Fr. Matt Kennedy reports below that signs attached to the former building of the Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd (CGS) directing people to the Shepherd's Bowl soup kitchen were taken down. Since the congregation of CGS left their buildings, St. John's Roman Catholic Church has agreed to house Shepherd's Bowl until CGS is in a more permanent place.
Fr. Matt entered negotiations with the DCNY for their buildings and maintained as good a relationship with the leadership of the DCNY as was possible given the circumstances. As I have written earlier, when our parish was negotiating for our buildings, I did not trust the leadership of the DCNY. This mistrust was based on the actions of the DCNY during Bp. Adams' tenure and our parish leadership adopted more of an adversarial stance in our negotiations. We had no illusions that we were dealing with people of good will with the exception of one representative of the Diocesan Board. As for the paid staff of the diocese, we have seen what they had done to Fr. Terry Johnson and Canon Allan Smith. We saw what they were doing to Fr. David Bollinger and we had a pretty good idea of the caliber of people we were dealing with.
I can't say that removing the signs to the Shepherd's Bowl is a new low since the DCNY had already established a bottom on behavior that is beyond belief for a supposedly Christian organization. No, the DCNY is an institution but hardly a Church based on their actions. They have successfully lost three congregations with two of them being among the top givers to the diocese prior to 2003. They now have at least four buildings for sale. It makes me wonder whether they are in the real estate business, because it is evident by their actions that they are certainly not in the gospel business.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
The Diocese of Central New York stays classy
from Stand Firm by Matt Kennedy http://www.binghamtongoodshepherd.com
St. John the Evangelist Church is a large Catholic parish one block away from the former Good Shepherd buildings. Msgr. Meagher, the priest at St. John's, graciously offered to host Good Shepherd's Thursday night soup kitchen,the Shepherd's Bowl, temporarily while we are transitioning from one location to another. Last week, having already vacated the buildings, we hung signs on the former Good Shepherd property directing Shepherd's Bowl people to St. John's where they would find a good warm meal and free loaves of bread.
This Tuesday our attorney handed the keys to our former building over to the Diocese of Central New York. I considered taking the signs down, but thought better of it. Surely, I thought, the Diocese of Central New York would not want to make it difficult for poor, hungry people to find a soup kitchen.
Silly me.
There were only about 10 people at the Shepherd's Bowl last night. We could not understand why there was such a steep drop-off until we passed our old building. The walks had been shoveled, the locks changed and all the signs had been taken down.
It has been very cold here in Binghamton this year...colder than it has been in at least six winters. It's difficult to imagine hardened criminal thug gangsters tearing down soup kitchen signs, its beyond my capacity to understand why a purportedly Christian organization would do so.
The mission slogan of the Diocese of Central New York is "To be the passionate presence of Christ for one another and the world we are called to serve." Somehow I just can't imagine Jesus doing that.
St. John the Evangelist Church is a large Catholic parish one block away from the former Good Shepherd buildings. Msgr. Meagher, the priest at St. John's, graciously offered to host Good Shepherd's Thursday night soup kitchen,the Shepherd's Bowl, temporarily while we are transitioning from one location to another. Last week, having already vacated the buildings, we hung signs on the former Good Shepherd property directing Shepherd's Bowl people to St. John's where they would find a good warm meal and free loaves of bread.
This Tuesday our attorney handed the keys to our former building over to the Diocese of Central New York. I considered taking the signs down, but thought better of it. Surely, I thought, the Diocese of Central New York would not want to make it difficult for poor, hungry people to find a soup kitchen.
Silly me.
There were only about 10 people at the Shepherd's Bowl last night. We could not understand why there was such a steep drop-off until we passed our old building. The walks had been shoveled, the locks changed and all the signs had been taken down.
It has been very cold here in Binghamton this year...colder than it has been in at least six winters. It's difficult to imagine hardened criminal thug gangsters tearing down soup kitchen signs, its beyond my capacity to understand why a purportedly Christian organization would do so.
The mission slogan of the Diocese of Central New York is "To be the passionate presence of Christ for one another and the world we are called to serve." Somehow I just can't imagine Jesus doing that.
KATHARINE IN WONDERLAND: Schori's Judicial Oligarchy
Commentary
By Canon Gary L'Hommedieu
www.virtueonline.org
1/26/09
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you CAN make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all." (Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll)
****************
Some clichés can't be overused enough. The above passage from Lewis Carroll's classic is one of them. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the American Presiding Bishop, has decided that a statement by Bishop William Wantland means the direct opposite of what his words clearly state.
He had stated in a letter to Schori that, having transferred his residence to the Province of the Southern Cone, he would like to avail himself of a long established policy of the American House of Bishops permitting him to be named an honorary member of that House.
He stated in his letter that his transfer to the Southern Cone in no way reflected his intention to resign or renounce his orders as a cleric ordained in the Episcopal Church. The Presiding Bishop took this to mean the direct opposite: that Wantland was now openly declaring his intention to renounce his orders. She dutifully conveyed the news of his "renunciation" to the House of Bishops listserv.
Her duties did not obligate her, however, to respond directly to Wantland at all. He discovered the news of his own "renunciation" on the Internet.
The question would appear to be whether Dr. Schori CAN make Wantland's words mean the opposite of what they say, and of course she can. She can because she did. She did because none of her peers had the will or the backbone to object. The precedent set now determines the meaning of the words. Bishop Wantland has, in effect, announced his resignation precisely through announcing he had no intention of so resigning, and this extorted resignation has the standing of law.
Conservatives have reacted with justifiable outrage, but their protests fall flat. They attributed Schori's action to duplicity and bad faith toward the Southern Cone, a sister Province of the Anglican Communion. Their accusations would have made sense in another time and would have carried at least some weight.
Today rationalists (those who believe that words mean what they say) must endure the scorn and ridicule once associated with the Flat Earth Society. Wantland's own written response to Schori contained no reasoned rebuttal but rather a string of insults (well deserved, in my view).
He accused her either of not understanding the plain meaning of English or else of deliberate malfeasance. He demonstrated the tragic naivete of a man who expected logic to define and delimit meaning, like a man flailing in the dark at an assailant whose footsteps he hears, whose breath warms the space in which he lunges and pivots, and yet, inexplicably, he is unable to land a blow. He is trapped in the nonsensical terror of a dream, desperately struggling to wake himself.
What's the moral of this latest misadventure of the TEC high command? That words mean what Power says they mean -- neither more nor less. It's a worn-out theme of postmodernists and the whole rabble of self-proclaimed malcontents, but coming from them it comes across as theater, not philosophy.
Schori and her cadre of elites are small players. They did not precipitate the dark turn of events that has left us in a meaningless world. Schori merely rides the crest of the wave of the surrounding culture. It would seem comical if it did not signal the death throes of a society.
Conservative Episcopalians elsewhere are taking awkward, semi-conscious steps across the terrain of this brave new world, trying to have a hand in influencing their own destiny.
At its recent annual convention the Diocese of Central Florida passed a resolution suggesting amendments to the proposed revisions of the Title IV canons on deposition and abandonment of communion that will come before the General Convention in Anaheim this summer.
The movers expressed concern with another Humpty Dumpty precedent set by Bishop Schori in calling for the vote to depose Bishop John-David Schofield early last year.
Following her chancellor's advice the Presiding Bishop interpreted the words "a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote" to mean "a majority of the Bishops who happen to show up at the meeting".
Neither she nor her chancellor argued that the original words meant anything other than what they say -- that the whole number entitled to vote meant all the bishops wherever they happened to be. The chancellor merely observed that such an interpretation was "unworkable". That justified changing the meaning of the words to mean their opposite.
When the House of Bishops sat on their hands and allowed the ruling to stand, two things happened. First and most obvious, John-David Schofield's deposition was permitted to go forward even without the required vote.
Second and not so obvious, an ominous precedent was set: with the full authority of the House of Bishops the plain meaning of words could be adjusted to accommodate a ruling preferred by the Presiding Bishop.
"A majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote" now officially meant "the majority of the Bishops who happen to show up." The precedent is this: words mean what the one holding the cards says they mean -- neither more nor less.
The General Convention will take up this matter again in Anaheim to spell out the "latent meaning" of the Title IV canons. Again, this is a trivial example of something terrible that has occurred in our society that makes it possible for such incidents to become mundane in comparison.
When words mean only what the law declares them to mean, it is the end of rule by law and the beginning of rule by lawyers -- or, more specifically, by the few who are positioned to enforce the law. "Justice" is the first word to become meaningless when it is no longer based upon a shared vision that undergirds the law.
In such a time people shake their fists in despair, dumbstruck as they watch what they hold sacred pillaged before their eyes while they themselves are powerless to respond. Bishop Wantland's bitter reply to the Presiding Bishop conveys this despairing powerlessness.
Words should mean something. Principles ought to hold. Truth, even simple observed facts, ought to carry weight. When they don't, what's next? Where does the opposition aim its argument in the next round? What is the higher court before whom they make their appeal?
They can count on justice only from those judges who agree with them already -- neither more nor less.
---The Rev. Canon J. Gary L'Hommedieu is Canon for Pastoral Care at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke, Orlando, Florida, and a regular columnist for VirtueOnline.
By Canon Gary L'Hommedieu
www.virtueonline.org
1/26/09
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you CAN make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all." (Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll)
****************
Some clichés can't be overused enough. The above passage from Lewis Carroll's classic is one of them. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the American Presiding Bishop, has decided that a statement by Bishop William Wantland means the direct opposite of what his words clearly state.
He had stated in a letter to Schori that, having transferred his residence to the Province of the Southern Cone, he would like to avail himself of a long established policy of the American House of Bishops permitting him to be named an honorary member of that House.
He stated in his letter that his transfer to the Southern Cone in no way reflected his intention to resign or renounce his orders as a cleric ordained in the Episcopal Church. The Presiding Bishop took this to mean the direct opposite: that Wantland was now openly declaring his intention to renounce his orders. She dutifully conveyed the news of his "renunciation" to the House of Bishops listserv.
Her duties did not obligate her, however, to respond directly to Wantland at all. He discovered the news of his own "renunciation" on the Internet.
The question would appear to be whether Dr. Schori CAN make Wantland's words mean the opposite of what they say, and of course she can. She can because she did. She did because none of her peers had the will or the backbone to object. The precedent set now determines the meaning of the words. Bishop Wantland has, in effect, announced his resignation precisely through announcing he had no intention of so resigning, and this extorted resignation has the standing of law.
Conservatives have reacted with justifiable outrage, but their protests fall flat. They attributed Schori's action to duplicity and bad faith toward the Southern Cone, a sister Province of the Anglican Communion. Their accusations would have made sense in another time and would have carried at least some weight.
Today rationalists (those who believe that words mean what they say) must endure the scorn and ridicule once associated with the Flat Earth Society. Wantland's own written response to Schori contained no reasoned rebuttal but rather a string of insults (well deserved, in my view).
He accused her either of not understanding the plain meaning of English or else of deliberate malfeasance. He demonstrated the tragic naivete of a man who expected logic to define and delimit meaning, like a man flailing in the dark at an assailant whose footsteps he hears, whose breath warms the space in which he lunges and pivots, and yet, inexplicably, he is unable to land a blow. He is trapped in the nonsensical terror of a dream, desperately struggling to wake himself.
What's the moral of this latest misadventure of the TEC high command? That words mean what Power says they mean -- neither more nor less. It's a worn-out theme of postmodernists and the whole rabble of self-proclaimed malcontents, but coming from them it comes across as theater, not philosophy.
Schori and her cadre of elites are small players. They did not precipitate the dark turn of events that has left us in a meaningless world. Schori merely rides the crest of the wave of the surrounding culture. It would seem comical if it did not signal the death throes of a society.
Conservative Episcopalians elsewhere are taking awkward, semi-conscious steps across the terrain of this brave new world, trying to have a hand in influencing their own destiny.
At its recent annual convention the Diocese of Central Florida passed a resolution suggesting amendments to the proposed revisions of the Title IV canons on deposition and abandonment of communion that will come before the General Convention in Anaheim this summer.
The movers expressed concern with another Humpty Dumpty precedent set by Bishop Schori in calling for the vote to depose Bishop John-David Schofield early last year.
Following her chancellor's advice the Presiding Bishop interpreted the words "a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote" to mean "a majority of the Bishops who happen to show up at the meeting".
Neither she nor her chancellor argued that the original words meant anything other than what they say -- that the whole number entitled to vote meant all the bishops wherever they happened to be. The chancellor merely observed that such an interpretation was "unworkable". That justified changing the meaning of the words to mean their opposite.
When the House of Bishops sat on their hands and allowed the ruling to stand, two things happened. First and most obvious, John-David Schofield's deposition was permitted to go forward even without the required vote.
Second and not so obvious, an ominous precedent was set: with the full authority of the House of Bishops the plain meaning of words could be adjusted to accommodate a ruling preferred by the Presiding Bishop.
"A majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote" now officially meant "the majority of the Bishops who happen to show up." The precedent is this: words mean what the one holding the cards says they mean -- neither more nor less.
The General Convention will take up this matter again in Anaheim to spell out the "latent meaning" of the Title IV canons. Again, this is a trivial example of something terrible that has occurred in our society that makes it possible for such incidents to become mundane in comparison.
When words mean only what the law declares them to mean, it is the end of rule by law and the beginning of rule by lawyers -- or, more specifically, by the few who are positioned to enforce the law. "Justice" is the first word to become meaningless when it is no longer based upon a shared vision that undergirds the law.
In such a time people shake their fists in despair, dumbstruck as they watch what they hold sacred pillaged before their eyes while they themselves are powerless to respond. Bishop Wantland's bitter reply to the Presiding Bishop conveys this despairing powerlessness.
Words should mean something. Principles ought to hold. Truth, even simple observed facts, ought to carry weight. When they don't, what's next? Where does the opposition aim its argument in the next round? What is the higher court before whom they make their appeal?
They can count on justice only from those judges who agree with them already -- neither more nor less.
---The Rev. Canon J. Gary L'Hommedieu is Canon for Pastoral Care at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke, Orlando, Florida, and a regular columnist for VirtueOnline.
Anglican Primates Will Address Critical Issues in Egypt
News Analysis
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
1/29/2009
When Archbishops of the Anglican Communion gather on the balmy shores of the Mediterranean next week in the Egyptian city of Alexandria, they will meet amidst continuing tensions over pansexuality and the establishment of a new orthodox North American Anglican province that has already received endorsement by a number of GAFCON Primates.
Five of the world Anglican leaders will be asked to give an account of their stewardship, chief among them will be Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Archbishop Fred Hiltz of Canada as well as the Primates of Uganda, Pakistan, and Southern Africa. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams has asked the primates of these five provinces to reflect on the impact that the current Anglican conflict over sexuality has had on the mission and priorities of their churches.
Mrs. Jefferts Schori will have to explain why one of her bishops, The Rt. Rev. Robert O'Neill of the Diocese of Colorado, recently ordained to the transitional diaconate a publicly known sexually active homosexual. While this is not exactly earth-shattering news any more in TEC, O'Neill did say in 2003, when he became bishop, that he would not do such ordinations. He has broken that promise.
To date Mrs. Jefferts Schori has not condemned that action either publicly or privately. O'Neill's action puts a large nail in the tire of the Covenant Design Group which is trying to come up with a Covenant that every province can sign off on - a Covenant that grows more fictional with each passing month. O'Neill's action also violates the Windsor Report.
Ironically, O'Neill did what he did drawing upon Dr. Rowan Williams' own distinction between his personal views and the received teaching of the church on homosexuality, saying he would abide by the Communion's stated church teaching and discipline for the sake of its common life.
O'Neill shrewdly drove a wedge between the two using Williams' own thinking to act as he did. Perhaps Mrs. Jefferts Schori will offer to the Primates a promise that the new Bishop of Northern Michigan will not get consents after they learn that The Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester, the only nominee for bishop - is also a Zen Buddhist, and has actually received Buddhist lay ordination. Will she assure the Primates that he will not get consents?
Will she further assure them that rites for same sex blessings will not be on the agenda for General Convention later in July and receive formal ratification at a provincial level even though such rites are being practiced in a number of dioceses already? What of her own statements that homosexuality is a done deal in TEC?
She is on record as saying that she would consecrate another homosexual bishop if duly elected by an Episcopal diocese. She is also aware that Bishop Robinson's consecration is now accepted as a matter of course, and other provinces could begin to follow suit. Welsh Archbishop Barry Morgan has said he would certainly consecrate a non-celibate homosexual.
What will Canadian Archbishop Fred Hiltz say about a number of his dioceses that are already allowing rites for same-sex blessings? It seems likely that formal provincial ratification is only a matter of time. Will he be questioned on whether the slow death of his province and its dire financial condition, while endorsing pansexuality might all be linked? Hiltz will undoubtedly blast the new Anglican Church set up by one of his former bishops Donald Harvey, but he will have a hard time explaining their constant and steady growth even as they face opposition from the established church and the culture.
The Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) now has three bishops. And what of the new North American Anglican Province (ACNA) now in play and formally to be ratified in June of this year? Common Cause Moderator Bishop Robert Duncan will not be in Egypt, but his presence will be very much there. His GAFCON primatial backers, some seven of them, will speak for him and the province, putting Williams on the spot.
This could cause a huge row.
The Archbishop of Wales, Barry Morgan has made that clear. At the Diocese of Virginia Annual Council recently he said that he would resist the founding of another province "with every fiber of his body." He got a standing ovation. He says it's "total nonsense." He says that if it's possible for that to happen to The Episcopal Church, it's possible for any of us, he says. He also says he's a minority among the primates. Morgan told the council that he doesn't want them to think that The Episcopal Church and Canada are pariahs - but that all are in the firing line. He feels that The Episcopal Church has behaved "graciously", unlike other members of the Communion.
GRACIOUS. Perhaps Morgan can explain the millions of dollars Mrs. Jefferts Schori is spending litigating against dioceses and parishes that no longer wish to stay in her ecclesiastical grip.
Perhaps he can explain the go it alone threats The Episcopal Church conveys any time it is pushed to the wall about homosexuality and Bishop Gene Robinson's outrageous behavior, his faux prayer at President Obama's inauguration and his ability to move homosexuality to the center of the Culture Wars. He is a hero now to many. When you throw in Episcopal priest The Rev. Ed Bacon's recent statement that he made on the Oprah Show that homosexuality is "a gift from God", you know it is all over but the shouting.
And what will Henry Luke Orombi, Archbishop of Uganda have to say? He and his fellow bishops boycotted Lambeth, which has been an ecclesiastical stain on Williams' record. He has been enormously outspoken against western pansexual attitudes and there is little evidence that he will let up in Alexandria. Archbishops Emmanuel Kolini, Benjamin Nzimbi and Peter Akinola also boycotted Lambeth. Archbishop Gregory Venables of the Province of the Southern Cone has taken a lot of heat for taking under his wing the dioceses of Pittsburgh, San Joaquin and Ft. Worth, but it should be noted that the so-called crossing of boundaries was instigated by these dioceses and not by the Argentinian Bishop.
Venables heeded a call, he did not come uninvited, something Mrs. Jefferts Schori will likely contest. Can the Primates get the communion back on track? Will they continue not to have Eucharist together as they have refused to do at the past two Primatial gatherings?
An official statement from Lambeth Palace says the Primates will focus on how well their provinces are fulfilling the Communion's official "five marks of mission": evangelization, catechization, service, social and environmental action.
True, but the elephant in the room will be GAFCON and ACNA. Mrs. Jefferts Schori will push Millennium Development Goals while Global South leaders will push for The Great Commission, holiness and amendment of life, personal evangelism and church growth. In organizing the agenda, Dr. Williams solicited the views of his fellow archbishops, presiding bishops and moderators, asking what topics they wished to discuss.
From these responses, he developed a lesson plan that will include a session on global warming, international finance, co-ordination of development work among church agencies, and the Communion's theological working group. Time has also been set aside for a discussion of the May agenda of ACC-14 in Kingston, Jamaica, the Anglican Covenant, and a presentation from the Windsor Continuation Group.
As the "first among equals" or "primus inter pares", The Archbishop of Canterbury hopes he can keep everyone talking at the table without the communion exploding and shattering. He will probably be successful.
The truth is there is probably little danger of the communion imploding. What will happen, according to one orthodox bishop, is that the communion will continue with "parallel development" movements that will in the course of time take over and become mainstream Anglicanism. With the advent of GAFCON as a parallel movement to Lambeth, so ACNA will emerge as a parallel movement to The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.
The old institutions will no longer be the sole representatives of Anglicanism in North America. The week (Feb. 1-5) will be held behind closed doors at the Helnan Palestinian Hotel. There will be some absences.
The Province of Central Africa has no archbishop since the retirement of The Most Rev. Bernard Malango. Two archbishops have said they will be unable to attend the gathering: South India and Pakistan. The Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu has been invited to attend the gathering by Dr. Williams.
Hosting the occasion will be Middle East Primate, Archbishop Mouneer Anis. The primates will open with a morning retreat led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, followed by worship at St Mark's pro-Cathedral. Business sessions will be interspersed throughout the week with worship and excursions to local sites, including the Alexandria School of Theology and the newly renovated Bibliotheca Alexandrina. There will be daily press conferences.
VOL will be there and will post stories daily to www.virtueonline.org
END
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
1/29/2009
When Archbishops of the Anglican Communion gather on the balmy shores of the Mediterranean next week in the Egyptian city of Alexandria, they will meet amidst continuing tensions over pansexuality and the establishment of a new orthodox North American Anglican province that has already received endorsement by a number of GAFCON Primates.
Five of the world Anglican leaders will be asked to give an account of their stewardship, chief among them will be Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Archbishop Fred Hiltz of Canada as well as the Primates of Uganda, Pakistan, and Southern Africa. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams has asked the primates of these five provinces to reflect on the impact that the current Anglican conflict over sexuality has had on the mission and priorities of their churches.
Mrs. Jefferts Schori will have to explain why one of her bishops, The Rt. Rev. Robert O'Neill of the Diocese of Colorado, recently ordained to the transitional diaconate a publicly known sexually active homosexual. While this is not exactly earth-shattering news any more in TEC, O'Neill did say in 2003, when he became bishop, that he would not do such ordinations. He has broken that promise.
To date Mrs. Jefferts Schori has not condemned that action either publicly or privately. O'Neill's action puts a large nail in the tire of the Covenant Design Group which is trying to come up with a Covenant that every province can sign off on - a Covenant that grows more fictional with each passing month. O'Neill's action also violates the Windsor Report.
Ironically, O'Neill did what he did drawing upon Dr. Rowan Williams' own distinction between his personal views and the received teaching of the church on homosexuality, saying he would abide by the Communion's stated church teaching and discipline for the sake of its common life.
O'Neill shrewdly drove a wedge between the two using Williams' own thinking to act as he did. Perhaps Mrs. Jefferts Schori will offer to the Primates a promise that the new Bishop of Northern Michigan will not get consents after they learn that The Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester, the only nominee for bishop - is also a Zen Buddhist, and has actually received Buddhist lay ordination. Will she assure the Primates that he will not get consents?
Will she further assure them that rites for same sex blessings will not be on the agenda for General Convention later in July and receive formal ratification at a provincial level even though such rites are being practiced in a number of dioceses already? What of her own statements that homosexuality is a done deal in TEC?
She is on record as saying that she would consecrate another homosexual bishop if duly elected by an Episcopal diocese. She is also aware that Bishop Robinson's consecration is now accepted as a matter of course, and other provinces could begin to follow suit. Welsh Archbishop Barry Morgan has said he would certainly consecrate a non-celibate homosexual.
What will Canadian Archbishop Fred Hiltz say about a number of his dioceses that are already allowing rites for same-sex blessings? It seems likely that formal provincial ratification is only a matter of time. Will he be questioned on whether the slow death of his province and its dire financial condition, while endorsing pansexuality might all be linked? Hiltz will undoubtedly blast the new Anglican Church set up by one of his former bishops Donald Harvey, but he will have a hard time explaining their constant and steady growth even as they face opposition from the established church and the culture.
The Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) now has three bishops. And what of the new North American Anglican Province (ACNA) now in play and formally to be ratified in June of this year? Common Cause Moderator Bishop Robert Duncan will not be in Egypt, but his presence will be very much there. His GAFCON primatial backers, some seven of them, will speak for him and the province, putting Williams on the spot.
This could cause a huge row.
The Archbishop of Wales, Barry Morgan has made that clear. At the Diocese of Virginia Annual Council recently he said that he would resist the founding of another province "with every fiber of his body." He got a standing ovation. He says it's "total nonsense." He says that if it's possible for that to happen to The Episcopal Church, it's possible for any of us, he says. He also says he's a minority among the primates. Morgan told the council that he doesn't want them to think that The Episcopal Church and Canada are pariahs - but that all are in the firing line. He feels that The Episcopal Church has behaved "graciously", unlike other members of the Communion.
GRACIOUS. Perhaps Morgan can explain the millions of dollars Mrs. Jefferts Schori is spending litigating against dioceses and parishes that no longer wish to stay in her ecclesiastical grip.
Perhaps he can explain the go it alone threats The Episcopal Church conveys any time it is pushed to the wall about homosexuality and Bishop Gene Robinson's outrageous behavior, his faux prayer at President Obama's inauguration and his ability to move homosexuality to the center of the Culture Wars. He is a hero now to many. When you throw in Episcopal priest The Rev. Ed Bacon's recent statement that he made on the Oprah Show that homosexuality is "a gift from God", you know it is all over but the shouting.
And what will Henry Luke Orombi, Archbishop of Uganda have to say? He and his fellow bishops boycotted Lambeth, which has been an ecclesiastical stain on Williams' record. He has been enormously outspoken against western pansexual attitudes and there is little evidence that he will let up in Alexandria. Archbishops Emmanuel Kolini, Benjamin Nzimbi and Peter Akinola also boycotted Lambeth. Archbishop Gregory Venables of the Province of the Southern Cone has taken a lot of heat for taking under his wing the dioceses of Pittsburgh, San Joaquin and Ft. Worth, but it should be noted that the so-called crossing of boundaries was instigated by these dioceses and not by the Argentinian Bishop.
Venables heeded a call, he did not come uninvited, something Mrs. Jefferts Schori will likely contest. Can the Primates get the communion back on track? Will they continue not to have Eucharist together as they have refused to do at the past two Primatial gatherings?
An official statement from Lambeth Palace says the Primates will focus on how well their provinces are fulfilling the Communion's official "five marks of mission": evangelization, catechization, service, social and environmental action.
True, but the elephant in the room will be GAFCON and ACNA. Mrs. Jefferts Schori will push Millennium Development Goals while Global South leaders will push for The Great Commission, holiness and amendment of life, personal evangelism and church growth. In organizing the agenda, Dr. Williams solicited the views of his fellow archbishops, presiding bishops and moderators, asking what topics they wished to discuss.
From these responses, he developed a lesson plan that will include a session on global warming, international finance, co-ordination of development work among church agencies, and the Communion's theological working group. Time has also been set aside for a discussion of the May agenda of ACC-14 in Kingston, Jamaica, the Anglican Covenant, and a presentation from the Windsor Continuation Group.
As the "first among equals" or "primus inter pares", The Archbishop of Canterbury hopes he can keep everyone talking at the table without the communion exploding and shattering. He will probably be successful.
The truth is there is probably little danger of the communion imploding. What will happen, according to one orthodox bishop, is that the communion will continue with "parallel development" movements that will in the course of time take over and become mainstream Anglicanism. With the advent of GAFCON as a parallel movement to Lambeth, so ACNA will emerge as a parallel movement to The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.
The old institutions will no longer be the sole representatives of Anglicanism in North America. The week (Feb. 1-5) will be held behind closed doors at the Helnan Palestinian Hotel. There will be some absences.
The Province of Central Africa has no archbishop since the retirement of The Most Rev. Bernard Malango. Two archbishops have said they will be unable to attend the gathering: South India and Pakistan. The Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu has been invited to attend the gathering by Dr. Williams.
Hosting the occasion will be Middle East Primate, Archbishop Mouneer Anis. The primates will open with a morning retreat led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, followed by worship at St Mark's pro-Cathedral. Business sessions will be interspersed throughout the week with worship and excursions to local sites, including the Alexandria School of Theology and the newly renovated Bibliotheca Alexandrina. There will be daily press conferences.
VOL will be there and will post stories daily to www.virtueonline.org
END
Episcopal Church Asked to Pay for San Joaquin Lawsuit
From The Anglican Curmudgeon via TitusOneNine:
Friday, January 30, 2009
The litigation in San Joaquin has entered a new phase with the filing of a cross-complaint against the Episcopal Church (USA) by the parties it initially sued last April. The cross-complaint, brought by Bishop Schofield and two diocesan investment entities which he heads (the Episcopal Foundation and the Diocesan Investment Trust), seeks an award against ECUSA for the amount of attorneys' fees those defendants are being called upon to expend in defending the suit instigated by Bishop Jerry A. Lamb and a group calling itself the "Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin", and joined in by ECUSA.
The cross-complaint states two claims for relief. The first asserts that ECUSA in effect put Bishop Lamb and his followers up to bringing the lawsuit that was filed in Fresno County Superior Court on April 24, 2008, by making false representations to them that they could be plaintiffs because they were now a genuine diocese of the Episcopal Church who had met in a legitimate "special convention" the previous month and elected a bishop. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, convened the special convention herself, and proposed the Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb, the resigned (retired) bishop of the Diocese of Northern California, to be its "provisional bishop". After it concurred, the convention proceeded to adopt resolutions authorizing him to claim ownership of the corporation sole that holds title to diocesan real property, and to file the present lawsuit against Bishop Schofield and the investment entities, which manage the funds belonging to the diocese.
Bishop Schofield alone asserts the second claim for relief in the cross-complaint. It is a contingent claim, dependent on the outcome of the principal lawsuit against him. In essence, it asserts that Bishop Schofield simply followed the wishes of his employer, the Diocese of San Joaquin, in taking the steps for which he has been sued by the plaintiffs, and that he believed those steps were lawful. He has an agreement of indemnity with his employer, the cross-complaint alleges, whereby the Diocese is required to reimburse him for any legal expenses incurred as a result of his good-faith obedience to its decisions. Therefore, if the plaintiffs succeed in their lawsuit against him, and regain all the property and other assets of the diocese, he alleges that they will have to reimburse him for all his legal expenses under the provisions of California Labor Code section 2802 and the general indemnity statute, Civil Code section 2778 (4).
The cross-complaint also names as a defendant the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of ECUSA, which it alleges is the alter ego of ECUSA, and is the entity that actually holds its funds and property. In order to be able to collect any judgment awarded against ECUSA, the cross-complaint alleges, judgment would have to be awarded against the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society as well.
The filing of the cross-complaint raises the stakes considerably in what is already a very high-stakes game being played by ECUSA, as I explained in this earlier post. Essentially, ECUSA was risking everything on its bet that the Fresno court would accept the legitimacy of the "Remain Episcopal" group in San Joaquin as a lawfully constituted diocese of the Episcopal Church, with full standing to claim title to the assets of the actual diocese, which had voted to disaffiliate. By lending its authority and recognition to that group, by installing Bishop Lamb as their titular head, and by bankrolling both of them from the outset, ECUSA may fairly be said to have been the driving force behind the current litigation.
Recently, ECUSA and its nominee plaintiffs added fuel to the fire by seeking leave of court to amend their complaint to go after a $500,000 retainer paid by the Diocese of San Joaquin to its attorneys in anticipation of having to defend any litigation that would be brought as a result of its vote to disaffiliate from the Church. Now with the cross-complaint against it, ECUSA will have to allow for the possibility that if its gamble loses, it could be stuck with the bill not only for the plaintiffs in the San Joaquin litigation, but also with the bill for the defendants and their attorneys as well.
The doctrine under which the cross-complaint proceeds is known as the "tort of another" theory in California law. It was discussed by the California Supreme Court in a case called Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc., 35 Cal.3d 498 (1984), and described there as follows:
A fourth established exception, sometimes referred to as the "tort of another" or "third party tort" exception, allows a plaintiff attorney fees if he is required to employ counsel to prosecute or defend an action against a third party because of the tort of the defendant. (Prentice v. North Amer. Title Guar. Corp. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 618, 620-621 [30 Cal.Rptr. 821, 381 P.2d 645].) This rule is embodied in the Restatement of Torts and is generally followed in the United States. (Rest.2d Torts, § 914, subd. (2), and appen.)
The lawsuit filed by ECUSA, Bishop Lamb and the unincorporated association which styles itself as "the Diocese of San Joaquin" in its complaint places directly into play the legitimacy of the moves used by Bishop Jefferts Schori to "prove" her assertion that "dioceses cannot leave the Church; only people can." The cross-complaint hones in on that assertion by charging her Church with the legal consequences of carrying it into effect.
Bishop Schofield had announced, prior to the December 2007 vote by the Diocesan Convention to disaffiliate, that any parish wishing to remain with ECUSA would be allowed to do so without rancor or legal consequences, so long as it did not owe any debt to the Diocese. Had ECUSA's Presiding Bishop not insisted on recruiting and financing the group that remained to serve as a plaintiff to sue Bishop Schofield, it is doubtful in the extreme that the group alone, which constituted around a third of the parishes in the Diocese before the vote, would have marshaled the resources (and the will) to maintain a lawsuit.
