomination to accept homosxual ministers.
Lutheran CORE, the chief opposition group, had slated a convention to start this Friday in Indianapolis, and they recently sent out a bulletin saying their registrations were swamped. Not only did organizers have to move the venue to a larger church -- a Roman Catholic one, in fact -- but as of Sept. 14, they had reached their limit of 1,200 attendees. Some of you who are older than 50 may remember an era in which Lutherans and Catholics never spoke to one another, much less shared worship spaces.
And so I love the quote on CORE's press release: "It is wonderfully ironic that Lutherans who started 500 years ago as a movement to reform the Roman Catholic Church would now return to a Catholic Church to re-form themselves," said the Rev. Mark Chavez of Landisville, Pa., director of Lutheran CORE.
Anyway, the Lutherans say they will be looking into creating some kind of alternative to the ELCA. Two retired ELCA bishops are involved, so this could get really interesting should these folks decide to fly the ELCA coop. Judging by their press release, they've already decided to go; they just have not decided on the specifics. However, there's a proposed constitution on their Web site, so the exit strategy is pretty public. Sounds as if they learned something from the Episcopalians who took the same step in 2003 (when the denomination approved Anglicanism's first openly gay bishop); that is, when your denomination veers left, don't stick around to try to change things. Read their press release here.
And the ELCA itself must be a bit nervous about this gathering. ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson just sent out a pastoral letter saying he is "disappointed" some people are encouraging congregations and members to take actions that "will diminish our capacity for ministry," which could affect planting and renewing congregations, educating leaders, sending missionaries, responding to domestic and international hunger concerns, and rebuilding communities after disasters. You can read his letter here.
What is really interesting is that the number of people attending the CORE gathering may outnumber those who gathered in Minneapolis last month.
-- Julia Duin, religion editor
By Julia Duin on Sept. 23, 2009
Belief Blog (of the Washington Times)
There seems to be no shortage of folks from the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America who are upset about several votes last month at the denomination's convention in Minneapolis. For those of you who weren't reading about how -- despite a tornado that showed up on a key day of the conference -- the denomination voted to approve gay clergy and, by implication, same-sex blessings -- a huge switch that placed the ELCA as America's largest mainline Protestant denomination to accept homosxual ministers.
Lutheran CORE, the chief opposition group, had slated a convention to start this Friday in Indianapolis, and they recently sent out a bulletin saying their registrations were swamped. Not only did organizers have to move the venue to a larger church -- a Roman Catholic one, in fact -- but as of Sept. 14, they had reached their limit of 1,200 attendees. Some of you who are older than 50 may remember an era in which Lutherans and Catholics never spoke to one another, much less shared worship spaces.
And so I love the quote on CORE's press release: "It is wonderfully ironic that Lutherans who started 500 years ago as a movement to reform the Roman Catholic Church would now return to a Catholic Church to re-form themselves," said the Rev. Mark Chavez of Landisville, Pa., director of Lutheran CORE.
Anyway, the Lutherans say they will be looking into creating some kind of alternative to the ELCA. Two retired ELCA bishops are involved, so this could get really interesting should these folks decide to fly the ELCA coop. Judging by their press release, they've already decided to go; they just have not decided on the specifics. However, there's a proposed constitution on their Web site, so the exit strategy is pretty public. Sounds as if they learned something from the Episcopalians who took the same step in 2003 (when the denomination approved Anglicanism's first openly gay bishop); that is, when your denomination veers left, don't stick around to try to change things. Read their press release here.
And the ELCA itself must be a bit nervous about this gathering. ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson just sent out a pastoral letter saying he is "disappointed" some people are encouraging congregations and members to take actions that "will diminish our capacity for ministry," which could affect planting and renewing congregations, educating leaders, sending missionaries, responding to domestic and international hunger concerns, and rebuilding communities after disasters. You can read his letter here.
What is really interesting is that the number of people attending the CORE gathering may outnumber those who gathered in Minneapolis last month.
-- Julia Duin, religion editor
A Message from Bishop David Anderson
From the American Anglican Council:
Beloved in Christ,
As we went to press last week there was breaking news of the decision of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, finding in favor of the local parish of All Saints', Pawley's Island and against the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and The Episcopal Church (TEC). Among the findings of the court is that the so-called "Dennis Canon" is illegal in SC and has no effect. The basis for this is that one person can't establish a trust on someone else's property. It is the person who owns the property that is the one to establish a trust, if they wish to. Makes sense, doesn't it? As the court stated in the finding, "It is an axiomatic principle of law that a person or entity must hold title to property in order to declare that it is held in trust for the benefit of another or transfer legal title to one person for the benefit of another."
The argument of TEC over the last decade has been that the parishes acquiesced in the process by sending parish representatives to their diocesan conventions which elected diocesan deputies, which in turn sent those deputies to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 1979, when, in a murky process, the Dennis Canon may have been passed by Canon Law procedure. Then after the convention, parishes were not directly notified that their property had been alienated by this new imposed trust, so since they weren't notified, of course they didn't take immediate action to refute it. Therefore, by this process of indirect representation before the fact and lack of action after the fact, the trust was imposed, if you believe TEC. Unfortunately, several courts have deferred to the assertions of the Presiding Bishop's legal counsel and bought this line of thinking.
In reality this is similar to the television program "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?" A fifth grader could tell you that it isn't fair for a teacher to take a student's bicycle that he rode to school and claim it is hers. So, the courts ruling in favor of TEC would have bombed out on the television program that measures fifth grade intelligence.
Thank God that courts are now beginning to see through the artificial complexity of TEC's arguments. Comments by the judge in the Ft. Worth litigation stated the obvious, and now that is reinforced by the South Carolina Supreme Court. The finding would seem to say that any Episcopal congregation with clear title to their property in the Diocese of Upper South (USC) or South Carolina could walk away, if they followed some easy to understand guidelines embedded in the decision. In the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, the question for an orthodox Anglican Episcopal Church might well be, why would they stay? Yes, the Second Coming is promised and waited upon with hopeful anticipation among the faithful. Other than that, are they hopeful that they can elect an orthodox bishop for USC? If they did, it seems unlikely that the new bishop would secure confirmation from TEC, unless he/she somehow bound the diocese in perpetuity to TEC, something the bishop alone doesn't have the authority to do.
In the Diocese of South Carolina, there is a dilemma. Some congregations are ready to bolt, even though they have an orthodox bishop, +Mark Lawrence. If Bishop Lawrence is willing to take SC out of TEC, he has the SC courts to back him, and it seems that almost all of his parishes would follow him. If he chooses to stay and TEC continues on its present trajectory, he risks seeing a steady erosion of some of his larger parishes. This in time would leave him with the remaining balance tilted toward the more liberal parishes who want to stay in TEC, significantly reducing his options. Our take on the situation is that the strategic time for Bishop Lawrence to act is in the next three or four months, and if he sends a clear message that departure consideration is on the table, most of his parishes would wait for him. Bishop Lawrence has done one of the best analysis of the wreck of the Episcopal Church by current liberal leaders, and he is widely known to be solidly orthodox. It may be that this is a Kairos moment that has now been presented to him. Pray for him earnestly.