In quite a few previous posts, I have gone into the manifold legal difficulties which I believe ECUSA will face in trying to make Bishop Jefferts Schori's claim stand up in court. The problem essentially is that there are two aspects to what Episcopalians understand as a "diocese": it is an entity that has a canonical status in the Church itself, and which is wholly apart from its legal status as an entity under a state's secular law. It is not possible to have one without the other, and still be a diocese of the Episcopal Church (USA).
A church itself has to have a legal existence, in order to be able to hold title to property and to have bank accounts, for one thing. In just the same way, a diocese has to have a legal existence as well. The flaw in ECUSA's theory in San Joaquin (as well as in Pittsburgh, Fort Worth and Quincy) is that an entity recognized as such in the law cannot be two entities at the same time, just as one person cannot be two people at the same time. Sam Jones, for example, may legally change his identity to Sam Smith, but the law will then cease to recognize Sam Smith as Sam Jones.
And that is just what happened when the dissenters from the vote in San Joaquin left and formed their own unincorporated association under California law, with its headquarters in Stockton. They were not the association who had held the vote, because that association continued to exist and to have its headquarters where they had always been---in Fresno. They were a new association in the eyes of the secular law. They cannot, in the eyes of California law, be the same association as the one that left.
The next step is to ask: if they are a new association under California law, how did they get to be the same old Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin in the eyes of ECUSA? For ECUSA spells out procedures by which an entity becomes one of its dioceses, and part of that procedure is a vote to accept the new diocese by ECUSA's General Convention. No such vote has been held, because General Convention does not even come into existence until next July.
But ECUSA wants the court, along with everyone else, to believe that the group is one of its dioceses because it held a legal convention at Lodi on March 29 under the old diocesan Constitution and Canons. Once it was assembled in convention, the group voted to adopt the following resolution:
Whereas, at previous meetings of this Convention, this Convention made the following purported amendments and additions to the Diocesan Constitution and Canons, which this Convention now recognizes are contrary and otherwise inconsistent with the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Purported Modifications"):
[the changes approved at the last two annual conventions are set forth]
Whereas, this Convention finds that the Purported Modifications were invalid, ultra vires, and without effect;
Resolved, that this Convention hereby restates, ratifies, and confirms that the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese with the deletion of the Purported Modifications and reversion to the original provisions constitute the true, correct, and effective Constitution and Canons of this Diocese . . .
The resolution then offers the following partial explanation for what its function is:
As the effect of this resolution is merely acknowledges that the Purported Modifications were invalid, it is not an amendment and thus does not require two Convention votes as an amendment to the Constitution.
At the same meeting, the group voted to place themselves under the Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb as their provisional Bishop.
Do you see the problem here? Look at the language and read again the explanation of the purpose of the resolution. With that language, the group is saying that it is a continuation of the prior Diocesan Conventions, and not a "new" group at all!
All right, let us take the group at its word, and pretend for a minute that it was the only true continuation of the group that voted by more than an 80% majority to amend the Constitution and Canons so as to leave ECUSA in December 2007. This is the same bunch that argues the Dennis Canon is legally binding on parishes who have never heard about it, because in the years since it was enacted they did not object to it. And it is also the group that argues that Bishops Cox and Schofield were validly deposed in March 2008, because again, no one objected to the fact that there were not enough bishops there to vote for the resolution at the time it passed by a simple shout of "Yeas" versus "Nays".
Let us therefore give them a little bit of their own medicine. They were also present at the Annual Convention in December 2006 when the same Constitutional changes were first passed (by another large majority). But if those changes were "invalid" and ultra vires when they were enacted again in 2007, were they not just as invalid in December 2006? And if that is the case, why did not this same group that now calls itself the "Diocese of San Joaquin" call together a "special convention" then and declare the measures invalid? Why are they not bound by the "illegal acts" taken in December 2007, in the same way that Bishop Schofield is supposed gto be "bound" by the illegal vote to depose him?
Oh, I know---logic is not the liberals' strong suit. They are as impervious to logic as a duck is to water, and they employ it the same way ducks employ water: to paddle around in when it suits them, but to ignore it when it does not. Just as water never kept a duck from going ashore, so logic never keeps a liberal from going for more. If they can get what they want through logic, well and good; but if logic would stop them from getting what they want, it is suddenly not important---or in other words, results outweigh logic every time. Now substitute the word "law" for "logic" in that last sentence, and you will understand the "refinement" (more correctly, the predicament) that the Presiding Bishop has brought to the Church that elected her.
But now back to the convention that the Presiding Bishop convoked at Lodi on March 29. Since it purported to act as though it were a continuation of the previous diocesan conventions, and to pass a resolution declaring the actions of those prior conventions null and void, it must have been meeting in conformity with the Diocesan Constitution and Canons, correct? (Because if it was not so meeting, then all of its actions would be "null and void".)
In the next installment on this topic, I shall inquire more closely into the procedures used to call the meeting, and into who was actually there. Then I hope you will be able to understand why ECUSA's whole game is just a charade, trumped up just so a lawsuit could be quickly filed against those who left, in order to deter others who might be planning to do the same. In such a maneuver, the timing of the threat was more important than following the canons---just as it was with all of the other uncanonical moves of the Presiding Bishop, about which you may read at your leisure here.
Strategies have consequences. Whether it happens next month, or six months or a year from now, those who have been relying so heavily on a strategy that trashes the canons for short-term advantage will find out just what those consequences are.
Posted by A. S. Haley
Friday, January 30, 2009
The litigation in San Joaquin has entered a new phase with the filing of a cross-complaint against the Episcopal Church (USA) by the parties it initially sued last April. The cross-complaint, brought by Bishop Schofield and two diocesan investment entities which he heads (the Episcopal Foundation and the Diocesan Investment Trust), seeks an award against ECUSA for the amount of attorneys' fees those defendants are being called upon to expend in defending the suit instigated by Bishop Jerry A. Lamb and a group calling itself the "Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin", and joined in by ECUSA.
The cross-complaint states two claims for relief. The first asserts that ECUSA in effect put Bishop Lamb and his followers up to bringing the lawsuit that was filed in Fresno County Superior Court on April 24, 2008, by making false representations to them that they could be plaintiffs because they were now a genuine diocese of the Episcopal Church who had met in a legitimate "special convention" the previous month and elected a bishop. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, convened the special convention herself, and proposed the Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb, the resigned (retired) bishop of the Diocese of Northern California, to be its "provisional bishop". After it concurred, the convention proceeded to adopt resolutions authorizing him to claim ownership of the corporation sole that holds title to diocesan real property, and to file the present lawsuit against Bishop Schofield and the investment entities, which manage the funds belonging to the diocese.
Bishop Schofield alone asserts the second claim for relief in the cross-complaint. It is a contingent claim, dependent on the outcome of the principal lawsuit against him. In essence, it asserts that Bishop Schofield simply followed the wishes of his employer, the Diocese of San Joaquin, in taking the steps for which he has been sued by the plaintiffs, and that he believed those steps were lawful. He has an agreement of indemnity with his employer, the cross-complaint alleges, whereby the Diocese is required to reimburse him for any legal expenses incurred as a result of his good-faith obedience to its decisions. Therefore, if the plaintiffs succeed in their lawsuit against him, and regain all the property and other assets of the diocese, he alleges that they will have to reimburse him for all his legal expenses under the provisions of California Labor Code section 2802 and the general indemnity statute, Civil Code section 2778 (4).
The cross-complaint also names as a defendant the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of ECUSA, which it alleges is the alter ego of ECUSA, and is the entity that actually holds its funds and property. In order to be able to collect any judgment awarded against ECUSA, the cross-complaint alleges, judgment would have to be awarded against the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society as well.
The filing of the cross-complaint raises the stakes considerably in what is already a very high-stakes game being played by ECUSA, as I explained in this earlier post. Essentially, ECUSA was risking everything on its bet that the Fresno court would accept the legitimacy of the "Remain Episcopal" group in San Joaquin as a lawfully constituted diocese of the Episcopal Church, with full standing to claim title to the assets of the actual diocese, which had voted to disaffiliate. By lending its authority and recognition to that group, by installing Bishop Lamb as their titular head, and by bankrolling both of them from the outset, ECUSA may fairly be said to have been the driving force behind the current litigation.
Recently, ECUSA and its nominee plaintiffs added fuel to the fire by seeking leave of court to amend their complaint to go after a $500,000 retainer paid by the Diocese of San Joaquin to its attorneys in anticipation of having to defend any litigation that would be brought as a result of its vote to disaffiliate from the Church. Now with the cross-complaint against it, ECUSA will have to allow for the possibility that if its gamble loses, it could be stuck with the bill not only for the plaintiffs in the San Joaquin litigation, but also with the bill for the defendants and their attorneys as well.
The doctrine under which the cross-complaint proceeds is known as the "tort of another" theory in California law. It was discussed by the California Supreme Court in a case called Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc., 35 Cal.3d 498 (1984), and described there as follows:
A fourth established exception, sometimes referred to as the "tort of another" or "third party tort" exception, allows a plaintiff attorney fees if he is required to employ counsel to prosecute or defend an action against a third party because of the tort of the defendant. (Prentice v. North Amer. Title Guar. Corp. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 618, 620-621 [30 Cal.Rptr. 821, 381 P.2d 645].) This rule is embodied in the Restatement of Torts and is generally followed in the United States. (Rest.2d Torts, § 914, subd. (2), and appen.)
The lawsuit filed by ECUSA, Bishop Lamb and the unincorporated association which styles itself as "the Diocese of San Joaquin" in its complaint places directly into play the legitimacy of the moves used by Bishop Jefferts Schori to "prove" her assertion that "dioceses cannot leave the Church; only people can." The cross-complaint hones in on that assertion by charging her Church with the legal consequences of carrying it into effect.
Bishop Schofield had announced, prior to the December 2007 vote by the Diocesan Convention to disaffiliate, that any parish wishing to remain with ECUSA would be allowed to do so without rancor or legal consequences, so long as it did not owe any debt to the Diocese. Had ECUSA's Presiding Bishop not insisted on recruiting and financing the group that remained to serve as a plaintiff to sue Bishop Schofield, it is doubtful in the extreme that the group alone, which constituted around a third of the parishes in the Diocese before the vote, would have marshaled the resources (and the will) to maintain a lawsuit.
In quite a few previous posts, I have gone into the manifold legal difficulties which I believe ECUSA will face in trying to make Bishop Jefferts Schori's claim stand up in court. The problem essentially is that there are two aspects to what Episcopalians understand as a "diocese": it is an entity that has a canonical status in the Church itself, and which is wholly apart from its legal status as an entity under a state's secular law. It is not possible to have one without the other, and still be a diocese of the Episcopal Church (USA).
A church itself has to have a legal existence, in order to be able to hold title to property and to have bank accounts, for one thing. In just the same way, a diocese has to have a legal existence as well. The flaw in ECUSA's theory in San Joaquin (as well as in Pittsburgh, Fort Worth and Quincy) is that an entity recognized as such in the law cannot be two entities at the same time, just as one person cannot be two people at the same time. Sam Jones, for example, may legally change his identity to Sam Smith, but the law will then cease to recognize Sam Smith as Sam Jones.
And that is just what happened when the dissenters from the vote in San Joaquin left and formed their own unincorporated association under California law, with its headquarters in Stockton. They were not the association who had held the vote, because that association continued to exist and to have its headquarters where they had always been---in Fresno. They were a new association in the eyes of the secular law. They cannot, in the eyes of California law, be the same association as the one that left.
The next step is to ask: if they are a new association under California law, how did they get to be the same old Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin in the eyes of ECUSA? For ECUSA spells out procedures by which an entity becomes one of its dioceses, and part of that procedure is a vote to accept the new diocese by ECUSA's General Convention. No such vote has been held, because General Convention does not even come into existence until next July.
But ECUSA wants the court, along with everyone else, to believe that the group is one of its dioceses because it held a legal convention at Lodi on March 29 under the old diocesan Constitution and Canons. Once it was assembled in convention, the group voted to adopt the following resolution:
Whereas, at previous meetings of this Convention, this Convention made the following purported amendments and additions to the Diocesan Constitution and Canons, which this Convention now recognizes are contrary and otherwise inconsistent with the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Purported Modifications"):
[the changes approved at the last two annual conventions are set forth]
Whereas, this Convention finds that the Purported Modifications were invalid, ultra vires, and without effect;
Resolved, that this Convention hereby restates, ratifies, and confirms that the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese with the deletion of the Purported Modifications and reversion to the original provisions constitute the true, correct, and effective Constitution and Canons of this Diocese . . .
The resolution then offers the following partial explanation for what its function is:
As the effect of this resolution is merely acknowledges that the Purported Modifications were invalid, it is not an amendment and thus does not require two Convention votes as an amendment to the Constitution.
At the same meeting, the group voted to place themselves under the Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb as their provisional Bishop.
Do you see the problem here? Look at the language and read again the explanation of the purpose of the resolution. With that language, the group is saying that it is a continuation of the prior Diocesan Conventions, and not a "new" group at all!
All right, let us take the group at its word, and pretend for a minute that it was the only true continuation of the group that voted by more than an 80% majority to amend the Constitution and Canons so as to leave ECUSA in December 2007. This is the same bunch that argues the Dennis Canon is legally binding on parishes who have never heard about it, because in the years since it was enacted they did not object to it. And it is also the group that argues that Bishops Cox and Schofield were validly deposed in March 2008, because again, no one objected to the fact that there were not enough bishops there to vote for the resolution at the time it passed by a simple shout of "Yeas" versus "Nays".
Let us therefore give them a little bit of their own medicine. They were also present at the Annual Convention in December 2006 when the same Constitutional changes were first passed (by another large majority). But if those changes were "invalid" and ultra vires when they were enacted again in 2007, were they not just as invalid in December 2006? And if that is the case, why did not this same group that now calls itself the "Diocese of San Joaquin" call together a "special convention" then and declare the measures invalid? Why are they not bound by the "illegal acts" taken in December 2007, in the same way that Bishop Schofield is supposed gto be "bound" by the illegal vote to depose him?
Oh, I know---logic is not the liberals' strong suit. They are as impervious to logic as a duck is to water, and they employ it the same way ducks employ water: to paddle around in when it suits them, but to ignore it when it does not. Just as water never kept a duck from going ashore, so logic never keeps a liberal from going for more. If they can get what they want through logic, well and good; but if logic would stop them from getting what they want, it is suddenly not important---or in other words, results outweigh logic every time. Now substitute the word "law" for "logic" in that last sentence, and you will understand the "refinement" (more correctly, the predicament) that the Presiding Bishop has brought to the Church that elected her.
But now back to the convention that the Presiding Bishop convoked at Lodi on March 29. Since it purported to act as though it were a continuation of the previous diocesan conventions, and to pass a resolution declaring the actions of those prior conventions null and void, it must have been meeting in conformity with the Diocesan Constitution and Canons, correct? (Because if it was not so meeting, then all of its actions would be "null and void".)
In the next installment on this topic, I shall inquire more closely into the procedures used to call the meeting, and into who was actually there. Then I hope you will be able to understand why ECUSA's whole game is just a charade, trumped up just so a lawsuit could be quickly filed against those who left, in order to deter others who might be planning to do the same. In such a maneuver, the timing of the threat was more important than following the canons---just as it was with all of the other uncanonical moves of the Presiding Bishop, about which you may read at your leisure here.
Strategies have consequences. Whether it happens next month, or six months or a year from now, those who have been relying so heavily on a strategy that trashes the canons for short-term advantage will find out just what those consequences are.
Posted by A. S. Haley
Friday, January 30, 2009
THE FUTURE OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION COVENANT in Light of the Global Anglican Future Conference
From Stephen's Witness (Stephen Noll) via TitusOneNine:
Sunday, January 25, 2009
The call for an Anglican Communion Covenant resulted directly from the Windsor Report (sec. 113-120), and the Windsor Report itself was a crisis response document. It is therefore not possible or desirable to evaluate any document that emerges from a drafting process without asking the question: “Will it address the crisis facing the Communion?”
That said, the crisis has also raised issues of the identity and governance of the Anglican Communion that have lain dormant for many decades. From time to time, the Lambeth Conference began to address these issues, but more often than not it punted them further down the field. Now many of us feel that the conflicts and contradictions of Anglican identity and governance must be squarely faced. A covenant could be just the sort of document to do this. Or not.
It is my contention in this essay that the official Anglican Covenant process under the direction of Abp. Drexel Gomez will not be able to produce an adequate document to meet the requirements of the hour. In the two years since the formation of the Covenant Drafting Group in September 2006, a new team has taken the field, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. Meeting in Jerusalem in June 2008, the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) published a statement of identity – “The Jerusalem Declaration” – and formed a Primates’ Council claiming extraordinary authority to separate from a heterodox Province or to recognize an orthodox Province. It seems likely that this Council will soon recognize a North American Province separate from The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.