Now we move from the serious to the bizarre but sad. Greg Griffith reports on the Stand Firm in Faith blog that the arcane antics of Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori have taken a new low. In an article titled "815 Appeals for Donations to Sue Christians" he shares a letter that the Episcopal Church Mission Funding Initiative has sent out to select attorneys in the Episcopal Church. The director of the Mission Funding Initiative, The Rev. Susan J. McCone, wrote on September 18, asking attorneys to give to the Episcopal Church litigation mission called the St. Ives' Fund. No, seriously, she did this, and it is considered missionary work of TEC to litigate. Having a family member and friends who are attorneys, I do understand that attorneys need full employment, but really, invoking the Patron Saint of Attorneys to be the Patron Saint of Litigation! We can now jest that the Mission Department of the Episcopal Church is Dewey, Suem and Howe, and not be too far off. Ms. McCone reminds her recipients to make their checks out to the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, and write St. Ives Fund on the memo line. Keep in mind that this is on Mission Fund Initiative Letterhead, and with her name as the director.
For some time rumor has circulated that the trust funds in the care of TEC were being renamed, using numbers like Swiss accounts, and stripping them of the text that indicated how the donors intended the funds to be used. We have not run with that story, but now in light of the above action, investigative journalists may want to dig into that rumor which has been on the street for almost a year.
Back to positive news, the North American Anglican Cursillo folks who are out of TEC have reorganized and formed Anglican 4th Day (The Episcopal Church currently holds a license from the Roman Catholic Cursillo movement for the trademark name "Cursillo"). In Canada, the 2009 meeting of the Canadian House of Bishops stated that "diocesan bishops have the authority to decide who may serve on Cursillo leadership teams," and pointed out that clergy and laity who are members of the Anglican Network in Canada, which is affiliated with the new Anglican Church in North America, should not be given permission to have any role in the Cursillo movement. Looking at this from a positive standpoint, I agree that the 4th Day movement should be separate from the Anglican Church of Canada and their heterodox beliefs and practices, and in the States, free from TEC's influence as well.
The battle within the Daughters of the King (DOK) seems to be resolving itself with the formation of the Daughters of the Holy Cross, which will be an order for women within the Anglican Church in North America. Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori directly intervened to express her opinion to the DOK that they should change their practices and now exclude non-Episcopalians, and so hundreds of former DOK members felt unwelcome in their order. The Daughters of the Holy Cross gives them the opportunity to take similar vows and continue the valuable work they did under their former order. Daughters of the Holy Cross, may our Lord bless and sustain you in your work and ministry, done to his honor and glory.
And last but not least, Alpha USA is holding a national conference this October 20-21 in Orlando, Florida. I encourage you to look into this discipleship event and consider attending. I'm also pleased to announce that if you decide to attend, you'll receive a special discount of $70 off the standard rate of $159. To register and receive this discount, go to www.alphausa.org/conference and enter the voucher code "bishopnac09". You can also call the call center at 1-800-362-5742 and provide the voucher code to an agent in the call center. Please consider attending this wonderful discipleship and training conference.
Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
Beloved in Christ,
As we went to press last week there was breaking news of the decision of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, finding in favor of the local parish of All Saints', Pawley's Island and against the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and The Episcopal Church (TEC). Among the findings of the court is that the so-called "Dennis Canon" is illegal in SC and has no effect. The basis for this is that one person can't establish a trust on someone else's property. It is the person who owns the property that is the one to establish a trust, if they wish to. Makes sense, doesn't it? As the court stated in the finding, "It is an axiomatic principle of law that a person or entity must hold title to property in order to declare that it is held in trust for the benefit of another or transfer legal title to one person for the benefit of another."
The argument of TEC over the last decade has been that the parishes acquiesced in the process by sending parish representatives to their diocesan conventions which elected diocesan deputies, which in turn sent those deputies to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 1979, when, in a murky process, the Dennis Canon may have been passed by Canon Law procedure. Then after the convention, parishes were not directly notified that their property had been alienated by this new imposed trust, so since they weren't notified, of course they didn't take immediate action to refute it. Therefore, by this process of indirect representation before the fact and lack of action after the fact, the trust was imposed, if you believe TEC. Unfortunately, several courts have deferred to the assertions of the Presiding Bishop's legal counsel and bought this line of thinking.
In reality this is similar to the television program "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?" A fifth grader could tell you that it isn't fair for a teacher to take a student's bicycle that he rode to school and claim it is hers. So, the courts ruling in favor of TEC would have bombed out on the television program that measures fifth grade intelligence.
Thank God that courts are now beginning to see through the artificial complexity of TEC's arguments. Comments by the judge in the Ft. Worth litigation stated the obvious, and now that is reinforced by the South Carolina Supreme Court. The finding would seem to say that any Episcopal congregation with clear title to their property in the Diocese of Upper South (USC) or South Carolina could walk away, if they followed some easy to understand guidelines embedded in the decision. In the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, the question for an orthodox Anglican Episcopal Church might well be, why would they stay? Yes, the Second Coming is promised and waited upon with hopeful anticipation among the faithful. Other than that, are they hopeful that they can elect an orthodox bishop for USC? If they did, it seems unlikely that the new bishop would secure confirmation from TEC, unless he/she somehow bound the diocese in perpetuity to TEC, something the bishop alone doesn't have the authority to do.
In the Diocese of South Carolina, there is a dilemma. Some congregations are ready to bolt, even though they have an orthodox bishop, +Mark Lawrence. If Bishop Lawrence is willing to take SC out of TEC, he has the SC courts to back him, and it seems that almost all of his parishes would follow him. If he chooses to stay and TEC continues on its present trajectory, he risks seeing a steady erosion of some of his larger parishes. This in time would leave him with the remaining balance tilted toward the more liberal parishes who want to stay in TEC, significantly reducing his options. Our take on the situation is that the strategic time for Bishop Lawrence to act is in the next three or four months, and if he sends a clear message that departure consideration is on the table, most of his parishes would wait for him. Bishop Lawrence has done one of the best analysis of the wreck of the Episcopal Church by current liberal leaders, and he is widely known to be solidly orthodox. It may be that this is a Kairos moment that has now been presented to him. Pray for him earnestly.
Now we move from the serious to the bizarre but sad. Greg Griffith reports on the Stand Firm in Faith blog that the arcane antics of Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori have taken a new low. In an article titled "815 Appeals for Donations to Sue Christians" he shares a letter that the Episcopal Church Mission Funding Initiative has sent out to select attorneys in the Episcopal Church. The director of the Mission Funding Initiative, The Rev. Susan J. McCone, wrote on September 18, asking attorneys to give to the Episcopal Church litigation mission called the St. Ives' Fund. No, seriously, she did this, and it is considered missionary work of TEC to litigate. Having a family member and friends who are attorneys, I do understand that attorneys need full employment, but really, invoking the Patron Saint of Attorneys to be the Patron Saint of Litigation! We can now jest that the Mission Department of the Episcopal Church is Dewey, Suem and Howe, and not be too far off. Ms. McCone reminds her recipients to make their checks out to the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, and write St. Ives Fund on the memo line. Keep in mind that this is on Mission Fund Initiative Letterhead, and with her name as the director.
For some time rumor has circulated that the trust funds in the care of TEC were being renamed, using numbers like Swiss accounts, and stripping them of the text that indicated how the donors intended the funds to be used. We have not run with that story, but now in light of the above action, investigative journalists may want to dig into that rumor which has been on the street for almost a year.
Back to positive news, the North American Anglican Cursillo folks who are out of TEC have reorganized and formed Anglican 4th Day (The Episcopal Church currently holds a license from the Roman Catholic Cursillo movement for the trademark name "Cursillo"). In Canada, the 2009 meeting of the Canadian House of Bishops stated that "diocesan bishops have the authority to decide who may serve on Cursillo leadership teams," and pointed out that clergy and laity who are members of the Anglican Network in Canada, which is affiliated with the new Anglican Church in North America, should not be given permission to have any role in the Cursillo movement. Looking at this from a positive standpoint, I agree that the 4th Day movement should be separate from the Anglican Church of Canada and their heterodox beliefs and practices, and in the States, free from TEC's influence as well.
The battle within the Daughters of the King (DOK) seems to be resolving itself with the formation of the Daughters of the Holy Cross, which will be an order for women within the Anglican Church in North America. Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori directly intervened to express her opinion to the DOK that they should change their practices and now exclude non-Episcopalians, and so hundreds of former DOK members felt unwelcome in their order. The Daughters of the Holy Cross gives them the opportunity to take similar vows and continue the valuable work they did under their former order. Daughters of the Holy Cross, may our Lord bless and sustain you in your work and ministry, done to his honor and glory.
And last but not least, Alpha USA is holding a national conference this October 20-21 in Orlando, Florida. I encourage you to look into this discipleship event and consider attending. I'm also pleased to announce that if you decide to attend, you'll receive a special discount of $70 off the standard rate of $159. To register and receive this discount, go to www.alphausa.org/conference and enter the voucher code "bishopnac09". You can also call the call center at 1-800-362-5742 and provide the voucher code to an agent in the call center. Please consider attending this wonderful discipleship and training conference.
Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
Quincy Statement on Rump Diocese Actions
from Stand Firm by Greg Griffith
The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Quincy, part of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, has issued a statement regarding recent actions taken against its clergy by an Episcopal bishop.
“The supposed inhibitions and depositions of our clergy have no bearing on those clergy, or on their ministries, since our diocese is no longer under the authority of the Episcopal Church. The actions of Episcopal Bishop John Buchanan simply mean that the Episcopal Church no longer wants these clergy to be allowed to function in any of their churches,” said Fr. John Spencer, President of the Quincy Standing Committee.
Buchanan, Fr. Spencer said, represents a new Episcopal diocese in central Illinois that was organized last April. In late August, Buchanan sent letters supposedly accepting the “renunciation of the ordained ministry” of the Episcopal church by several Quincy clergy, and declaring that those clergy were deprived of all the authority conveyed in ordination. “We did leave the Episcopal Church,” Spencer said, “but we didn’t renounce our ordination vows, or abandon our ministries.” Those named by Buchanan included The Rev. Edward den Blaauwen, The Rev. John Spencer, The Rev. Richard Chapin, The Rev. Thomas Janikowski, The Rev. Lewis Payne, The Rev James Marshall, and The Rev. Peter Powell.
Then, on September 8, Buchanan issued another letter claiming to “inhibit” another group of Quincy clergy from carrying on their ministries. Those named included The Rev. Andy Ainley, The Rev. William Barnds, the Rev. Michael Brooks, The Rev. Harold Camacho Castro, The Rev. Eric Craig, the Rev. Richard Crist, The Rev. James Derbyshire, The Rev. Shawn Doubet, The Rev. Ronald Drummond, The Rev. Charles Flinn, The Rev. Gus Franklin, The Rev. Thomas Gimple, The Rev. M. Bill Knapp, The Rev. Louis Mahue, The Rev. Arthur Mattox, The Rev. Steven McClaskey, The Rt. Rev. Alberto Morales, The Rev. Nicholas Pierce, The Rev. Luis Gonzalez, The Rev. V. Joey Scalisi, The Rev. William Swatos, The Rev. Robert Tiling, The Rev. David Wagner, The Rev. Ronald White, The Rev. Deacon Rod Bales, The Rev. Deacon Paul Brooks, The Rev. Deacon Diane Brooks, The Rev. Deacon Dennis Brown, The Rev. Deacon Phillip Fleming, The Rev. Deacon Danny Grimes, The Rev. Deacon K. Krewer, The Rev. Deacon Joshua Miller, The Rev. Deacon William Timmons, and The Rev. Deacon Christian Whatley.
“What Bishop Buchanan either doesn’t understand, or just doesn’t want to accept,” Fr. Spencer said, “is that the Diocese of Quincy separated itself from the Episcopal Church last November. When we did that, we made it very clear that the rules and canons of the Episcopal Church no longer have any authority or control over our diocese, or our clergy.”
“By contrast,” Spencer added, “once we knew which of our clergy wanted to stay behind in the Episcopal Church, we simply released them from our clergy roster as priests and deacons in good standing. We never questioned their integrity, or their right to continue in ministry. They have not shown us the same courtesy, or respect.”
Additionally, Spencer said, Abbot Morales, Fr. Camacho Castro and Fr. Gonzalez are members of St. Benedict’s Abbey in Bartonville, an ecumenical abbey, and were never under the control of the Episcopal Church.
To add to the confusion, Spencer said, the new Episcopal diocese adopted a similar name, The Diocese of Quincy of the Episcopal Church. “But they didn’t stop there,” Spencer said. “They have put up a website that lists all the churches of our diocese as churches of their diocese. They are intentionally misleading people.” For example, the church Spencer serves, St. Francis in Lake of the Woods Plaza, Dunlap, “has nothing whatever to do with the new Episcopalian diocese. But they list St. Francis as one of their churches. They know this is false.”
At their Synod last November, the historic Diocese of Quincy, founded in 1877, realigned as a member of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone (South America). At their upcoming Synod in October, they expect to formally affiliate with the Anglican Church in North America, a new jurisdiction of some 700 churches in the U.S. and Canada who have left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada because those groups have fallen away from historic Christian teaching and discipline.
The legitimate website of the original Diocese of Quincy, Spencer says, is http://www.dioceseofquincy.org. “Don’t accept imitations,” he said.
The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Quincy, part of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, has issued a statement regarding recent actions taken against its clergy by an Episcopal bishop.
“The supposed inhibitions and depositions of our clergy have no bearing on those clergy, or on their ministries, since our diocese is no longer under the authority of the Episcopal Church. The actions of Episcopal Bishop John Buchanan simply mean that the Episcopal Church no longer wants these clergy to be allowed to function in any of their churches,” said Fr. John Spencer, President of the Quincy Standing Committee.
Buchanan, Fr. Spencer said, represents a new Episcopal diocese in central Illinois that was organized last April. In late August, Buchanan sent letters supposedly accepting the “renunciation of the ordained ministry” of the Episcopal church by several Quincy clergy, and declaring that those clergy were deprived of all the authority conveyed in ordination. “We did leave the Episcopal Church,” Spencer said, “but we didn’t renounce our ordination vows, or abandon our ministries.” Those named by Buchanan included The Rev. Edward den Blaauwen, The Rev. John Spencer, The Rev. Richard Chapin, The Rev. Thomas Janikowski, The Rev. Lewis Payne, The Rev James Marshall, and The Rev. Peter Powell.
Then, on September 8, Buchanan issued another letter claiming to “inhibit” another group of Quincy clergy from carrying on their ministries. Those named included The Rev. Andy Ainley, The Rev. William Barnds, the Rev. Michael Brooks, The Rev. Harold Camacho Castro, The Rev. Eric Craig, the Rev. Richard Crist, The Rev. James Derbyshire, The Rev. Shawn Doubet, The Rev. Ronald Drummond, The Rev. Charles Flinn, The Rev. Gus Franklin, The Rev. Thomas Gimple, The Rev. M. Bill Knapp, The Rev. Louis Mahue, The Rev. Arthur Mattox, The Rev. Steven McClaskey, The Rt. Rev. Alberto Morales, The Rev. Nicholas Pierce, The Rev. Luis Gonzalez, The Rev. V. Joey Scalisi, The Rev. William Swatos, The Rev. Robert Tiling, The Rev. David Wagner, The Rev. Ronald White, The Rev. Deacon Rod Bales, The Rev. Deacon Paul Brooks, The Rev. Deacon Diane Brooks, The Rev. Deacon Dennis Brown, The Rev. Deacon Phillip Fleming, The Rev. Deacon Danny Grimes, The Rev. Deacon K. Krewer, The Rev. Deacon Joshua Miller, The Rev. Deacon William Timmons, and The Rev. Deacon Christian Whatley.