Despite the advent of the GAFCON movement, representing nearly half the Anglicans in the world, the Lambeth Conference proceeded with business as usual, including the promotion of the existing Covenant process, which now faces the likely outcome of being rejected by both orthodox and revisionist wings of the Communion. It is now time to step back and reexamine the process and principles of the Covenant. It is my conviction that the Anglican Communion is a house divided against itself, and that no covenant can ignore this fact without becoming irrelevant and hypocritical.
The Covenant Process
The Covenant process, like the Windsor process, is the brainchild of the Archbishop of Canterbury and several of his top advisors. This fact cannot be ignored. Rowan Williams has repeatedly expressed the view that, given enough time for patient listening and dialogue, the two apparently opposite theological poles, which I shall call orthodox and revisionist, can be reconciled in a creative synthesis. No doubt this philosophical position is reinforced by the real fear that having to choose one side or the other would lead to the division of the Communion. So in any process the Archbishop requires that all must have a voice.
But it is more complicated than that. The Archbishop and his advisors seem to have concluded that within the orthodox and revisionist camps, the “fundamentalists” of both groups should be excluded and the leadership be inhabited only by the “moderates,” namely, those who agree with the premise that “unity” is the preeminent virtue and that schism is the ultimate vice. In practical terms, this means that only “institutionalist” evangelicals and catholics on one side and establishment revisionists, i.e., those who are not notorious unilateralists on the other, are participants in these processes.
I intend to address here only the role of evangelicals in the Covenant process. In doing so, I shall have to indulge in what may seem self-serving narrative about my role over the past few years. I have been a recognized evangelical combatant in the debates within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion for almost twenty years. In terms of the Covenant, I gave an address in 2005 on “The Global Anglican Communion: A Blueprint” and was chosen to serve on the Global South Drafting Group, which began working on an independent draft in early 2006. I was also asked to help draft “The Road to Lambeth” statement, which warned that unless the Episcopal Church were disciplined prior to Lambeth 2008, many bishops would not attend. In the latter capacity, I attended the Global South Primates’ meeting at Kigali where it was announced that Rowan Williams had appointed Abp. Drexel Gomez to chair the Lambeth Drafting Group. At that point, the Global South group ceased to function. Abp. Orombi then nominated me to be a member of the Covenant Drafting group. It would seem reasonable that a theologian with experience of both the Global South and the Episcopal Church would be a good choice for such a group. In the end, however, I was named to a “corresponding group.” So Uganda, the second largest province of the Communion, had no representative in drafting the Covenant, whereas the Episcopal Church had two representatives, one an institutionalist catholic and the other an institutional apologist for the actions of 2003. So far as I can see, no conservative evangelical and no one who subsequently attended GAFCON, serves on the Drafting Team.
In my role as a consultant, I have sent four submissions to the Covenant Design group. My most substantial attempt at consultation was entitled “An Evangelical Commentary on the Draft Covenant” (2007) based on the first “Nassau” draft. I attempted in that critique to propose a minimal number of changes to the draft which would at the same time meet the concerns that conservative evangelicals would want to see in order to own the Covenant. Although I submitted this critique directly to the Chairman of the Drafting Group and it was circulated widely on the internet and to a group of bishops in Oxford, none of these amendments made it into the St. Andrew’s draft. Similarly, I have joined in in two submissions from the Church of Uganda, neither of which has seen the light of day.
The moral of my story is this: the drafting process is skewed in such a way that the legitimate concerns of orthodox evangelicals and traditionalists will not be represented in the final Covenant document. The process itself is faulty in such a way that even orthodox men like Archbishops Gomez and Chew cannot produce an effective Covenant. It is part and parcel of the method used at Lambeth 2008 that produced a hodge-podge “Lambeth Indaba” with no authority and no conclusions. This process seems doomed to get worse, as the recent “Lambeth Commentary” proposes to subject subsequent drafts to yet further equivocation.
In the present political context, “time is not our friend,” as we say in Uganda. Inaction means victory for the revisionist party, which can proceed to carry out its “long march through the institutions” without fear of discipline. Over against those who urge patience in letting the Windsor and Covenant processes play out, there are more than a thousand Anglicans and 250 bishops who have concluded that there is no other way to preserve and reform the Communion than a movement independent of the Lambeth bureaucracy. They have concluded that a process orchestrated by Canterbury is not capable of addressing the crisis of the house divided, and whether or not that process meanders on or rushes on to completion, the resulting draft will be unacceptable.
What is Needed in an Anglican Covenant
In my view, the two essential ingredients of an effective Anglican Covenant involve doctrinal substance and disciplinary efficacy. The Nassau and St. Andrews drafts in my opinion are adequate on matters of doctrine and inadequate on discipline, and both fail to deal with the current context of radical departure from the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
Both drafts have a section on doctrine echoing the Lambeth Quadrilateral: “The Life We Share: Common Catholicity, Apostolicity and Confession of Faith” (Nassau); and “Our Inheritance of Faith” (St. Andrews). These sections are the strongest part of the Covenant drafts, and many evangelicals can affirm them as far as they go; however, the treatment of the Thirty-Nine Articles, in relegating them by name to a footnote (St. Andrews) and stating merely that they “bear significant witness” to the faith, is problematic.
The next section of the drafts, which addresses matters of hermeneutics and ethics, contains several weaknesses, both critical in the present context. Here is the comparison of the two drafts with my proposed emendations in the “Evangelical Commentary” with proposed changes in the latter higlighted.
NASSAU DRAFT
3 Our Commitment to Confession of the Faith
(Deuteronomy 30.11-14, Psalm 126, Mark 10.26-27, Luke 1.37, 46-55, John 8: 32, 14:15-17, 1 Corinthians 11.23-26,2 Timothy 3:10-4:5;)
In seeking to be faithful to God in their various contexts, each Church commits itself to:
1. uphold and act in continuity and consistency with the catholic and apostolic faith, order and tradition, biblically derived moral values and the vision of humanity received by and developed in the communion of member Churches; ...
3. ensure that biblical texts are handled faithfully, respectfully, comprehensively and coherently, primarily through the teaching and initiative of bishops and synods, and building on our best scholarship, believing that scriptural revelation must continue to illuminate, challenge and transform cultures, structures and ways of thinking;
ST. ANDREWS DRAFT
Section One: Our Inheritance of Faith
1.2 In living out this inheritance of faith together in varying contexts, each Church of the Communion commits itself:
(1.2.1) to uphold and act in continuity and consonance with Scripture and the catholic and apostolic faith, order and tradition;
(1.2.2) to uphold and proclaim a pattern of Christian theological and moral reasoning and discipline that is rooted in and answerable to the teaching of Holy Scripture and the catholic tradition and that reflects the renewal of humanity and the whole created order through the death and resurrection of Christ and the holiness that in consequence God gives to, and requires from, his people;
(1.2.4) to ensure that biblical texts are handled faithfully, respectfully, comprehensively and coherently, primarily through the teaching and initiative of bishops and synods, and building on habits and disciplines of Bible study across the Church and on rigorous scholarship, believing that scriptural revelation continues to illuminate and transform individuals, cultures and societies;...
EVANGELICAL COMMENTARY
3 Our Commitment to Confession of the Faith
(Deuteronomy 30.11-14, Psalm 126, Mark 10.26-27, Luke 1.37, 46-55, John 8: 32, 14:15-17, 1 Corinthians 11.23-26,2 Timothy 3:10-4:5;)
In seeking to maintain the faith given once for all to the saints, each Church commits itself to:
1. uphold and act in continuity and consistency with the catholic and apostolic faith, order and tradition, and the historic Anglican formularies;
2. uphold the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as God’s Word written and to ensure that biblical texts are interpreted in their plain and canonical sense, through the preaching and teaching of pastors, the regular reading of the people, and the oversight of bishops and synods, building on our best scholarship, believing that scriptural revelation must continue to illuminate, challenge and transform cultures, structures and ways of thinking;
4. uphold the vision of humanity as male and female and our Lord’s teaching on the unchangeable standard of marriage of one man and one woman (or abstinence);
I gave the following justification for the proposed amendments to this section:
Explanation: The amended introductory phrase recalls the “once for all” character of the Christian faith, as contended for by St. Jude. The catholic and apostolic nature of the Church is given its due in subsection 1, along with the Reformation insights mentioned above.
I believe the authority of Scripture should receive a separate subsection (2) and be given priority in the order of “Word and Sacrament.”
The use of the phrase “God’s Word written” from Article XX is of great importance in the present crisis of authority. I propose interpretation in the “plain and canonical sense” as a somewhat stronger wording to stress the Reformation emphasis on the clarity and unity of Scripture, and I note the joint responsibility of upholding Scripture by people, pastors, scholars and bishops as a classic application of biblical authority.
Finally, I think that the Covenant should openly confront the presenting error of our day: the substitution of personal sexual fulfillment for obedience to God’s order of marriage and procreation. I refer to the “unchangeable standard” of marriage in the words of Resolution 66 (Lambeth 1920).
So in conclusion, the doctrinal component of the Draft Covenants could form a theological basis for Communion faith and mission, if it could be strengthened at key points, but these are the very points at which the current process will move, if at all, in the wrong direction.
When we turn to the question of effective discipline, both drafts are deficient in lacking a final point of excommunication, a.k.a “walking apart.” Now we should all agree that a process of discipline must be careful, with a “strategy of time” in which issues can be clarified and parties can change their minds and actions. In this regard, I think a return to the process proposed by Abps. Gomez and Sinclair in “To Mend the Net” is in order (see Appendix). In any case, process without end makes a mockery of discipline. So the exclusion clause is essential to an effective covenant, and this is the place where the current Draft Covenants fail. Again, I compare the key clauses with my proposed amendment highlighted.
NASSAU DRAFT
6 Unity of the Communion
(Nehemiah 2.17,18, Mt. 18.15-18, 1 Corinthians 12, 2 Corinthians 4.1-18, 13: 5-10, Galatians 6.1-10)
9 We acknowledge that in the most extreme circumstances, where member churches choose not to fulfil the substance of the covenant as understood by the Councils of the Instruments of Communion, we will consider that such churches will have relinquished for themselves the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose, and a process of restoration and renewal will be required to re-establish their covenant relationship with other member churches.
ST. ANDREWS DRAFT
Section Three: Our Unity and Common Life
(3.2.5.e) Any such request [for discipline] would not be binding on a Church unless recognised as such by that Church. However, commitment to this covenant entails an acknowledgement that in the most extreme circumstances, where a Church chooses not to adopt the request of the Instruments of Communion,Bold that decision may be understood by the Church itself, or by the resolution of the Instruments of Communion, as a relinquishment by that Church of the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose, until they re-establish their covenant relationship with other member Churches.
EVANGELICAL COMMENTARY
6 Unity of the Communion
(Nehemiah 2.17,18, Mt. 18.15-18, 1 Corinthians 12, 2 Corinthians 4.1-18, 13: 5-10, Galatians 6.1-10)
9. We acknowledge that in the most extreme circumstances, where member churches choose not to fulfil the substance of the covenant as understood by the Councils of the Instruments of Communion, we will consider that such churches will have relinquished membership in the Anglican Communion.
*****
The Nassau and St. Andrews drafts refuse to concede that at some point membership in the Communion ceases and an alternative jurisdiction is necessary. The tortured nature of the language in this section suggests that a final blow will never fall. Rowan Williams has opined at times about the possibility of levels of membership in the Communion, an idea suggested in the St. Andrews draft which speaks of “degrees” of communion (sec. 3.2.6). At no point do these documents recognize the possibility that a church might be heretical and impenitent, and the process laid out in the Appendix to the St. Andrews draft is so byzantine that it is hard to imagine any member would ever be excluded. Such a “gentlemanly” approach to unity within the Anglican Communion may have sufficed during periods of our history, but it is totally inadequate to deal with the kind of division that now exists.
GAFCON and the Covenant
The Global Anglican Future Conference had the look of a constitutional assembly. To be sure, those present stated clearly that their purpose was reform of, not departure from, the Communion. But the production of a Declaration and the formation of a Primates’ Council, acclaimed by the entire assembly, recalls scenes of biblical covenant-making or -renewal (Deuteronomy; Joshua 24).
The Jerusalem Declaration itself mirrors elements of the two Covenant drafts in certain ways. The first seven clauses are primarily addressed to the “inheritance of faith” as found in the Scriptures, the Creeds and Councils, the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal. The second seven clauses address a number of contemporary issues, including “the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family” and the “commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married” (clause 8).
The Declaration lays down the basis for excommunication, although it does not spell out the process whereby that end point is reached:
We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord. (clause 13)
Clause 13 is not merely hypothetical. The Global Anglican Future Statement includes an indictment of some churches and bishops who have embraced a different “gospel,” causing orthodox provinces to declare themselves out of communion with them. It is because the existing Instruments of Unity have proved ineffective in dealing with this situation that the GAFCON movement and Primates’ Council commends the temporary arrangement of cross-border jurisdiction and the final recognition of a North American province outside The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.
The spirit of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans is not separatist or puritanical but ecumenical, with the hope of a recovery of a generous and dynamic orthodoxy, as reflected in the Jerusalem Declaration:
We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration. (clause 11)
The necessary discipline of the Communion at this time may be painful, including the abnormal breaking of historic ties, but its goal is “the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it” (Hebrews 12:11).
The Form of Communion Governance
The present crisis has brought into focus another area in need of reform: the governance of the Communion. The Global Anglican Future Conference resulted from the failure of the Instruments of Unity to work properly to discipline erring members. While the Anglican Communion was originally established as a colonial council of bishops, the direction for the past thirty years has been toward conciliar governance through the Primates. The overturning of this direction by the Archbishop of Canterbury following the meeting in Dar es Salaam led in a straight line to GAFCON and the formation of a Primates’ Council as a governing body of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. Clearly, the informal, even arbitrary way in which the Archbishop of Canterbury has exercised his authority calls for some sort of constitutional regulation. The Windsor Report speculated on the need for a stronger primacy for Canterbury. The GAFCON movement trends in the opposite direction: toward full conciliarity among churches and bishops. The idea of conciliar governance does not contradict the idea of a Primus inter pares, but it is not clear that this role needs to be tied to Canterbury, especially in light of the specific legal entanglements of Establishment. Clearly there is a need for a clarification of matters of autonomy among provinces and the roles of synods and bishops in leadership. These matters should also be addressed by a covenant.
Conclusion
The idea of a Covenant, or call it a Communion Constitution and Canons, is necessary if the Communion is to maintain the special identity of Anglican theology, worship, polity and mission. The current covenant process established by the Archbishop of Canterbury will not be able to reach that end, because it is compromised by failing to identify the brokenness of the Communion and by including those who have broken it in the Covenant process itself. In the meantime, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans has emerged, by the grace of God, and this Fellowship has many aims in common with those who are seeking a Covenant.
I would suggest the following steps for those who wish to see a sound and effective Covenant.
1. Affirm the Jerusalem Declaration;
2. Call for the reconsideration of “To Mend the Net” as a step toward genuine discipline (see below);
3. Call for an extraordinary meeting of the Covenant Drafting Group and the leadership of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans to find a way forward.
It would be most helpful if conservatives who did not favour GAFCON would join in this effort, as it will be in the interest of all Anglicans to find a way forward which is faithful to our heritage and open to Christ’s mission in the world.
Appendix: “To Mend the Net” (expounded)
The following steps in a disciplinary process are mentioned in the proposal “To Mend the Net,” pages 20-22. See To Mend the Net: Anglican Faith and Order for Renewed Mission, eds. Drexel W. Gomez and Maurice W. Sinclair (Carrollton, Tex.: Ekklesia Society, 2001). I have expanded and expounded a bit on each step in the process, with two concluding notes.
1. Self-examination by Primates. Jesus’ warning to “judge not lest you be judged” is a gospel truth: people are often ready to cast the speck from their neighbour’s eye while ignoring the log in their own (Matthew 7:1-5). For this reason, St. Paul urges us to “examine yourselves that to see whether you are holding your faith” (2 Corinthians 13:5). In the weighty matter of breaking communion, leaders must be particularly vigilant of their own hearts.
2. Educative Role of Primates. Heresy is rooted in deceptive, worldly understandings (Colossians 2:8). Hence it is important for leaders, in separating themselves from such understandings, to give an orthodox “explanation for the hope that is within” them (1 Peter 3:15).
3. Advanced Sharing among Primates. Any decision to break communion should involve patient consultation among orthodox leaders to establish the reasons that such separation is justified.
4. Preparation of Guidelines. Leaders should work according to established guidelines and not act arbitrarily in a crisis mentality.