“What Bishop Buchanan either doesn’t understand, or just doesn’t want to accept,” Fr. Spencer said, “is that the Diocese of Quincy separated itself from the Episcopal Church last November. When we did that, we made it very clear that the rules and canons of the Episcopal Church no longer have any authority or control over our diocese, or our clergy.”
“By contrast,” Spencer added, “once we knew which of our clergy wanted to stay behind in the Episcopal Church, we simply released them from our clergy roster as priests and deacons in good standing. We never questioned their integrity, or their right to continue in ministry. They have not shown us the same courtesy, or respect.”
Additionally, Spencer said, Abbot Morales, Fr. Camacho Castro and Fr. Gonzalez are members of St. Benedict’s Abbey in Bartonville, an ecumenical abbey, and were never under the control of the Episcopal Church.
To add to the confusion, Spencer said, the new Episcopal diocese adopted a similar name, The Diocese of Quincy of the Episcopal Church. “But they didn’t stop there,” Spencer said. “They have put up a website that lists all the churches of our diocese as churches of their diocese. They are intentionally misleading people.” For example, the church Spencer serves, St. Francis in Lake of the Woods Plaza, Dunlap, “has nothing whatever to do with the new Episcopalian diocese. But they list St. Francis as one of their churches. They know this is false.”
At their Synod last November, the historic Diocese of Quincy, founded in 1877, realigned as a member of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone (South America). At their upcoming Synod in October, they expect to formally affiliate with the Anglican Church in North America, a new jurisdiction of some 700 churches in the U.S. and Canada who have left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada because those groups have fallen away from historic Christian teaching and discipline.
The legitimate website of the original Diocese of Quincy, Spencer says, is http://www.dioceseofquincy.org. “Don’t accept imitations,” he said.
PEORIA, IL: Potemkin Diocese of Quincy Inhibits and Deposes 34 Priests
Seven Priests earlier deposed. Vows not renounced, says Standing Committee President
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
September 22, 2009
The Rt. Rev. John Buchanan, Episcopal Bishop of the Potemkin Diocese of Quincy, has inhibited and deposed 34 priests and deacons from the original Diocese of Quincy, saying they had renounced their orders and could no longer function as priests in The Episcopal Church.
In late August, Buchanan sent letters accepting the alleged "renunciation of the ordained ministry" of the Episcopal Church to several Quincy clergy and declaring that those clergy are now deprived of all the authority conveyed in ordination.
Those named by Buchanan include: The Rev. Edward den Blaauwen, The Rev. John Spencer, The Rev. Richard Chapin, The Rev. Thomas Janikowski, The Rev. Lewis Payne, The Rev James Marshall, and The Rev. Peter Powell.
"We did leave the Episcopal Church," said Fr. John Spencer, President of the Quincy Standing Committee. "We did not renounce our ordination vows, or abandon our ministries," he said in a press statement from the Anglican Diocese of Quincy.
"The supposed inhibitions and depositions of our clergy have no bearing on those clergy, or on their ministries, since our diocese is no longer under the authority of the Episcopal Church. The actions of Episcopal Bishop John Buchanan simply mean that the Episcopal Church no longer wants these clergy to be allowed to function in any of their churches," said Fr. Spencer.
Buchanan represents a new Episcopal diocese in central Illinois that was organized last April.
"What Bishop Buchanan either doesn't understand, or just doesn't want to accept, is that the Diocese of Quincy separated itself from the Episcopal Church last November. When we did that, we made it very clear that the rules and canons of the Episcopal Church no longer have any authority or control over our diocese, or our clergy," said Spencer.
"By contrast," Spencer added, "once we knew which of our clergy wanted to stay behind in the Episcopal Church, we simply released them from our clergy roster as priests and deacons in good standing. We never questioned their integrity, or their right to continue in ministry. They have not shown us the same courtesy, or respect."
Furthermore, Abbot Morales, Fr. Camacho Castro and Fr. Gonzalez are members of St. Benedict's Abbey in Bartonville, an ecumenical abbey, and never were under the control of the Episcopal Church, said Spencer.
"To add to the confusion, the new Episcopal diocese adopted a similar name, The Diocese of Quincy of the Episcopal Church. But they didn't stop there. They have put up a website that lists all the churches of our diocese as churches of their diocese. They are intentionally misleading people.
"The church I serve, St. Francis in Lake of the Woods Plaza, Dunlap, has nothing whatever to do with the new Episcopalian diocese. But they list St. Francis as one of their churches. They know this is false."
At their Synod last November, the historic Diocese of Quincy, founded in 1877, realigned as a member of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone (South America). At their upcoming Synod in October, they expect to formally affiliate with the Anglican Church in North America, a new jurisdiction of some 700 churches in the U.S. and Canada who have left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada because those groups have fallen away from historic Christian teaching and discipline. On September 8, Buchanan issued yet another letter claiming to "inhibit" a larger group of Quincy clergy.
Those named are:
The Rev. Andy Ainley,
The Rev. William Barnds,
The Rev. Michael Brooks,
The Rev. Harold Camacho Castro,
The Rev. Eric Craig,
The Rev. Richard Crist,
The Rev. James Derbyshire, T
The Rev. Shawn Doubet,
The Rev. Ronald Drummond,
The Rev. Charles Flinn,
The Rev. Gus Franklin,
The Rev. Thomas Gimple,
The Rev. M. Bill Knapp,
The Rev. Louis Mahue,
The Rev. Arthur Mattox,
The Rev. Steven McClaskey,
The Rt. Rev. Alberto Morales,
The Rev. Nicholas Pierce,
The Rev. Luis Gonzalez,
The Rev. V. Joey Scalisi,
The Rev. William Swatos,
The Rev. Robert Tiling,
The Rev. David Wagner,
The Rev. Ronald White,
The Rev. Deacon Rod Bales,
The Rev. Deacon Paul Brooks,
The Rev. Deacon Diane Brooks,
The Rev. Deacon Dennis Brown,
The Rev. Deacon Phillip Fleming,
The Rev. Deacon Danny Grimes,
The Rev. Deacon K. Krewer,
The Rev. Deacon Joshua Miller,
The Rev. Deacon William Timmons,
The Rev. Deacon Christian Whatley
The legitimate website of the original Diocese of Quincy can be found here: www.dioceseofquincy.org. "Don't accept imitations," he said.
END
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
September 22, 2009
The Rt. Rev. John Buchanan, Episcopal Bishop of the Potemkin Diocese of Quincy, has inhibited and deposed 34 priests and deacons from the original Diocese of Quincy, saying they had renounced their orders and could no longer function as priests in The Episcopal Church.
In late August, Buchanan sent letters accepting the alleged "renunciation of the ordained ministry" of the Episcopal Church to several Quincy clergy and declaring that those clergy are now deprived of all the authority conveyed in ordination.
Those named by Buchanan include: The Rev. Edward den Blaauwen, The Rev. John Spencer, The Rev. Richard Chapin, The Rev. Thomas Janikowski, The Rev. Lewis Payne, The Rev James Marshall, and The Rev. Peter Powell.
"We did leave the Episcopal Church," said Fr. John Spencer, President of the Quincy Standing Committee. "We did not renounce our ordination vows, or abandon our ministries," he said in a press statement from the Anglican Diocese of Quincy.
"The supposed inhibitions and depositions of our clergy have no bearing on those clergy, or on their ministries, since our diocese is no longer under the authority of the Episcopal Church. The actions of Episcopal Bishop John Buchanan simply mean that the Episcopal Church no longer wants these clergy to be allowed to function in any of their churches," said Fr. Spencer.
Buchanan represents a new Episcopal diocese in central Illinois that was organized last April.
"What Bishop Buchanan either doesn't understand, or just doesn't want to accept, is that the Diocese of Quincy separated itself from the Episcopal Church last November. When we did that, we made it very clear that the rules and canons of the Episcopal Church no longer have any authority or control over our diocese, or our clergy," said Spencer.
"By contrast," Spencer added, "once we knew which of our clergy wanted to stay behind in the Episcopal Church, we simply released them from our clergy roster as priests and deacons in good standing. We never questioned their integrity, or their right to continue in ministry. They have not shown us the same courtesy, or respect."
Furthermore, Abbot Morales, Fr. Camacho Castro and Fr. Gonzalez are members of St. Benedict's Abbey in Bartonville, an ecumenical abbey, and never were under the control of the Episcopal Church, said Spencer.
"To add to the confusion, the new Episcopal diocese adopted a similar name, The Diocese of Quincy of the Episcopal Church. But they didn't stop there. They have put up a website that lists all the churches of our diocese as churches of their diocese. They are intentionally misleading people.
"The church I serve, St. Francis in Lake of the Woods Plaza, Dunlap, has nothing whatever to do with the new Episcopalian diocese. But they list St. Francis as one of their churches. They know this is false."
At their Synod last November, the historic Diocese of Quincy, founded in 1877, realigned as a member of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone (South America). At their upcoming Synod in October, they expect to formally affiliate with the Anglican Church in North America, a new jurisdiction of some 700 churches in the U.S. and Canada who have left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada because those groups have fallen away from historic Christian teaching and discipline. On September 8, Buchanan issued yet another letter claiming to "inhibit" a larger group of Quincy clergy.
Those named are:
The Rev. Andy Ainley,
The Rev. William Barnds,
The Rev. Michael Brooks,
The Rev. Harold Camacho Castro,
The Rev. Eric Craig,
The Rev. Richard Crist,
The Rev. James Derbyshire, T
The Rev. Shawn Doubet,
The Rev. Ronald Drummond,
The Rev. Charles Flinn,
The Rev. Gus Franklin,
The Rev. Thomas Gimple,
The Rev. M. Bill Knapp,
The Rev. Louis Mahue,
The Rev. Arthur Mattox,
The Rev. Steven McClaskey,
The Rt. Rev. Alberto Morales,
The Rev. Nicholas Pierce,
The Rev. Luis Gonzalez,
The Rev. V. Joey Scalisi,
The Rev. William Swatos,
The Rev. Robert Tiling,
The Rev. David Wagner,
The Rev. Ronald White,
The Rev. Deacon Rod Bales,
The Rev. Deacon Paul Brooks,
The Rev. Deacon Diane Brooks,
The Rev. Deacon Dennis Brown,
The Rev. Deacon Phillip Fleming,
The Rev. Deacon Danny Grimes,
The Rev. Deacon K. Krewer,
The Rev. Deacon Joshua Miller,
The Rev. Deacon William Timmons,
The Rev. Deacon Christian Whatley
The legitimate website of the original Diocese of Quincy can be found here: www.dioceseofquincy.org. "Don't accept imitations," he said.
END
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
S.C. Decision Could Have Far-Reaching Impact
From The Living Church via TitusOneNine:
Posted on: September 22, 2009
The Supreme Court of South Carolina has resolved a long-running dispute between All Saints Church, Pawleys Island, and the Diocese of South Carolina. In a unanimous ruling written by Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal, the court said that the Episcopal Church's Dennis Canon does not apply to the congregation, which was founded before the Episcopal Church.
“It is an axiomatic principle of law that a person or entity must hold title to property in order to declare that it is held in trust for the benefit of another or transfer legal title to one person for the benefit of another,” the court ruled. “The diocese did not, at the time it recorded the 2000 notice, have any interest in the congregation's property.”
It is not yet clear whether the Episcopal Church will appeal the decision. “My understanding is that the legal team is currently reviewing the ruling,” said Neva Rae Fox, the Episcopal Church’s public affairs officer.
The dispute between All Saints and the diocese dates back to 2000, when the Rev. Chuck Murphy was consecrated as one of two founding bishops of the Anglican Mission in the Americas. The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., who was then the Bishop of South Carolina, was initially supportive of Bishop Murphy's consecration. But after the diocese filed a notice with the Georgetown County clerk of court saying that the congregation held the property in trust for the diocese, the congregation filed suit against both the diocese and the Episcopal Church.
Bishop Murphy hailed the ruling in a message sent to AMiA congregations.
“In addition to being a complete victory for all of us here at All Saints, Pawleys Island, it is a profoundly important legal decision repudiating the ‘authority’ of the Dennis Canon,” he wrote. “I believe that this will have enormous implications not only for the two Episcopal dioceses in South Carolina, but, I suspect, for other churches throughout the U.S.A.”
Attorney Dale Rye of Georgetown, Texas, wrote that he was troubled by the court’s ruling.
“It does not take a rocket scientist to see where the notion that congregations are necessarily independent entities can lead,” he wrote. “How is a diocese to enforce its disciplinary canons if a defrocked pastor’s parish simply chooses to ignore the decree? How is a bishop to enforce use of the authorized liturgy when the highest court in the state has stated that he is powerless to control a local congregation?”
Posted on: September 22, 2009
The Supreme Court of South Carolina has resolved a long-running dispute between All Saints Church, Pawleys Island, and the Diocese of South Carolina. In a unanimous ruling written by Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal, the court said that the Episcopal Church's Dennis Canon does not apply to the congregation, which was founded before the Episcopal Church.
“It is an axiomatic principle of law that a person or entity must hold title to property in order to declare that it is held in trust for the benefit of another or transfer legal title to one person for the benefit of another,” the court ruled. “The diocese did not, at the time it recorded the 2000 notice, have any interest in the congregation's property.”
It is not yet clear whether the Episcopal Church will appeal the decision. “My understanding is that the legal team is currently reviewing the ruling,” said Neva Rae Fox, the Episcopal Church’s public affairs officer.
The dispute between All Saints and the diocese dates back to 2000, when the Rev. Chuck Murphy was consecrated as one of two founding bishops of the Anglican Mission in the Americas. The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., who was then the Bishop of South Carolina, was initially supportive of Bishop Murphy's consecration. But after the diocese filed a notice with the Georgetown County clerk of court saying that the congregation held the property in trust for the diocese, the congregation filed suit against both the diocese and the Episcopal Church.
Bishop Murphy hailed the ruling in a message sent to AMiA congregations.
“In addition to being a complete victory for all of us here at All Saints, Pawleys Island, it is a profoundly important legal decision repudiating the ‘authority’ of the Dennis Canon,” he wrote. “I believe that this will have enormous implications not only for the two Episcopal dioceses in South Carolina, but, I suspect, for other churches throughout the U.S.A.”
Attorney Dale Rye of Georgetown, Texas, wrote that he was troubled by the court’s ruling.
“It does not take a rocket scientist to see where the notion that congregations are necessarily independent entities can lead,” he wrote. “How is a diocese to enforce its disciplinary canons if a defrocked pastor’s parish simply chooses to ignore the decree? How is a bishop to enforce use of the authorized liturgy when the highest court in the state has stated that he is powerless to control a local congregation?”
pecusa solicits funds for litigation
Just when I thought that pecusa had hit bottom I read this:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/media/mccone_letter.gif
pecusa has created a St. Ives Fund to support litigation against former Episcopalians. Again, didn't Jesus have something to say about litigation? Yes He did and He wasn't positive about the practice.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/media/mccone_letter.gif
pecusa has created a St. Ives Fund to support litigation against former Episcopalians. Again, didn't Jesus have something to say about litigation? Yes He did and He wasn't positive about the practice.