5. Godly Admonition. Admonition is out of favour in today’s tolerant climate, yet it is still essential to church leadership (1 Thessalonians 5:12). So orthodox leaders must give clear warning and time for repentance to those who have gone astray.
6. Relegation to Observer Status. Paul urges the Corinthians to deliver the sinner to Satan “so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 5:5). Seen in a church context, those provinces or bishops who violate the orthodox faith should, after due warning, be relegated to a status where they may repent before it is too late.
7. Continued Evangelism and Pastoral Oversight. This step justifies “interventions” in jurisdictions that are, in effect, on probation. Observer status creates a vacuum of proclamation for those who are trapped in these jurisdictions and need pastoral care as well as for those who have never heard the Gospel. During this probation period, the work of the church must go on, even if it is opposed by those being disciplined.
8. Recognition of a New Jurisdiction. There comes a time in the disciplinary process when it is acknowledged that those who have offended will not repent, that they have hardened their hearts to the Gospel (Hebrews 4:4-6). The process of discipline therefore may require the formation of an alternative jurisdiction, under new leadership.
Note 1: “To Mend the Net” was submitted with a sense of urgency to the Primates’ Meeting at Kanuga (USA) in March, 2001, but was discussed only at a “fireside chat.” It was then referred to the Inter-Anglican Commission on Doctrine and Theology (IADTC). Although the Kanuga Primates’ Meeting chaired by George Carey. Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Wales was present at that meeting and no doubt consented to its demise, based on his comments on the March 2000 Primates’ Meeting in Portugal: “Anglicanism has always been wary of a central executive power…. The primates’ meeting showed no signs of wanting to become a ruling synod.” In the final Report of the IADTC (2008), “To Mend the Net” is not even mentioned.
Note 2: It can be justly asked whether the breaking of communion with the North American provinces by the GAFCON Primates (and others) has “overstepped” the process laid out in “To Mend the Net.” In one sense, the answer is yes, because these Provinces have been dealing with an unprecedented situation. However, one could also argue that Lambeth 1.10 concluded steps 1-5 and the remaining steps have been followed by the successive Primates’ Meetings through Dar es Salaam.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
The call for an Anglican Communion Covenant resulted directly from the Windsor Report (sec. 113-120), and the Windsor Report itself was a crisis response document. It is therefore not possible or desirable to evaluate any document that emerges from a drafting process without asking the question: “Will it address the crisis facing the Communion?”
That said, the crisis has also raised issues of the identity and governance of the Anglican Communion that have lain dormant for many decades. From time to time, the Lambeth Conference began to address these issues, but more often than not it punted them further down the field. Now many of us feel that the conflicts and contradictions of Anglican identity and governance must be squarely faced. A covenant could be just the sort of document to do this. Or not.
It is my contention in this essay that the official Anglican Covenant process under the direction of Abp. Drexel Gomez will not be able to produce an adequate document to meet the requirements of the hour. In the two years since the formation of the Covenant Drafting Group in September 2006, a new team has taken the field, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. Meeting in Jerusalem in June 2008, the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) published a statement of identity – “The Jerusalem Declaration” – and formed a Primates’ Council claiming extraordinary authority to separate from a heterodox Province or to recognize an orthodox Province. It seems likely that this Council will soon recognize a North American Province separate from The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.
Despite the advent of the GAFCON movement, representing nearly half the Anglicans in the world, the Lambeth Conference proceeded with business as usual, including the promotion of the existing Covenant process, which now faces the likely outcome of being rejected by both orthodox and revisionist wings of the Communion. It is now time to step back and reexamine the process and principles of the Covenant. It is my conviction that the Anglican Communion is a house divided against itself, and that no covenant can ignore this fact without becoming irrelevant and hypocritical.
The Covenant Process
The Covenant process, like the Windsor process, is the brainchild of the Archbishop of Canterbury and several of his top advisors. This fact cannot be ignored. Rowan Williams has repeatedly expressed the view that, given enough time for patient listening and dialogue, the two apparently opposite theological poles, which I shall call orthodox and revisionist, can be reconciled in a creative synthesis. No doubt this philosophical position is reinforced by the real fear that having to choose one side or the other would lead to the division of the Communion. So in any process the Archbishop requires that all must have a voice.
But it is more complicated than that. The Archbishop and his advisors seem to have concluded that within the orthodox and revisionist camps, the “fundamentalists” of both groups should be excluded and the leadership be inhabited only by the “moderates,” namely, those who agree with the premise that “unity” is the preeminent virtue and that schism is the ultimate vice. In practical terms, this means that only “institutionalist” evangelicals and catholics on one side and establishment revisionists, i.e., those who are not notorious unilateralists on the other, are participants in these processes.
I intend to address here only the role of evangelicals in the Covenant process. In doing so, I shall have to indulge in what may seem self-serving narrative about my role over the past few years. I have been a recognized evangelical combatant in the debates within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion for almost twenty years. In terms of the Covenant, I gave an address in 2005 on “The Global Anglican Communion: A Blueprint” and was chosen to serve on the Global South Drafting Group, which began working on an independent draft in early 2006. I was also asked to help draft “The Road to Lambeth” statement, which warned that unless the Episcopal Church were disciplined prior to Lambeth 2008, many bishops would not attend. In the latter capacity, I attended the Global South Primates’ meeting at Kigali where it was announced that Rowan Williams had appointed Abp. Drexel Gomez to chair the Lambeth Drafting Group. At that point, the Global South group ceased to function. Abp. Orombi then nominated me to be a member of the Covenant Drafting group. It would seem reasonable that a theologian with experience of both the Global South and the Episcopal Church would be a good choice for such a group. In the end, however, I was named to a “corresponding group.” So Uganda, the second largest province of the Communion, had no representative in drafting the Covenant, whereas the Episcopal Church had two representatives, one an institutionalist catholic and the other an institutional apologist for the actions of 2003. So far as I can see, no conservative evangelical and no one who subsequently attended GAFCON, serves on the Drafting Team.
In my role as a consultant, I have sent four submissions to the Covenant Design group. My most substantial attempt at consultation was entitled “An Evangelical Commentary on the Draft Covenant” (2007) based on the first “Nassau” draft. I attempted in that critique to propose a minimal number of changes to the draft which would at the same time meet the concerns that conservative evangelicals would want to see in order to own the Covenant. Although I submitted this critique directly to the Chairman of the Drafting Group and it was circulated widely on the internet and to a group of bishops in Oxford, none of these amendments made it into the St. Andrew’s draft. Similarly, I have joined in in two submissions from the Church of Uganda, neither of which has seen the light of day.
The moral of my story is this: the drafting process is skewed in such a way that the legitimate concerns of orthodox evangelicals and traditionalists will not be represented in the final Covenant document. The process itself is faulty in such a way that even orthodox men like Archbishops Gomez and Chew cannot produce an effective Covenant. It is part and parcel of the method used at Lambeth 2008 that produced a hodge-podge “Lambeth Indaba” with no authority and no conclusions. This process seems doomed to get worse, as the recent “Lambeth Commentary” proposes to subject subsequent drafts to yet further equivocation.
In the present political context, “time is not our friend,” as we say in Uganda. Inaction means victory for the revisionist party, which can proceed to carry out its “long march through the institutions” without fear of discipline. Over against those who urge patience in letting the Windsor and Covenant processes play out, there are more than a thousand Anglicans and 250 bishops who have concluded that there is no other way to preserve and reform the Communion than a movement independent of the Lambeth bureaucracy. They have concluded that a process orchestrated by Canterbury is not capable of addressing the crisis of the house divided, and whether or not that process meanders on or rushes on to completion, the resulting draft will be unacceptable.
What is Needed in an Anglican Covenant
In my view, the two essential ingredients of an effective Anglican Covenant involve doctrinal substance and disciplinary efficacy. The Nassau and St. Andrews drafts in my opinion are adequate on matters of doctrine and inadequate on discipline, and both fail to deal with the current context of radical departure from the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
Both drafts have a section on doctrine echoing the Lambeth Quadrilateral: “The Life We Share: Common Catholicity, Apostolicity and Confession of Faith” (Nassau); and “Our Inheritance of Faith” (St. Andrews). These sections are the strongest part of the Covenant drafts, and many evangelicals can affirm them as far as they go; however, the treatment of the Thirty-Nine Articles, in relegating them by name to a footnote (St. Andrews) and stating merely that they “bear significant witness” to the faith, is problematic.
The next section of the drafts, which addresses matters of hermeneutics and ethics, contains several weaknesses, both critical in the present context. Here is the comparison of the two drafts with my proposed emendations in the “Evangelical Commentary” with proposed changes in the latter higlighted.
NASSAU DRAFT
3 Our Commitment to Confession of the Faith
(Deuteronomy 30.11-14, Psalm 126, Mark 10.26-27, Luke 1.37, 46-55, John 8: 32, 14:15-17, 1 Corinthians 11.23-26,2 Timothy 3:10-4:5;)
In seeking to be faithful to God in their various contexts, each Church commits itself to:
1. uphold and act in continuity and consistency with the catholic and apostolic faith, order and tradition, biblically derived moral values and the vision of humanity received by and developed in the communion of member Churches; ...
3. ensure that biblical texts are handled faithfully, respectfully, comprehensively and coherently, primarily through the teaching and initiative of bishops and synods, and building on our best scholarship, believing that scriptural revelation must continue to illuminate, challenge and transform cultures, structures and ways of thinking;
ST. ANDREWS DRAFT
Section One: Our Inheritance of Faith
1.2 In living out this inheritance of faith together in varying contexts, each Church of the Communion commits itself:
(1.2.1) to uphold and act in continuity and consonance with Scripture and the catholic and apostolic faith, order and tradition;
(1.2.2) to uphold and proclaim a pattern of Christian theological and moral reasoning and discipline that is rooted in and answerable to the teaching of Holy Scripture and the catholic tradition and that reflects the renewal of humanity and the whole created order through the death and resurrection of Christ and the holiness that in consequence God gives to, and requires from, his people;
(1.2.4) to ensure that biblical texts are handled faithfully, respectfully, comprehensively and coherently, primarily through the teaching and initiative of bishops and synods, and building on habits and disciplines of Bible study across the Church and on rigorous scholarship, believing that scriptural revelation continues to illuminate and transform individuals, cultures and societies;...
EVANGELICAL COMMENTARY
3 Our Commitment to Confession of the Faith
(Deuteronomy 30.11-14, Psalm 126, Mark 10.26-27, Luke 1.37, 46-55, John 8: 32, 14:15-17, 1 Corinthians 11.23-26,2 Timothy 3:10-4:5;)
In seeking to maintain the faith given once for all to the saints, each Church commits itself to:
1. uphold and act in continuity and consistency with the catholic and apostolic faith, order and tradition, and the historic Anglican formularies;
2. uphold the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as God’s Word written and to ensure that biblical texts are interpreted in their plain and canonical sense, through the preaching and teaching of pastors, the regular reading of the people, and the oversight of bishops and synods, building on our best scholarship, believing that scriptural revelation must continue to illuminate, challenge and transform cultures, structures and ways of thinking;
4. uphold the vision of humanity as male and female and our Lord’s teaching on the unchangeable standard of marriage of one man and one woman (or abstinence);
I gave the following justification for the proposed amendments to this section:
Explanation: The amended introductory phrase recalls the “once for all” character of the Christian faith, as contended for by St. Jude. The catholic and apostolic nature of the Church is given its due in subsection 1, along with the Reformation insights mentioned above.
I believe the authority of Scripture should receive a separate subsection (2) and be given priority in the order of “Word and Sacrament.”
The use of the phrase “God’s Word written” from Article XX is of great importance in the present crisis of authority. I propose interpretation in the “plain and canonical sense” as a somewhat stronger wording to stress the Reformation emphasis on the clarity and unity of Scripture, and I note the joint responsibility of upholding Scripture by people, pastors, scholars and bishops as a classic application of biblical authority.
Finally, I think that the Covenant should openly confront the presenting error of our day: the substitution of personal sexual fulfillment for obedience to God’s order of marriage and procreation. I refer to the “unchangeable standard” of marriage in the words of Resolution 66 (Lambeth 1920).
So in conclusion, the doctrinal component of the Draft Covenants could form a theological basis for Communion faith and mission, if it could be strengthened at key points, but these are the very points at which the current process will move, if at all, in the wrong direction.
When we turn to the question of effective discipline, both drafts are deficient in lacking a final point of excommunication, a.k.a “walking apart.” Now we should all agree that a process of discipline must be careful, with a “strategy of time” in which issues can be clarified and parties can change their minds and actions. In this regard, I think a return to the process proposed by Abps. Gomez and Sinclair in “To Mend the Net” is in order (see Appendix). In any case, process without end makes a mockery of discipline. So the exclusion clause is essential to an effective covenant, and this is the place where the current Draft Covenants fail. Again, I compare the key clauses with my proposed amendment highlighted.
NASSAU DRAFT
6 Unity of the Communion
(Nehemiah 2.17,18, Mt. 18.15-18, 1 Corinthians 12, 2 Corinthians 4.1-18, 13: 5-10, Galatians 6.1-10)
9 We acknowledge that in the most extreme circumstances, where member churches choose not to fulfil the substance of the covenant as understood by the Councils of the Instruments of Communion, we will consider that such churches will have relinquished for themselves the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose, and a process of restoration and renewal will be required to re-establish their covenant relationship with other member churches.
ST. ANDREWS DRAFT
Section Three: Our Unity and Common Life
(3.2.5.e) Any such request [for discipline] would not be binding on a Church unless recognised as such by that Church. However, commitment to this covenant entails an acknowledgement that in the most extreme circumstances, where a Church chooses not to adopt the request of the Instruments of Communion,Bold that decision may be understood by the Church itself, or by the resolution of the Instruments of Communion, as a relinquishment by that Church of the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose, until they re-establish their covenant relationship with other member Churches.
EVANGELICAL COMMENTARY
6 Unity of the Communion
(Nehemiah 2.17,18, Mt. 18.15-18, 1 Corinthians 12, 2 Corinthians 4.1-18, 13: 5-10, Galatians 6.1-10)
9. We acknowledge that in the most extreme circumstances, where member churches choose not to fulfil the substance of the covenant as understood by the Councils of the Instruments of Communion, we will consider that such churches will have relinquished membership in the Anglican Communion.
*****
The Nassau and St. Andrews drafts refuse to concede that at some point membership in the Communion ceases and an alternative jurisdiction is necessary. The tortured nature of the language in this section suggests that a final blow will never fall. Rowan Williams has opined at times about the possibility of levels of membership in the Communion, an idea suggested in the St. Andrews draft which speaks of “degrees” of communion (sec. 3.2.6). At no point do these documents recognize the possibility that a church might be heretical and impenitent, and the process laid out in the Appendix to the St. Andrews draft is so byzantine that it is hard to imagine any member would ever be excluded. Such a “gentlemanly” approach to unity within the Anglican Communion may have sufficed during periods of our history, but it is totally inadequate to deal with the kind of division that now exists.
GAFCON and the Covenant
The Global Anglican Future Conference had the look of a constitutional assembly. To be sure, those present stated clearly that their purpose was reform of, not departure from, the Communion. But the production of a Declaration and the formation of a Primates’ Council, acclaimed by the entire assembly, recalls scenes of biblical covenant-making or -renewal (Deuteronomy; Joshua 24).
The Jerusalem Declaration itself mirrors elements of the two Covenant drafts in certain ways. The first seven clauses are primarily addressed to the “inheritance of faith” as found in the Scriptures, the Creeds and Councils, the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal. The second seven clauses address a number of contemporary issues, including “the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family” and the “commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married” (clause 8).
The Declaration lays down the basis for excommunication, although it does not spell out the process whereby that end point is reached:
We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord. (clause 13)
Clause 13 is not merely hypothetical. The Global Anglican Future Statement includes an indictment of some churches and bishops who have embraced a different “gospel,” causing orthodox provinces to declare themselves out of communion with them. It is because the existing Instruments of Unity have proved ineffective in dealing with this situation that the GAFCON movement and Primates’ Council commends the temporary arrangement of cross-border jurisdiction and the final recognition of a North American province outside The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.
The spirit of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans is not separatist or puritanical but ecumenical, with the hope of a recovery of a generous and dynamic orthodoxy, as reflected in the Jerusalem Declaration:
We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration. (clause 11)
The necessary discipline of the Communion at this time may be painful, including the abnormal breaking of historic ties, but its goal is “the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it” (Hebrews 12:11).
The Form of Communion Governance
The present crisis has brought into focus another area in need of reform: the governance of the Communion. The Global Anglican Future Conference resulted from the failure of the Instruments of Unity to work properly to discipline erring members. While the Anglican Communion was originally established as a colonial council of bishops, the direction for the past thirty years has been toward conciliar governance through the Primates. The overturning of this direction by the Archbishop of Canterbury following the meeting in Dar es Salaam led in a straight line to GAFCON and the formation of a Primates’ Council as a governing body of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. Clearly, the informal, even arbitrary way in which the Archbishop of Canterbury has exercised his authority calls for some sort of constitutional regulation. The Windsor Report speculated on the need for a stronger primacy for Canterbury. The GAFCON movement trends in the opposite direction: toward full conciliarity among churches and bishops. The idea of conciliar governance does not contradict the idea of a Primus inter pares, but it is not clear that this role needs to be tied to Canterbury, especially in light of the specific legal entanglements of Establishment. Clearly there is a need for a clarification of matters of autonomy among provinces and the roles of synods and bishops in leadership. These matters should also be addressed by a covenant.
Conclusion
The idea of a Covenant, or call it a Communion Constitution and Canons, is necessary if the Communion is to maintain the special identity of Anglican theology, worship, polity and mission. The current covenant process established by the Archbishop of Canterbury will not be able to reach that end, because it is compromised by failing to identify the brokenness of the Communion and by including those who have broken it in the Covenant process itself. In the meantime, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans has emerged, by the grace of God, and this Fellowship has many aims in common with those who are seeking a Covenant.
I would suggest the following steps for those who wish to see a sound and effective Covenant.
1. Affirm the Jerusalem Declaration;
2. Call for the reconsideration of “To Mend the Net” as a step toward genuine discipline (see below);
3. Call for an extraordinary meeting of the Covenant Drafting Group and the leadership of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans to find a way forward.
It would be most helpful if conservatives who did not favour GAFCON would join in this effort, as it will be in the interest of all Anglicans to find a way forward which is faithful to our heritage and open to Christ’s mission in the world.
Appendix: “To Mend the Net” (expounded)
The following steps in a disciplinary process are mentioned in the proposal “To Mend the Net,” pages 20-22. See To Mend the Net: Anglican Faith and Order for Renewed Mission, eds. Drexel W. Gomez and Maurice W. Sinclair (Carrollton, Tex.: Ekklesia Society, 2001). I have expanded and expounded a bit on each step in the process, with two concluding notes.
1. Self-examination by Primates. Jesus’ warning to “judge not lest you be judged” is a gospel truth: people are often ready to cast the speck from their neighbour’s eye while ignoring the log in their own (Matthew 7:1-5). For this reason, St. Paul urges us to “examine yourselves that to see whether you are holding your faith” (2 Corinthians 13:5). In the weighty matter of breaking communion, leaders must be particularly vigilant of their own hearts.
2. Educative Role of Primates. Heresy is rooted in deceptive, worldly understandings (Colossians 2:8). Hence it is important for leaders, in separating themselves from such understandings, to give an orthodox “explanation for the hope that is within” them (1 Peter 3:15).
3. Advanced Sharing among Primates. Any decision to break communion should involve patient consultation among orthodox leaders to establish the reasons that such separation is justified.
4. Preparation of Guidelines. Leaders should work according to established guidelines and not act arbitrarily in a crisis mentality.
5. Godly Admonition. Admonition is out of favour in today’s tolerant climate, yet it is still essential to church leadership (1 Thessalonians 5:12). So orthodox leaders must give clear warning and time for repentance to those who have gone astray.
6. Relegation to Observer Status. Paul urges the Corinthians to deliver the sinner to Satan “so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 5:5). Seen in a church context, those provinces or bishops who violate the orthodox faith should, after due warning, be relegated to a status where they may repent before it is too late.
7. Continued Evangelism and Pastoral Oversight. This step justifies “interventions” in jurisdictions that are, in effect, on probation. Observer status creates a vacuum of proclamation for those who are trapped in these jurisdictions and need pastoral care as well as for those who have never heard the Gospel. During this probation period, the work of the church must go on, even if it is opposed by those being disciplined.
8. Recognition of a New Jurisdiction. There comes a time in the disciplinary process when it is acknowledged that those who have offended will not repent, that they have hardened their hearts to the Gospel (Hebrews 4:4-6). The process of discipline therefore may require the formation of an alternative jurisdiction, under new leadership.
Note 1: “To Mend the Net” was submitted with a sense of urgency to the Primates’ Meeting at Kanuga (USA) in March, 2001, but was discussed only at a “fireside chat.” It was then referred to the Inter-Anglican Commission on Doctrine and Theology (IADTC). Although the Kanuga Primates’ Meeting chaired by George Carey. Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Wales was present at that meeting and no doubt consented to its demise, based on his comments on the March 2000 Primates’ Meeting in Portugal: “Anglicanism has always been wary of a central executive power…. The primates’ meeting showed no signs of wanting to become a ruling synod.” In the final Report of the IADTC (2008), “To Mend the Net” is not even mentioned.
Note 2: It can be justly asked whether the breaking of communion with the North American provinces by the GAFCON Primates (and others) has “overstepped” the process laid out in “To Mend the Net.” In one sense, the answer is yes, because these Provinces have been dealing with an unprecedented situation. However, one could also argue that Lambeth 1.10 concluded steps 1-5 and the remaining steps have been followed by the successive Primates’ Meetings through Dar es Salaam.
Is The Renunciation of Orders Routine?
Via TitusOneNine:
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Thursday, January 29th, 2009
The Reverend Canon Professor Christopher Seitz
The Reverend Dr. Philip Turner
The Reverend Dr. Ephraim Radner
Mark McCall, Esq.
Defenders of the Presiding Bishop are scrambling to re-interpret her extraordinary action of depriving a bishop of the Church of England of the gifts and authority conferred in his ordination and removing him from the ordained ministry of The Episcopal Church. For example, the group supporting the Presiding Bishop in Pittsburgh stated that “[t]his is a routine way of permitting Bishop Scriven to continue his ministry.” In the strange world of TEC, renunciation of orders has become a routine way of continuing one’s ministry.
But it is not routine. Indeed, it has not been used for those transferring from TEC to another province in the Anglican Communion until the Presiding Bishop began what resembles a scorched-earth approach to her opponents within TEC. Not surprisingly, in the past such matters have been handled by letter. One can see the evolution of the Presiding Bishop’s “routine” policy in the treatment of Bishop David Bena, who was transferred by letter by his diocesan bishop to the Church of Nigeria in February 2007. A month later, the Presiding Bishop wrote Bishop Bena and informed him that “by this action you are no longer a member of the House of Bishops” and that she had informed the Secretary of the House to remove him from the list of members. That was all that needed to be done. A year later, however, as her current strategy emerged, she suddenly declared in January 2008 that she had accepted Bishop Bena’s renunciation of orders using the canon she now uses against Bishop Scriven. In other words, if this is now sadly routine, it has only become routine in the past year.
Not only is this not routine, it was not necessary. As we pointed out in our original statement, Bishop Scriven ceased to be an Assistant Bishop in TEC and thereby ceased to be a member of TEC’s House of Bishops the moment Bishop Duncan was deposed. This was a constitutional disqualification imposed on Bishop Scriven by Article I.2 of TEC’s constitution. Canonically speaking, he ceased to be a bishop in TEC at that point. His original status as a bishop of the Church of England was not thereby affected, of course, and upon requesting and receiving an honorary role in the Diocese of Oxford that became his formal diocesan home. All that was necessary in January 2009 was for TEC to conform its records to this fact.
Most importantly, however, this action reflects profound confusion about the nature of TEC’s communion with other churches. In the past year, Bishop Steenson, Bishop Iker and now Bishop Scriven have been dealt with in precisely the same way. The implication of the back-pedaling on Bishop Scriven is that he remains a bishop (like the Archbishop of Canterbury) that TEC would welcome provided he had the right license. If that is all the Presiding Bishop accomplished with her solemn “Renunciation of Ordained Ministry and Declaration of Removal and Release,” she needn’t have bothered. She did not need to inform all the bishops of TEC that Bishop Scriven could act in their dioceses only with their license or permission. They already knew that. It is what Canon III.12.3(e) plainly requires (and required of Bishop Scriven even before the Presiding Bishop’s action).
And is this what she was trying to communicate with respect to Bishop Iker? That he remains a bishop of a church in communion with TEC, is no longer under inhibition or amenable to presentment for violations of the constitution and canons and is welcome to act in TEC provided he get the same license or permission of the diocese that is required of all TEC and communion bishops, including herself? One suspects not, but in that case, how can the very same action taken against Bishop Scriven be considered routine?
A major concern in all this is that a canon written with a catholic understanding of both the Church and Holy Orders is being handled in such a way that, in order to get a job done, the Presiding Bishop and her Council of Advice are creating a new functional/local definition of Holy Orders. To call this a minor alteration and something we should all understand under the rubric of ‘good housekeeping’ threatens to create yet a further mess, the net effect of which might well be to redefine American Anglicanism as an autonomous church with an autonomous understanding of Communion and Holy Orders both. Does the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church agree to this understanding? This is not an idle question precisely because the actions in respect of Bishop Scriven have, in the nature of the case, been acts of communication to the wider Communion about the character of Communion and Holy Orders as TEC presumes to understand them. One can rightly worry that the catholic character of our Anglican life and practice is now threatened by a desire to achieve an end, even if it means the conflating of very different cases so as to deploy a single canonical statute that was arguably never meant for any of them.
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Thursday, January 29th, 2009
The Reverend Canon Professor Christopher Seitz
The Reverend Dr. Philip Turner
The Reverend Dr. Ephraim Radner
Mark McCall, Esq.
Defenders of the Presiding Bishop are scrambling to re-interpret her extraordinary action of depriving a bishop of the Church of England of the gifts and authority conferred in his ordination and removing him from the ordained ministry of The Episcopal Church. For example, the group supporting the Presiding Bishop in Pittsburgh stated that “[t]his is a routine way of permitting Bishop Scriven to continue his ministry.” In the strange world of TEC, renunciation of orders has become a routine way of continuing one’s ministry.
But it is not routine. Indeed, it has not been used for those transferring from TEC to another province in the Anglican Communion until the Presiding Bishop began what resembles a scorched-earth approach to her opponents within TEC. Not surprisingly, in the past such matters have been handled by letter. One can see the evolution of the Presiding Bishop’s “routine” policy in the treatment of Bishop David Bena, who was transferred by letter by his diocesan bishop to the Church of Nigeria in February 2007. A month later, the Presiding Bishop wrote Bishop Bena and informed him that “by this action you are no longer a member of the House of Bishops” and that she had informed the Secretary of the House to remove him from the list of members. That was all that needed to be done. A year later, however, as her current strategy emerged, she suddenly declared in January 2008 that she had accepted Bishop Bena’s renunciation of orders using the canon she now uses against Bishop Scriven. In other words, if this is now sadly routine, it has only become routine in the past year.
Not only is this not routine, it was not necessary. As we pointed out in our original statement, Bishop Scriven ceased to be an Assistant Bishop in TEC and thereby ceased to be a member of TEC’s House of Bishops the moment Bishop Duncan was deposed. This was a constitutional disqualification imposed on Bishop Scriven by Article I.2 of TEC’s constitution. Canonically speaking, he ceased to be a bishop in TEC at that point. His original status as a bishop of the Church of England was not thereby affected, of course, and upon requesting and receiving an honorary role in the Diocese of Oxford that became his formal diocesan home. All that was necessary in January 2009 was for TEC to conform its records to this fact.
Most importantly, however, this action reflects profound confusion about the nature of TEC’s communion with other churches. In the past year, Bishop Steenson, Bishop Iker and now Bishop Scriven have been dealt with in precisely the same way. The implication of the back-pedaling on Bishop Scriven is that he remains a bishop (like the Archbishop of Canterbury) that TEC would welcome provided he had the right license. If that is all the Presiding Bishop accomplished with her solemn “Renunciation of Ordained Ministry and Declaration of Removal and Release,” she needn’t have bothered. She did not need to inform all the bishops of TEC that Bishop Scriven could act in their dioceses only with their license or permission. They already knew that. It is what Canon III.12.3(e) plainly requires (and required of Bishop Scriven even before the Presiding Bishop’s action).
And is this what she was trying to communicate with respect to Bishop Iker? That he remains a bishop of a church in communion with TEC, is no longer under inhibition or amenable to presentment for violations of the constitution and canons and is welcome to act in TEC provided he get the same license or permission of the diocese that is required of all TEC and communion bishops, including herself? One suspects not, but in that case, how can the very same action taken against Bishop Scriven be considered routine?
A major concern in all this is that a canon written with a catholic understanding of both the Church and Holy Orders is being handled in such a way that, in order to get a job done, the Presiding Bishop and her Council of Advice are creating a new functional/local definition of Holy Orders. To call this a minor alteration and something we should all understand under the rubric of ‘good housekeeping’ threatens to create yet a further mess, the net effect of which might well be to redefine American Anglicanism as an autonomous church with an autonomous understanding of Communion and Holy Orders both. Does the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church agree to this understanding? This is not an idle question precisely because the actions in respect of Bishop Scriven have, in the nature of the case, been acts of communication to the wider Communion about the character of Communion and Holy Orders as TEC presumes to understand them. One can rightly worry that the catholic character of our Anglican life and practice is now threatened by a desire to achieve an end, even if it means the conflating of very different cases so as to deploy a single canonical statute that was arguably never meant for any of them.
Anglicans Set to Consider Rival North American Church
From Religious News Service via TitusOneNine:
By Daniel Burke
Religion News Service
Thursday January 29, 2009
Conservative Anglicans say they do not expect their new North American church to receive official approval from Anglican archbishops who will convene next week (Feb. 1-5) in Alexandria, Egypt.
"We do expect that our situation will be discussed," said the Rev.
Peter Frank, a spokesman for the newly established Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). "At the same time, it would be very surprising if there was some kind of quick, game-changing action."
After years of disagreeing with the liberal majorities in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, conservatives broke off and formed a rival church last December. Conservatives hope the fledgling province will ultimately be recognized as the official Anglican franchise in North America.
Before the new province can assume full membership in the communion, it will need approval from both the Anglican Consultative Council and two-thirds of the world's 38 Anglican primates, or leading archbishops.
Conservatives say they must be patient with the slow pace of change in the Anglican Communion, which has 77 million members and is the world's third-largest body of churches.
"When it comes to the international situation and politics in the Anglican Communion, we're realistic about the speed in which things move," said Frank.
To date, only five primates, most from Africa, where Anglicans lean conservative on sexual issues, have publicly sanctioned the new North American church.
Bishop Martyn Minns, a leader in ACNA, said he expects more primates to approve the rival church after it has ratified its constitution in June. "They're going to wait until we're up and running," he said.
Jim Naughton, director of communications for the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, said: "I don't think there's any chance of two-thirds of the primates expressing desire to legitimize this thing in any capacity."
Earlier this month, Welsh Archbishop Barry Morgan told Virginia Episcopalians that he would oppose the new province "with every fiber of my being."
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who is spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, has asked the heads of five provinces, including the U.S. and Canada, to give presentations at the upcoming meeting in Egypt on how the current conflict over homosexuality and the Bible has impacted their churches.
Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, said his message will be that "there's more to the Canadian church than discussions about sexuality; that mission is front and center," according to the Anglican Journal.
The office of Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori could not provide immediate comment.
At last year's meeting in Tanzania, the primates pushed the U.S. and Canadian churches to pledge not to authorize public rites for same-sex blessings and to ban gays and lesbians from becoming bishops.
Both North American churches promised to enact moratoria on the gay issues, but blessings for gay unions continue in some dioceses within both provinces. Tension among Anglicans has steadily boiled since the
2003 consecration of an openly gay man as bishop of New Hampshire.
By Daniel Burke
Religion News Service
Thursday January 29, 2009
Conservative Anglicans say they do not expect their new North American church to receive official approval from Anglican archbishops who will convene next week (Feb. 1-5) in Alexandria, Egypt.
"We do expect that our situation will be discussed," said the Rev.
Peter Frank, a spokesman for the newly established Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). "At the same time, it would be very surprising if there was some kind of quick, game-changing action."
After years of disagreeing with the liberal majorities in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, conservatives broke off and formed a rival church last December. Conservatives hope the fledgling province will ultimately be recognized as the official Anglican franchise in North America.
Before the new province can assume full membership in the communion, it will need approval from both the Anglican Consultative Council and two-thirds of the world's 38 Anglican primates, or leading archbishops.
Conservatives say they must be patient with the slow pace of change in the Anglican Communion, which has 77 million members and is the world's third-largest body of churches.
"When it comes to the international situation and politics in the Anglican Communion, we're realistic about the speed in which things move," said Frank.
To date, only five primates, most from Africa, where Anglicans lean conservative on sexual issues, have publicly sanctioned the new North American church.
Bishop Martyn Minns, a leader in ACNA, said he expects more primates to approve the rival church after it has ratified its constitution in June. "They're going to wait until we're up and running," he said.