Appointed Episcopal bishop takes action against the clergy of The Diocese of Quincy
by BabyBlue
The Presiding Bishop's litigation strategy has been to set up shadow dioceses, financed by the national office, appoint a shadow bishop to sue the departing diocese and depose the clergy that voted to separate from The Episcopal Church. The Diocese of Quincy responds (via e-mail):
The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Quincy, part of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, has issued a statement regarding recent actions taken against its clergy by an Episcopal bishop.
“The supposed inhibitions and depositions of our clergy have no bearing on those clergy, or on their ministries, since our diocese is no longer under the authority of the Episcopal Church. The actions of Episcopal Bishop John Buchanan simply mean that the Episcopal Church no longer wants these clergy to be allowed to function in any of their churches,” said Fr. John Spencer, President of the Quincy Standing Committee.
Buchanan, Fr. Spencer said, represents a new Episcopal diocese in central Illinois that was organized last April. In late August, Buchanan sent letters supposedly accepting the “renunciation of the ordained ministry” of the Episcopal church by several Quincy clergy, and declaring that those clergy were deprived of all the authority conveyed in ordination. “We did leave the Episcopal Church,” Spencer said, “but we didn’t renounce our ordination vows, or abandon our ministries.” Those named by Buchanan included The Rev. Edward den Blaauwen, The Rev. John Spencer, The Rev. Richard Chapin, The Rev. Thomas Janikowski, The Rev. Lewis Payne, The Rev James Marshall, and The Rev. Peter Powell.
Then, on September 8, Buchanan issued another letter claiming to “inhibit” another group of Quincy clergy from carrying on their ministries. Those named included The Rev. Andy Ainley, The Rev. William Barnds, the Rev. Michael Brooks, The Rev. Harold Camacho Castro, The Rev. Eric Craig, the Rev. Richard Crist, The Rev. James Derbyshire, The Rev. Shawn Doubet, The Rev. Ronald Drummond, The Rev. Charles Flinn, The Rev. Gus Franklin, The Rev. Thomas Gimple, The Rev. M. Bill Knapp, The Rev. Louis Mahue, The Rev. Arthur Mattox, The Rev. Steven McClaskey, The Rt. Rev. Alberto Morales, The Rev. Nicholas Pierce, The Rev. Luis Gonzalez, The Rev. V. Joey Scalisi, The Rev. William Swatos, The Rev. Robert Tiling, The Rev. David Wagner, The Rev. Ronald White, The Rev. Deacon Rod Bales, The Rev. Deacon Paul Brooks, The Rev. Deacon Diane Brooks, The Rev. Deacon Dennis Brown, The Rev. Deacon Phillip Fleming, The Rev. Deacon Danny Grimes, The Rev. Deacon K. Krewer, The Rev. Deacon Joshua Miller, The Rev. Deacon William Timmons, and The Rev. Deacon Christian Whatley.
“What Bishop Buchanan either doesn’t understand, or just doesn’t want to accept,” Fr. Spencer said, “is that the Diocese of Quincy separated itself from the Episcopal Church last November. When we did that, we made it very clear that the rules and canons of the Episcopal Church no longer have any authority or control over our diocese, or our clergy.”
“By contrast,” Spencer added, “once we knew which of our clergy wanted to stay behind in the Episcopal Church, we simply released them from our clergy roster as priests and deacons in good standing. We never questioned their integrity, or their right to continue in ministry. They have not shown us the same courtesy, or respect.”
Additionally, Spencer said, Abbot Morales, Fr. Camacho Castro and Fr. Gonzalez are members of St. Benedict’s Abbey in Bartonville, an ecumenical abbey, and were never under the control of the Episcopal Church.
To add to the confusion, Spencer said, the new Episcopal diocese adopted a similar name, The Diocese of Quincy of the Episcopal Church. “But they didn’t stop there,” Spencer said. “They have put up a website that lists all the churches of our diocese as churches of their diocese. They are intentionally misleading people.” For example, the church Spencer serves, St. Francis in Lake of the Woods Plaza, Dunlap, “has nothing whatever to do with the new Episcopalian diocese. But they list St. Francis as one of their churches. They know this is false.”
At their Synod last November, the historic Diocese of Quincy, founded in 1877, realigned as a member of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone (South America). At their upcoming Synod in October, they expect to formally affiliate with the Anglican Church in North America, a new jurisdiction of some 700 churches in the U.S. and Canada who have left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada because those groups have fallen away from historic Christian teaching and discipline.
The legitimate website of the original Diocese of Quincy, Spencer says, is “Don’t accept imitations,” he said.
The Presiding Bishop's litigation strategy has been to set up shadow dioceses, financed by the national office, appoint a shadow bishop to sue the departing diocese and depose the clergy that voted to separate from The Episcopal Church. The Diocese of Quincy responds (via e-mail):
The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Quincy, part of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, has issued a statement regarding recent actions taken against its clergy by an Episcopal bishop.
“The supposed inhibitions and depositions of our clergy have no bearing on those clergy, or on their ministries, since our diocese is no longer under the authority of the Episcopal Church. The actions of Episcopal Bishop John Buchanan simply mean that the Episcopal Church no longer wants these clergy to be allowed to function in any of their churches,” said Fr. John Spencer, President of the Quincy Standing Committee.
Buchanan, Fr. Spencer said, represents a new Episcopal diocese in central Illinois that was organized last April. In late August, Buchanan sent letters supposedly accepting the “renunciation of the ordained ministry” of the Episcopal church by several Quincy clergy, and declaring that those clergy were deprived of all the authority conveyed in ordination. “We did leave the Episcopal Church,” Spencer said, “but we didn’t renounce our ordination vows, or abandon our ministries.” Those named by Buchanan included The Rev. Edward den Blaauwen, The Rev. John Spencer, The Rev. Richard Chapin, The Rev. Thomas Janikowski, The Rev. Lewis Payne, The Rev James Marshall, and The Rev. Peter Powell.
Then, on September 8, Buchanan issued another letter claiming to “inhibit” another group of Quincy clergy from carrying on their ministries. Those named included The Rev. Andy Ainley, The Rev. William Barnds, the Rev. Michael Brooks, The Rev. Harold Camacho Castro, The Rev. Eric Craig, the Rev. Richard Crist, The Rev. James Derbyshire, The Rev. Shawn Doubet, The Rev. Ronald Drummond, The Rev. Charles Flinn, The Rev. Gus Franklin, The Rev. Thomas Gimple, The Rev. M. Bill Knapp, The Rev. Louis Mahue, The Rev. Arthur Mattox, The Rev. Steven McClaskey, The Rt. Rev. Alberto Morales, The Rev. Nicholas Pierce, The Rev. Luis Gonzalez, The Rev. V. Joey Scalisi, The Rev. William Swatos, The Rev. Robert Tiling, The Rev. David Wagner, The Rev. Ronald White, The Rev. Deacon Rod Bales, The Rev. Deacon Paul Brooks, The Rev. Deacon Diane Brooks, The Rev. Deacon Dennis Brown, The Rev. Deacon Phillip Fleming, The Rev. Deacon Danny Grimes, The Rev. Deacon K. Krewer, The Rev. Deacon Joshua Miller, The Rev. Deacon William Timmons, and The Rev. Deacon Christian Whatley.