Jim Naughton, director of communications for the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, said: "I don't think there's any chance of two-thirds of the primates expressing desire to legitimize this thing in any capacity."
Earlier this month, Welsh Archbishop Barry Morgan told Virginia Episcopalians that he would oppose the new province "with every fiber of my being."
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who is spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, has asked the heads of five provinces, including the U.S. and Canada, to give presentations at the upcoming meeting in Egypt on how the current conflict over homosexuality and the Bible has impacted their churches.
Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, said his message will be that "there's more to the Canadian church than discussions about sexuality; that mission is front and center," according to the Anglican Journal.
The office of Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori could not provide immediate comment.
At last year's meeting in Tanzania, the primates pushed the U.S. and Canadian churches to pledge not to authorize public rites for same-sex blessings and to ban gays and lesbians from becoming bishops.
Both North American churches promised to enact moratoria on the gay issues, but blessings for gay unions continue in some dioceses within both provinces. Tension among Anglicans has steadily boiled since the
2003 consecration of an openly gay man as bishop of New Hampshire.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
An encouraging note from Fr. Matt Kennedy
An update and a note of thanks from Stand Firm by Matt Kennedy http://www.binghamtongoodshepherd.com
Dear Friends,
Just a brief update on our status and note of thanks. There are no words fit to express my gratitude for your outpouring of love, prayer, and support (financially and otherwise) for my congregation and my family. Anne and I and the vestry and people of Good Shepherd thank you for everything you have done and are doing.
I sent the following brief letter to the congregation last week. I'm posting it here so that those who have supported us will have a sense for where things stand. You can also see photos of the transition time here and here and pictures of the various places we've worshiped and studied together here. Here's the letter:
Dear Good Shepherd,
What an amazing week. I know intellectually that God provides and I have experienced that provision in the past, but nothing quite like what has happened in the last two weeks. The Sunday before last we were without a place to worship, the Shepherd's Bowl was without a place to serve meals, and my family was without a place to live. Then, out of the blue, Msgr. Meagher called to offer the former St. Andrew's rectory, his parish offered to host the Shepherd's Bowl, and Pastor Hollinger and the Conklin Avenue Baptist church offered their gym and classrooms for [the then upcoming (ed.)] Sunday morning.
Saturday [the Saturday before last (ed.)], Msgr. Meaghar called, again out of the blue, and offered the former sanctuary of St. Andrew's to us for this coming Sunday. We confirmed the arrangements this Monday.
What strikes me about his call, on top of his sheer kindness and generosity, is that I had planned, prayed, and was worried about calling and asking him for the very thing he offered.
What generous neighbors we have on the Southside and what an amazing God we serve. His mercies and grace have been poured out on us.
"When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion we were like those who dream. Then our mouth was filled with laughter and our tongue with shouts of joy; then they said among the nations, 'The LORD has done great things for them.' The LORD has done great things for us; we are glad" (Psalm 126:1-3)
There is still much to be done and, I am sure, much to sacrifice. The capital campaign needs many more contributions in order to make a good down payment offer for a purchase of property. We've lost many items we use for worship. We may well lose the Branan bequest (which is currently frozen). Given those needs along with regular salaries, insurance, any rent and utilities we pay at our present location, we are basically living month to month.
If, moreover, we stay in this neighborhood for any length of time, there is a lot of work to be done. The people of the Saratoga Apartment housing projects, within sight of St. Andrew's, need help with food and clothes. And, more than that, judging by the high crime-rate, many of them need to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ.
We are living on the edge. These are the times that James tells us produce godly endurance and character (James 1:2-4). Every day we experience his grace. Every day we are thrust into circumstances that demand courage, trust, love and obedience.
Meanwhile, God is faithful. He has and will give us everything we need. Our task is not to lose heart, not to shrink back, but give ourselves to this great work to which we have been called.
In Christ,
Matt
One last thing. The experience of the last few weeks has convinced me of the need for a permanent ministry to aid the many congregations that have had to leave property and assets. There needs to be a central fund of some kind to provide financial assistance to parishes that have lost or have had to walk away from everything and an organized system to collect necessary liturgical and office supplies. I am not sure how to go about setting something like that up but I will be looking into possibilities as soon as I can come up for air here. Perhaps, in the meantime, people who do know might provide some advice.
I will return soon to writing regularly for Stand Firm but for the next few weeks I've got to devote my full attention to Good Shepherd.
Dear Friends,
Just a brief update on our status and note of thanks. There are no words fit to express my gratitude for your outpouring of love, prayer, and support (financially and otherwise) for my congregation and my family. Anne and I and the vestry and people of Good Shepherd thank you for everything you have done and are doing.
I sent the following brief letter to the congregation last week. I'm posting it here so that those who have supported us will have a sense for where things stand. You can also see photos of the transition time here and here and pictures of the various places we've worshiped and studied together here. Here's the letter:
Dear Good Shepherd,
What an amazing week. I know intellectually that God provides and I have experienced that provision in the past, but nothing quite like what has happened in the last two weeks. The Sunday before last we were without a place to worship, the Shepherd's Bowl was without a place to serve meals, and my family was without a place to live. Then, out of the blue, Msgr. Meagher called to offer the former St. Andrew's rectory, his parish offered to host the Shepherd's Bowl, and Pastor Hollinger and the Conklin Avenue Baptist church offered their gym and classrooms for [the then upcoming (ed.)] Sunday morning.
Saturday [the Saturday before last (ed.)], Msgr. Meaghar called, again out of the blue, and offered the former sanctuary of St. Andrew's to us for this coming Sunday. We confirmed the arrangements this Monday.
What strikes me about his call, on top of his sheer kindness and generosity, is that I had planned, prayed, and was worried about calling and asking him for the very thing he offered.
What generous neighbors we have on the Southside and what an amazing God we serve. His mercies and grace have been poured out on us.
"When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion we were like those who dream. Then our mouth was filled with laughter and our tongue with shouts of joy; then they said among the nations, 'The LORD has done great things for them.' The LORD has done great things for us; we are glad" (Psalm 126:1-3)
There is still much to be done and, I am sure, much to sacrifice. The capital campaign needs many more contributions in order to make a good down payment offer for a purchase of property. We've lost many items we use for worship. We may well lose the Branan bequest (which is currently frozen). Given those needs along with regular salaries, insurance, any rent and utilities we pay at our present location, we are basically living month to month.
If, moreover, we stay in this neighborhood for any length of time, there is a lot of work to be done. The people of the Saratoga Apartment housing projects, within sight of St. Andrew's, need help with food and clothes. And, more than that, judging by the high crime-rate, many of them need to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ.
We are living on the edge. These are the times that James tells us produce godly endurance and character (James 1:2-4). Every day we experience his grace. Every day we are thrust into circumstances that demand courage, trust, love and obedience.
Meanwhile, God is faithful. He has and will give us everything we need. Our task is not to lose heart, not to shrink back, but give ourselves to this great work to which we have been called.
In Christ,
Matt
One last thing. The experience of the last few weeks has convinced me of the need for a permanent ministry to aid the many congregations that have had to leave property and assets. There needs to be a central fund of some kind to provide financial assistance to parishes that have lost or have had to walk away from everything and an organized system to collect necessary liturgical and office supplies. I am not sure how to go about setting something like that up but I will be looking into possibilities as soon as I can come up for air here. Perhaps, in the meantime, people who do know might provide some advice.
I will return soon to writing regularly for Stand Firm but for the next few weeks I've got to devote my full attention to Good Shepherd.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Primates’ Meeting to avoid divisive issues
So, what else is new? This is from Religious Intelligence via Transfigurations:
Wednesday, 28th January 2009. 12:00pm
By: George Conger.
The agenda for next week’s 2009 Primates’ Meeting will avoid taking action on the problems dividing the Anglican Communion, focussing its energies on discussion on how to discuss keeping the truth claim alive within the church.
Primates’ Meeting to avoid divisive issues
The Feb 1-5 meeting at the Helnan Palestine Hotel in Alexandria will open with a morning retreat led by the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams followed by worship at St Mark’s pro-Cathedral. Business sessions will be interspersed over the week with worship and excursions to local sites, including the Alexandria School of Theology and the newly renovated Bibliotheca Alexandrina.
However it is unlikely the agenda for the five-day gathering will survive unscathed. At their meeting in 2005 in Northern Ireland and in 2007 in Tanzania the primates rebelled, forcing the meeting to address the issues that had split the Anglican Communion.
In organizing the agenda, Dr Williams solicited the views of his fellow archbishops, presiding bishops and moderators, asking what topics they wished to discuss. From these responses he developed a lesson plan that will include a session on global warming, international finance, co-ordination of development work among church agencies, and the Communion’s theological working group. Time has also been set aside for a discussion of the May agenda of ACC-14 in Kingston, Jamaica, the Anglican Covenant, and a presentation from the Windsor Continuation Group.
Five primates: Uganda, the Episcopal Church, Canada, Pakistan and South Africa have been asked to prepare briefings on issues facing their churches, while leaders of the Gafcon movement have been asked to present a paper on the third province movement in North America.
The primates come into the Alexandria meeting with some degree of bad feeling amongst themselves and with the leadership of Dr Williams. The Gafcon primates are seeking a mandate to create a third province in North America, while liberal leaders are adamantly opposed. Last week, the Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan told delegates to the Diocese of Virginia’s annual synod that he would vigorously oppose any plan for parallel jurisdictions, while earlier this month the Church of Nigeria’s bishops said their call for a new province was non-negotiable.
In his closing press conference on Aug 3 at the Lambeth Conference, Dr Williams told reporters there was a broad desire for a “season of gracious restraint” marked by abstentions from further gay bishops and blessings, and a halt to foreign incursions into the jurisdictions of the North American provinces.
“The pieces are on the board” for the resolution of the Anglican conflict, Dr Williams said at Lambeth, “and in the months ahead it will be important to invite those absent from Lambeth to be involved in these next stages.”
He also had promised that “within the next two months” a “clear and detailed specification for the task and composition of a Pastoral Forum” to support embattled traditionalists would be unveiled. So far, these promises have yet to be honoured, while litigation and canonical and ecclesial chaos grow within the North American churches.
Of the Communion’s 38 primates, two have written that they will be unable to attend the gathering: South India and Pakistan. The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu has been invited to attend the gathering by Dr Williams, while the deans or senior bishops of provinces currently without primates: the West Indies, Central Africa, and Melanesia, will represent those churches.
Wednesday, 28th January 2009. 12:00pm
By: George Conger.
The agenda for next week’s 2009 Primates’ Meeting will avoid taking action on the problems dividing the Anglican Communion, focussing its energies on discussion on how to discuss keeping the truth claim alive within the church.
Primates’ Meeting to avoid divisive issues
The Feb 1-5 meeting at the Helnan Palestine Hotel in Alexandria will open with a morning retreat led by the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams followed by worship at St Mark’s pro-Cathedral. Business sessions will be interspersed over the week with worship and excursions to local sites, including the Alexandria School of Theology and the newly renovated Bibliotheca Alexandrina.
However it is unlikely the agenda for the five-day gathering will survive unscathed. At their meeting in 2005 in Northern Ireland and in 2007 in Tanzania the primates rebelled, forcing the meeting to address the issues that had split the Anglican Communion.
In organizing the agenda, Dr Williams solicited the views of his fellow archbishops, presiding bishops and moderators, asking what topics they wished to discuss. From these responses he developed a lesson plan that will include a session on global warming, international finance, co-ordination of development work among church agencies, and the Communion’s theological working group. Time has also been set aside for a discussion of the May agenda of ACC-14 in Kingston, Jamaica, the Anglican Covenant, and a presentation from the Windsor Continuation Group.
Five primates: Uganda, the Episcopal Church, Canada, Pakistan and South Africa have been asked to prepare briefings on issues facing their churches, while leaders of the Gafcon movement have been asked to present a paper on the third province movement in North America.
The primates come into the Alexandria meeting with some degree of bad feeling amongst themselves and with the leadership of Dr Williams. The Gafcon primates are seeking a mandate to create a third province in North America, while liberal leaders are adamantly opposed. Last week, the Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan told delegates to the Diocese of Virginia’s annual synod that he would vigorously oppose any plan for parallel jurisdictions, while earlier this month the Church of Nigeria’s bishops said their call for a new province was non-negotiable.
In his closing press conference on Aug 3 at the Lambeth Conference, Dr Williams told reporters there was a broad desire for a “season of gracious restraint” marked by abstentions from further gay bishops and blessings, and a halt to foreign incursions into the jurisdictions of the North American provinces.
“The pieces are on the board” for the resolution of the Anglican conflict, Dr Williams said at Lambeth, “and in the months ahead it will be important to invite those absent from Lambeth to be involved in these next stages.”
He also had promised that “within the next two months” a “clear and detailed specification for the task and composition of a Pastoral Forum” to support embattled traditionalists would be unveiled. So far, these promises have yet to be honoured, while litigation and canonical and ecclesial chaos grow within the North American churches.
Of the Communion’s 38 primates, two have written that they will be unable to attend the gathering: South India and Pakistan. The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu has been invited to attend the gathering by Dr Williams, while the deans or senior bishops of provinces currently without primates: the West Indies, Central Africa, and Melanesia, will represent those churches.
TEC-backed lobbying group "re-invigorated" as counter-point to the Global South leadership
From BabyBlueOnline via Stand Firm:
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The progressive lobbying offensive continues.
What appears to be now a heavily TEC-coordinated political advocacy group named the The International Anglican Women's Network (IAWN) is planning a meeting in Manhattan next month with a group that has been recruited heavily from the Global South to apparently counter the efforts of the bishops and archbishops of the Global South leadership. Targeting women (naturally!), the goals of the lobbying group are aligned with the goals of the progressive wing of The Episcopal Church.
Fascinating American-style politics at work. [see press release posted below, ed.]
How were these lobbyists picked? Were these lobbyists elected by their provincial leadership? How were the elections or appointments done? Were there slates of candidates put forward? Do these women represent their own personal views or are they authorized to speak for their province and their primates? Who do they speak for? All women? Who are they accountable to? What sort of financial support are they receving, who is paying for their hotels and expenses while in Manhattan, and where is that funding coming from? These are globally tough economic times - and bringing all these women into Manhattan for yet another political strategy group meeting must cost a pretty penny indeed. Why not just have a Skype-video conference?
TEC must want the photo-op.
The group was - love this euphemism - "re-invigorated" by among other people, Jenny Plane Te Paa after The Episcopal Church crisis intensified and the Global South rose in support of the Episcopal orthodox minority who continue, even now, to vote to separate from The Episcopal Church and join other Anglican provinces in the Global South. Apparently "re-invigorated" to be a progressive counter point to the Global South's witness, it bears keeping an eye on this group as they are used as a TEC-backed lobbying group at the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in May.
Also, note carefully which western province is missing from the so-called "steering group." Very interesting indeed.
A link in the post takes you to the following press release. When you look at who is involved with this you can see that BabyBlue is right on the money; this is unquestionably a pecusa set-up:
Anglican Communion News Service
International Anglican Women's Network (IAWN) Meeting Feb 2009
Posted On : January 22, 2009 10:21 AM | Posted By : Webmaster
ACNS: ACNS4562
Related Categories: ACO
The International Anglican Women's Network (IAWN) will conduct its first formal meeting Feb. 22-27, 2009, at the Tutu Center at General Theological Seminary in New York City.
Building on the strong presence of the IAWN during the 2008 Lambeth Conference, women representing 26 of the 38 Anglican provinces are expected. "We will focus on progress or lack thereof toward equality and empowerment for women in our regions," said Mrs. Priscilla Julie of the Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean, who chairs the IAWN Steering Group.
"How does our situation measure up against the goals of the Beijing Platform for Action and Millennium Development Goal #3: to promote gender equality and empower women?," she said. "Even more important, what progress has been made on resolution 13–31 of the Anglican Consultative Council in 2005, which acknowledged the importance of this MDG goal and requested, inter alia, "all member churches to work toward the realization of this goal in their structures of governance, and in other bodies to which they nominate or appoint." (For the full text, see below or at: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/acc/meetings/acc13/resolutions.cfm#s31
The IAWN will report to the Anglican Consultative Council in May when it convenes in Kingston, Jamaica. The report will include activities of the IAWN in the four years since ACC-13 met in Nottingham, plans for the future, and recommendations for ACC action.
During their week together in New York, IAWN representatives will share their struggles and successes, build on common goals that have been made, and plan for the future. They will worship, make reports, vote on new members to the Steering Group and create recommendations for further action. Some will stay on in New York to attend the 53rd Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women as part of the Anglican delegation organized by the Anglican Observer's Office. That meeting runs from March 2 to March 13 with the theme of "The equal sharing of responsibilities between women and men, including caregiving in the context of HIV/AIDS". http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/53sess.htm
The IAWN was formed in November 1996 following a consultation convened by the ACC and funded by the Mothers' Union, headquartered in London, and the United Thank Offering of The Episcopal Church. Women from 14 of the (then) 32 provinces of the Anglican Communion met in London and agreed that an International Anglican Women's Network be formed. Its mandate was to report the work of women and the challenges that they face to the ACC.