“What Bishop Buchanan either doesn’t understand, or just doesn’t want to accept,” Fr. Spencer said, “is that the Diocese of Quincy separated itself from the Episcopal Church last November. When we did that, we made it very clear that the rules and canons of the Episcopal Church no longer have any authority or control over our diocese, or our clergy.”
“By contrast,” Spencer added, “once we knew which of our clergy wanted to stay behind in the Episcopal Church, we simply released them from our clergy roster as priests and deacons in good standing. We never questioned their integrity, or their right to continue in ministry. They have not shown us the same courtesy, or respect.”
Additionally, Spencer said, Abbot Morales, Fr. Camacho Castro and Fr. Gonzalez are members of St. Benedict’s Abbey in Bartonville, an ecumenical abbey, and were never under the control of the Episcopal Church.
To add to the confusion, Spencer said, the new Episcopal diocese adopted a similar name, The Diocese of Quincy of the Episcopal Church. “But they didn’t stop there,” Spencer said. “They have put up a website that lists all the churches of our diocese as churches of their diocese. They are intentionally misleading people.” For example, the church Spencer serves, St. Francis in Lake of the Woods Plaza, Dunlap, “has nothing whatever to do with the new Episcopalian diocese. But they list St. Francis as one of their churches. They know this is false.”
At their Synod last November, the historic Diocese of Quincy, founded in 1877, realigned as a member of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone (South America). At their upcoming Synod in October, they expect to formally affiliate with the Anglican Church in North America, a new jurisdiction of some 700 churches in the U.S. and Canada who have left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada because those groups have fallen away from historic Christian teaching and discipline.
The legitimate website of the original Diocese of Quincy, Spencer says, is “Don’t accept imitations,” he said.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The Episcopal Church Faces Losses, Merges, New Movements and Increasing International Opprobrium
News Analysis
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
Sept. 21, 2009
It was not a good week for The Episcopal Church.
In fact one might say, it has been disastrous with no good news in sight; unless one views the victory flag run up by the pansexual organization Integrity saying they won everything at General Convention and it is now time to let the champagne flow. See victory celebrations here: http://www.integrityfortworth.org/main/index.htm "Integrity Celebrates Virtual Clean Sweep on GC2009 Legislative Agenda"
That might be theirs and TEC's last hurrah. Consider this.
A Church of England archdeacon (the equivalent of a TEC Suffragan Bishop) from London, who has the ear of the Archbishop of Canterbury, told an American audience of evangelical Episcopalians at Virginia Theological Seminary that The Episcopal Church has caused the greatest spiritual catastrophe since the Reformation and that the tear in the fabric of the Anglican Communion is near terminal.
The Dennis Canon has been harpooned by the state Supreme Court of South Carolina. One could forgive a jubilant Bishop Chuck Murphy (AMiA) when he declared a complete legal victory, announcing that it will have enormous implications not only for the two Episcopal dioceses in South Carolina, but for other churches throughout the U.S.A.
San Joaquin attorney Allan S. Haley weighed in on the decision, "The Dennis Canon only 'purports' to declare a trust; it does not in fact establish an effective trust under South Carolina law, because the person declaring the trust -- the national Church -- does not own the property..."
He concluded by saying that this is truly an historic decision for all Episcopal parishes in the Diocese of South Carolina and the Diocese of Upper South Carolina. "The result could see a mass exodus of parishes from the Church in that State, and a further weakening of ECUSA."
It also demonstrates that Bishop Walter Dennis was the equivalent of a Trojan Horse for the Episcopal Church (USA).
VOL has been told that at least four parishes are considering leaving the Diocese of South Carolina while one parish St. Andrews, Mt. Pleasant is going through a 40-day discernment period. Of course this ruling opens the door for the entire diocese to leave.
Weighing in on the declining situation in TEC, the newly anointed Archbishop of ACNA, the Most Rev. Robert Duncan told an Oklahoma City audience this week at St. James Anglican Church that he wants one thousand new Anglican churches planted in the U.S. and Canada. Hardly good news to the ears of Mrs. Jefferts Schori.
The evangelical catholic leader also said mainline Protestant churches are failing because they have gotten off track from the Gospel. That's putting it mildly.
A case in point of Episcopal Church failure in planting new churches was when the Rev. John Yates rector of Falls Church, VA, was told by then Virginia Bishop Peter James Lee that he was not permitted to plant churches in the area. When the parish left TEC and voted to join CANA, Yates promptly planted six new churches. If one thousand new churches are born, they might well be able to buy empty and dying Episcopal churches.
Another case in point is historic St. Stephen's in Center City Philadelphia. It has 10 people on a Sunday similar to Church of the Advocate. The Diocese of PA has the parish "on the dole" as it is too historically prominent to close officially. But come the day when the diocese runs out of money (Charles Bennison virtually bankrupted it with the purchase of Camp Wapiti), a "For Sale" will be visible in the neighborhood.
To further make the point, the Diocese of Colorado announced, that as a result of the extraordinary legal expenses associated with the property litigation involving Grace Church in Colorado Springs, their reserves have been substantially reduced. Litigation cost them $2,900,000 causing the Diocese's unrestricted reserves to decline from $4,900,000 at January 1, 2006 to a mere $750,000. The lesson for the National Church is that the only one who wins in litigation is the lawyers.
VOL revealed this week that the Diocese of New York is facing economic trials and tribulations despite a $12 million budget and may close small parishes that are no longer economically viable. One cannot sustain the unsustainable forever.
Then came the historic announcement of the launch of FCA-NA by Canon Phil Ashey, COO of the American Anglican Council, during a SEWAAC meeting at Nashotah House. He and it were greeted with thunderous applause. And why not? The American Anglican Council has applied for recognition of FCA-NA as a "Ministry Partner" of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) under its Canons. People applauded because they recognize that FCA-NA meets a need to "leave no Anglican behind."
Another blow to Katharine Jefferts Schori.
The Archbishop of Canterbury believes he can solve the Anglican Communion dilemma by offering a "two-track" solution. That is not going to fly because the Liberals and pansexualists seethe at any notion of seeing themselves as second-class Anglicans. Gene Robinson, Louie Crew and TEC's pansexualists will have none of it.
Furthermore, if the Listening Process is a "gift" to the church, orthodox Anglicans are sending it back marked "undeliverable".
Clearly the most disheartening news for TEC this week came from the Potemkin Diocese of Pittsburgh when it announced that it was seeking a merger with the Diocese of Northwestern PA. Unable to sustain itself as a legitimate diocese, it is seeking to reunite with the Episcopal Diocese of Northwestern Pennsylvania. In ecclesiastical terms it is called "juncturing" .According to a report from the diocese, this could be achieved under the provisions of Title I, canon 10, section 6 of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, 2006.
What this ultimately means is that even if the faux diocese wins the litigation over properties - the rented downtown diocesan headquarters and endowment, apparently they don't want the parishes - is a pyrrhic victory. Pittsburgh is unsustainable as a stand-alone diocese and needs to reunite with another diocese.
So, as the original diocese is now under the Province of the Southern Cone and ACNA, The Episcopal Church, in point of fact, has literally no presence in Pittsburgh. There is no Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. Poof, gone up in a cloud of ecclesiastical smoke.
People will go on worshipping in Episcopal and Anglican churches of course, but they will be unevenly and lopsidedly split between the Diocese of Northwestern PA and the Southern Cone. One more Episcopal diocese bites the dust.
To add insult to injury, The Anglican Mission in the Americas ordained three new bishops in Pasadena, CA, and plans to start planting churches right under Episcopal Bishop Jon Bruno's nose.
The Rt. Rev. Keith L. Ackerman's announced the institution of The Order of the Daughters of the Holy Cross and promptly admitted 90+ members. A joyous service was held at Holy Cross Anglican Church in Loganville, GA.
A group of Cursillo leaders from the Anglican Church in North America created a new organization, known as Anglican 4thDay, to continue Cursillo training and traditions this week. Articles of Incorporation were approved and signed, board members elected, bylaws adopted, and a first draft of the Anglican 4thDay handbook prepared and reviewed. By early 2010, it will be possible to form Anglican 4thDay branches and become full members of Cursillo through a new secretariat. "The name "Anglican 4thDay" was selected as it best symbolizes the Cursillo experience, which begins with small group interactions and leads to a three-day retreat," said a news release from ACNA.
All in all, it was not a good week for TEC. The Episcopal Church is reaping what it has sown and is still sowing. The old order is dying. A new order is being born. Truly God is not mocked.
END
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
Sept. 21, 2009
It was not a good week for The Episcopal Church.
In fact one might say, it has been disastrous with no good news in sight; unless one views the victory flag run up by the pansexual organization Integrity saying they won everything at General Convention and it is now time to let the champagne flow. See victory celebrations here: http://www.integrityfortworth.org/main/index.htm "Integrity Celebrates Virtual Clean Sweep on GC2009 Legislative Agenda"
That might be theirs and TEC's last hurrah. Consider this.
A Church of England archdeacon (the equivalent of a TEC Suffragan Bishop) from London, who has the ear of the Archbishop of Canterbury, told an American audience of evangelical Episcopalians at Virginia Theological Seminary that The Episcopal Church has caused the greatest spiritual catastrophe since the Reformation and that the tear in the fabric of the Anglican Communion is near terminal.
The Dennis Canon has been harpooned by the state Supreme Court of South Carolina. One could forgive a jubilant Bishop Chuck Murphy (AMiA) when he declared a complete legal victory, announcing that it will have enormous implications not only for the two Episcopal dioceses in South Carolina, but for other churches throughout the U.S.A.
San Joaquin attorney Allan S. Haley weighed in on the decision, "The Dennis Canon only 'purports' to declare a trust; it does not in fact establish an effective trust under South Carolina law, because the person declaring the trust -- the national Church -- does not own the property..."
He concluded by saying that this is truly an historic decision for all Episcopal parishes in the Diocese of South Carolina and the Diocese of Upper South Carolina. "The result could see a mass exodus of parishes from the Church in that State, and a further weakening of ECUSA."
It also demonstrates that Bishop Walter Dennis was the equivalent of a Trojan Horse for the Episcopal Church (USA).
VOL has been told that at least four parishes are considering leaving the Diocese of South Carolina while one parish St. Andrews, Mt. Pleasant is going through a 40-day discernment period. Of course this ruling opens the door for the entire diocese to leave.
Weighing in on the declining situation in TEC, the newly anointed Archbishop of ACNA, the Most Rev. Robert Duncan told an Oklahoma City audience this week at St. James Anglican Church that he wants one thousand new Anglican churches planted in the U.S. and Canada. Hardly good news to the ears of Mrs. Jefferts Schori.
The evangelical catholic leader also said mainline Protestant churches are failing because they have gotten off track from the Gospel. That's putting it mildly.
A case in point of Episcopal Church failure in planting new churches was when the Rev. John Yates rector of Falls Church, VA, was told by then Virginia Bishop Peter James Lee that he was not permitted to plant churches in the area. When the parish left TEC and voted to join CANA, Yates promptly planted six new churches. If one thousand new churches are born, they might well be able to buy empty and dying Episcopal churches.
Another case in point is historic St. Stephen's in Center City Philadelphia. It has 10 people on a Sunday similar to Church of the Advocate. The Diocese of PA has the parish "on the dole" as it is too historically prominent to close officially. But come the day when the diocese runs out of money (Charles Bennison virtually bankrupted it with the purchase of Camp Wapiti), a "For Sale" will be visible in the neighborhood.
To further make the point, the Diocese of Colorado announced, that as a result of the extraordinary legal expenses associated with the property litigation involving Grace Church in Colorado Springs, their reserves have been substantially reduced. Litigation cost them $2,900,000 causing the Diocese's unrestricted reserves to decline from $4,900,000 at January 1, 2006 to a mere $750,000. The lesson for the National Church is that the only one who wins in litigation is the lawyers.
VOL revealed this week that the Diocese of New York is facing economic trials and tribulations despite a $12 million budget and may close small parishes that are no longer economically viable. One cannot sustain the unsustainable forever.
Then came the historic announcement of the launch of FCA-NA by Canon Phil Ashey, COO of the American Anglican Council, during a SEWAAC meeting at Nashotah House. He and it were greeted with thunderous applause. And why not? The American Anglican Council has applied for recognition of FCA-NA as a "Ministry Partner" of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) under its Canons. People applauded because they recognize that FCA-NA meets a need to "leave no Anglican behind."
Another blow to Katharine Jefferts Schori.
The Archbishop of Canterbury believes he can solve the Anglican Communion dilemma by offering a "two-track" solution. That is not going to fly because the Liberals and pansexualists seethe at any notion of seeing themselves as second-class Anglicans. Gene Robinson, Louie Crew and TEC's pansexualists will have none of it.
Furthermore, if the Listening Process is a "gift" to the church, orthodox Anglicans are sending it back marked "undeliverable".
Clearly the most disheartening news for TEC this week came from the Potemkin Diocese of Pittsburgh when it announced that it was seeking a merger with the Diocese of Northwestern PA. Unable to sustain itself as a legitimate diocese, it is seeking to reunite with the Episcopal Diocese of Northwestern Pennsylvania. In ecclesiastical terms it is called "juncturing" .According to a report from the diocese, this could be achieved under the provisions of Title I, canon 10, section 6 of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, 2006.
What this ultimately means is that even if the faux diocese wins the litigation over properties - the rented downtown diocesan headquarters and endowment, apparently they don't want the parishes - is a pyrrhic victory. Pittsburgh is unsustainable as a stand-alone diocese and needs to reunite with another diocese.
So, as the original diocese is now under the Province of the Southern Cone and ACNA, The Episcopal Church, in point of fact, has literally no presence in Pittsburgh. There is no Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. Poof, gone up in a cloud of ecclesiastical smoke.
People will go on worshipping in Episcopal and Anglican churches of course, but they will be unevenly and lopsidedly split between the Diocese of Northwestern PA and the Southern Cone. One more Episcopal diocese bites the dust.
To add insult to injury, The Anglican Mission in the Americas ordained three new bishops in Pasadena, CA, and plans to start planting churches right under Episcopal Bishop Jon Bruno's nose.
The Rt. Rev. Keith L. Ackerman's announced the institution of The Order of the Daughters of the Holy Cross and promptly admitted 90+ members. A joyous service was held at Holy Cross Anglican Church in Loganville, GA.
A group of Cursillo leaders from the Anglican Church in North America created a new organization, known as Anglican 4thDay, to continue Cursillo training and traditions this week. Articles of Incorporation were approved and signed, board members elected, bylaws adopted, and a first draft of the Anglican 4thDay handbook prepared and reviewed. By early 2010, it will be possible to form Anglican 4thDay branches and become full members of Cursillo through a new secretariat. "The name "Anglican 4thDay" was selected as it best symbolizes the Cursillo experience, which begins with small group interactions and leads to a three-day retreat," said a news release from ACNA.
All in all, it was not a good week for TEC. The Episcopal Church is reaping what it has sown and is still sowing. The old order is dying. A new order is being born. Truly God is not mocked.
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)