One of the official Anglican Communion networks (http://iawn.anglicancommunion.org/index.cfm), the IAWN has had a remarkable resurgence over the last few years. IAWN started to build momentum leading up to the 1998 Lambeth Conference, but languished subsequently. (No funding is provided in the Anglican Communion budget for networks.)
In March 2006, the IAWN was re-invigorated at a meeting of Anglican delegates to the 50th United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (UNCSW) by Archdeacon Taimalelagi Fagamalama Tuatagaloa-Matalavea, the former Anglican Observer to the United Nations, and Dr. Jenny Plane Te Paa with support from AWE, Anglican Women's Empowerment. A new structure was approved, consisting of 38 link representatives (each designated by the primate of her province) and an eight-member Steering Group (seven elected and one appointed).
The Episcopal Church is hosting the February meeting, which is being coordinated by the Steering Group through Ms. Kim Robey, Program Officer for Women's Ministries and IAWN secretary. "I'm so pleased with the eager response we have had to the invitations for this meeting," she said. "I'm excited at the prospect of spending a week with women from all over the world. It's a tribute to the Anglican Communion's growing commitment to women that representatives are coming from so many provinces."
The Steering Group is comprised of:
Priscilla Julie The Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean, Convener
Lisbeth Barahona Iglesia Anglicana de la Region Central de America
Esperanza Beleo The Episcopal Church in the Philippines
Joyce Kariuki The Anglican Church in Kenya
Helena Mbele-Mbong The Episcopal Church of the USA
Alice Medcof The Anglican Church of Canada
Meagan Morrison The Anglican Church of Australia
Margaret Jones Mothers' Union appointee, pro tem
Ex-officio members
Jolly Babirukamu ACC Standing Committee liaison
Tai Matalavea Former Anglican UN Observer
Kim Robey Secretariat
The provinces having representatives at the meeting are: Aotearao, NZ, and Polynesia, Australia, Burundi, Canada, Central Africa, England, Episcopal Church, Hong Kong, Indian Ocean, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Melanesia, Mexico, North India, Pakistan, Philippines, Scotland, South Africa, Southern Cone, Sudan, Uganda, Wales, West Africa, and West Indies.
For more information about IAWN and this meeting, or to arrange press briefings or interviews, please contact Ms. Kim Robey at 1-800-334-7626, ext. 5346, or krobey@episcopalchurch.org.
Resolution ACC 13–31: The 49th Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women
The Anglican Consultative Council:
1. receives and adopts the Report of the ACC Provincial Delegation to the 49th UN Commission on the Status of Women (UNCSW), and affirms the work of the International Anglican Women's Network (IAWN) in responding to the Beijing Platform for Action and the Millennium Developments Goals (MDG), thereby carrying forward the full flourishing of God's Creation
2. acknowledges the MDG goal for equal representation of women in decision making at all levels, and so requests:
1. the Standing Committee to identify ways in which this goal may appropriately be adapted for incorporation into the structures of the Instruments of Unity, and other bodies to which the Anglican Consultative Council nominates or appoints
2. all member churches to work towards the realization of this goal in their own structures of governance, and in other bodies to which they nominate or appoint
and to report on progress to ACC-14.
3. recommends that a study of the place and role of women in the structures of the Anglican Communion be undertaken by the Standing Committee in line with the objects of the ACC "to keep in review the needs that may arise for further study, and, where necessary, to promote inquiry and research"
4. requests that each Province give consideration to the establishment of a women's desk for that Province
5. thanks those Provinces which sent participants to the 49th Session of UNCSW, and encourages those who did not to review their decision in time for the 50th Session in 2006 in solidarity with all women of the Anglican Communion.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The progressive lobbying offensive continues.
What appears to be now a heavily TEC-coordinated political advocacy group named the The International Anglican Women's Network (IAWN) is planning a meeting in Manhattan next month with a group that has been recruited heavily from the Global South to apparently counter the efforts of the bishops and archbishops of the Global South leadership. Targeting women (naturally!), the goals of the lobbying group are aligned with the goals of the progressive wing of The Episcopal Church.
Fascinating American-style politics at work. [see press release posted below, ed.]
How were these lobbyists picked? Were these lobbyists elected by their provincial leadership? How were the elections or appointments done? Were there slates of candidates put forward? Do these women represent their own personal views or are they authorized to speak for their province and their primates? Who do they speak for? All women? Who are they accountable to? What sort of financial support are they receving, who is paying for their hotels and expenses while in Manhattan, and where is that funding coming from? These are globally tough economic times - and bringing all these women into Manhattan for yet another political strategy group meeting must cost a pretty penny indeed. Why not just have a Skype-video conference?
TEC must want the photo-op.
The group was - love this euphemism - "re-invigorated" by among other people, Jenny Plane Te Paa after The Episcopal Church crisis intensified and the Global South rose in support of the Episcopal orthodox minority who continue, even now, to vote to separate from The Episcopal Church and join other Anglican provinces in the Global South. Apparently "re-invigorated" to be a progressive counter point to the Global South's witness, it bears keeping an eye on this group as they are used as a TEC-backed lobbying group at the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in May.
Also, note carefully which western province is missing from the so-called "steering group." Very interesting indeed.
A link in the post takes you to the following press release. When you look at who is involved with this you can see that BabyBlue is right on the money; this is unquestionably a pecusa set-up:
Anglican Communion News Service
International Anglican Women's Network (IAWN) Meeting Feb 2009
Posted On : January 22, 2009 10:21 AM | Posted By : Webmaster
ACNS: ACNS4562
Related Categories: ACO
The International Anglican Women's Network (IAWN) will conduct its first formal meeting Feb. 22-27, 2009, at the Tutu Center at General Theological Seminary in New York City.
Building on the strong presence of the IAWN during the 2008 Lambeth Conference, women representing 26 of the 38 Anglican provinces are expected. "We will focus on progress or lack thereof toward equality and empowerment for women in our regions," said Mrs. Priscilla Julie of the Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean, who chairs the IAWN Steering Group.
"How does our situation measure up against the goals of the Beijing Platform for Action and Millennium Development Goal #3: to promote gender equality and empower women?," she said. "Even more important, what progress has been made on resolution 13–31 of the Anglican Consultative Council in 2005, which acknowledged the importance of this MDG goal and requested, inter alia, "all member churches to work toward the realization of this goal in their structures of governance, and in other bodies to which they nominate or appoint." (For the full text, see below or at: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/acc/meetings/acc13/resolutions.cfm#s31
The IAWN will report to the Anglican Consultative Council in May when it convenes in Kingston, Jamaica. The report will include activities of the IAWN in the four years since ACC-13 met in Nottingham, plans for the future, and recommendations for ACC action.
During their week together in New York, IAWN representatives will share their struggles and successes, build on common goals that have been made, and plan for the future. They will worship, make reports, vote on new members to the Steering Group and create recommendations for further action. Some will stay on in New York to attend the 53rd Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women as part of the Anglican delegation organized by the Anglican Observer's Office. That meeting runs from March 2 to March 13 with the theme of "The equal sharing of responsibilities between women and men, including caregiving in the context of HIV/AIDS". http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/53sess.htm
The IAWN was formed in November 1996 following a consultation convened by the ACC and funded by the Mothers' Union, headquartered in London, and the United Thank Offering of The Episcopal Church. Women from 14 of the (then) 32 provinces of the Anglican Communion met in London and agreed that an International Anglican Women's Network be formed. Its mandate was to report the work of women and the challenges that they face to the ACC.
One of the official Anglican Communion networks (http://iawn.anglicancommunion.org/index.cfm), the IAWN has had a remarkable resurgence over the last few years. IAWN started to build momentum leading up to the 1998 Lambeth Conference, but languished subsequently. (No funding is provided in the Anglican Communion budget for networks.)
In March 2006, the IAWN was re-invigorated at a meeting of Anglican delegates to the 50th United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (UNCSW) by Archdeacon Taimalelagi Fagamalama Tuatagaloa-Matalavea, the former Anglican Observer to the United Nations, and Dr. Jenny Plane Te Paa with support from AWE, Anglican Women's Empowerment. A new structure was approved, consisting of 38 link representatives (each designated by the primate of her province) and an eight-member Steering Group (seven elected and one appointed).
The Episcopal Church is hosting the February meeting, which is being coordinated by the Steering Group through Ms. Kim Robey, Program Officer for Women's Ministries and IAWN secretary. "I'm so pleased with the eager response we have had to the invitations for this meeting," she said. "I'm excited at the prospect of spending a week with women from all over the world. It's a tribute to the Anglican Communion's growing commitment to women that representatives are coming from so many provinces."
The Steering Group is comprised of:
Priscilla Julie The Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean, Convener
Lisbeth Barahona Iglesia Anglicana de la Region Central de America
Esperanza Beleo The Episcopal Church in the Philippines
Joyce Kariuki The Anglican Church in Kenya
Helena Mbele-Mbong The Episcopal Church of the USA
Alice Medcof The Anglican Church of Canada
Meagan Morrison The Anglican Church of Australia
Margaret Jones Mothers' Union appointee, pro tem
Ex-officio members
Jolly Babirukamu ACC Standing Committee liaison
Tai Matalavea Former Anglican UN Observer
Kim Robey Secretariat
The provinces having representatives at the meeting are: Aotearao, NZ, and Polynesia, Australia, Burundi, Canada, Central Africa, England, Episcopal Church, Hong Kong, Indian Ocean, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Melanesia, Mexico, North India, Pakistan, Philippines, Scotland, South Africa, Southern Cone, Sudan, Uganda, Wales, West Africa, and West Indies.
For more information about IAWN and this meeting, or to arrange press briefings or interviews, please contact Ms. Kim Robey at 1-800-334-7626, ext. 5346, or krobey@episcopalchurch.org.
Resolution ACC 13–31: The 49th Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women
The Anglican Consultative Council:
1. receives and adopts the Report of the ACC Provincial Delegation to the 49th UN Commission on the Status of Women (UNCSW), and affirms the work of the International Anglican Women's Network (IAWN) in responding to the Beijing Platform for Action and the Millennium Developments Goals (MDG), thereby carrying forward the full flourishing of God's Creation
2. acknowledges the MDG goal for equal representation of women in decision making at all levels, and so requests:
1. the Standing Committee to identify ways in which this goal may appropriately be adapted for incorporation into the structures of the Instruments of Unity, and other bodies to which the Anglican Consultative Council nominates or appoints
2. all member churches to work towards the realization of this goal in their own structures of governance, and in other bodies to which they nominate or appoint
and to report on progress to ACC-14.
3. recommends that a study of the place and role of women in the structures of the Anglican Communion be undertaken by the Standing Committee in line with the objects of the ACC "to keep in review the needs that may arise for further study, and, where necessary, to promote inquiry and research"
4. requests that each Province give consideration to the establishment of a women's desk for that Province
5. thanks those Provinces which sent participants to the 49th Session of UNCSW, and encourages those who did not to review their decision in time for the 50th Session in 2006 in solidarity with all women of the Anglican Communion.
Quincy Churches Vote on Affiliation
News Update from The Living Church:
Posted on: January 27, 2009
Members of Christ Church, Moline, Ill., narrowly defeated a proposal to remain with The Episcopal Church during the annual meeting on Jan. 25. The Rev. Canon Ed den Blauwen, the church’s rector, is president of the standing committee and vicar general of the Diocese of Quincy which voted to join the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone on a temporary basis during the annual synod last fall.
Members voted 80-59 to remain with The Episcopal Church, but failed to achieve the required two-thirds approval the diocese established in order to be released from the diocese. The vestry was divided, but not so bitterly that its members were unable to work together prior to the annual meeting, Canon den Blauwen said.
“We spent a fair amount of time in prayer and discernment and that seems to have made a difference,” he said.
Prior to the annual meeting, members of Christ Church held a series of forums at which representatives from both The Episcopal Church and the Common Cause Partnership participated. Canon den Blauwen said it is still too soon to know if or how many members will leave Christ Church, but he noted that a new congregation affiliated with The Episcopal Church is in the process of being planted in the Quad Cities area.
With average Sunday attendance of 135, Christ Church is the third-largest congregation among the 24 in Quincy. The largest, the Cathedral Church of St. Paul in Peoria, previously decided to remain with The Episcopal Church. In addition to St. Paul’s, two mission congregations—St. James’, Griggsville, and St. James’, Lewiston—previously announced their intention to remain with The Episcopal Church. At its annual meeting on Jan. 11, 90 percent of the membership at St. John’s, Kewanee, voted to remain with The Episcopal Church. St. John’s, one of the oldest congregations of The Episcopal Church in Illinois, reports average Sunday attendance of 35.
A nine-month period of discernment established by the diocese will end in July.
Posted on: January 27, 2009
Members of Christ Church, Moline, Ill., narrowly defeated a proposal to remain with The Episcopal Church during the annual meeting on Jan. 25. The Rev. Canon Ed den Blauwen, the church’s rector, is president of the standing committee and vicar general of the Diocese of Quincy which voted to join the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone on a temporary basis during the annual synod last fall.
Members voted 80-59 to remain with The Episcopal Church, but failed to achieve the required two-thirds approval the diocese established in order to be released from the diocese. The vestry was divided, but not so bitterly that its members were unable to work together prior to the annual meeting, Canon den Blauwen said.
“We spent a fair amount of time in prayer and discernment and that seems to have made a difference,” he said.
Prior to the annual meeting, members of Christ Church held a series of forums at which representatives from both The Episcopal Church and the Common Cause Partnership participated. Canon den Blauwen said it is still too soon to know if or how many members will leave Christ Church, but he noted that a new congregation affiliated with The Episcopal Church is in the process of being planted in the Quad Cities area.
With average Sunday attendance of 135, Christ Church is the third-largest congregation among the 24 in Quincy. The largest, the Cathedral Church of St. Paul in Peoria, previously decided to remain with The Episcopal Church. In addition to St. Paul’s, two mission congregations—St. James’, Griggsville, and St. James’, Lewiston—previously announced their intention to remain with The Episcopal Church. At its annual meeting on Jan. 11, 90 percent of the membership at St. John’s, Kewanee, voted to remain with The Episcopal Church. St. John’s, one of the oldest congregations of The Episcopal Church in Illinois, reports average Sunday attendance of 35.
A nine-month period of discernment established by the diocese will end in July.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The international reach of VirtueOnline
From the VOL Digest, Volume 5, Issue 5:
VOL welcomes new readers from Saudi Arabia, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco this week. We hope and pray that the stories, news analysis, commentary and devotionals will find a place in your life and ministry.
and this:
By the time you read this digest I will be heading out the door to cover the annual Anglican Mission in Americas (AMiA) conference in Greensboro, NC. From there I will fly in the company of Rwandan Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini to Alexandria, Egypt, in order to cover the Primates meeting.
PS. A SPECIAL MESSAGE TO ALL 70 VOL READERS IN EGYPT. It would be an honor and a privilege to meet with as many of you as possible while I am in your country. I will be there from Feb. 1-7. If you would like to contact me, send an e-mail to david@virtueonline.org. I will respond immediately.
I join David Virtue with this request concerning the primates meeting:
I would ask for your prayers for our safety and for wisdom for the primates who will be meeting in conclave to consider our future as one communion.
VOL welcomes new readers from Saudi Arabia, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco this week. We hope and pray that the stories, news analysis, commentary and devotionals will find a place in your life and ministry.
and this:
By the time you read this digest I will be heading out the door to cover the annual Anglican Mission in Americas (AMiA) conference in Greensboro, NC. From there I will fly in the company of Rwandan Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini to Alexandria, Egypt, in order to cover the Primates meeting.
PS. A SPECIAL MESSAGE TO ALL 70 VOL READERS IN EGYPT. It would be an honor and a privilege to meet with as many of you as possible while I am in your country. I will be there from Feb. 1-7. If you would like to contact me, send an e-mail to david@virtueonline.org. I will respond immediately.
I join David Virtue with this request concerning the primates meeting:
I would ask for your prayers for our safety and for wisdom for the primates who will be meeting in conclave to consider our future as one communion.
Misuse of the Canons & Abuse of Power by the Presiding Bishop: A Statement on Bishop Scriven
Via TitusOneNine:
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Tuesday, January 27th, 2009
The Reverend Canon Professor Christopher Seitz
The Reverend Dr. Philip Turner
The Reverend Dr. Ephraim Radner
Mark McCall, Esq.
In recent months ACI has asked with increasing urgency whether the Presiding Bishop is willing and able to comply with the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Her most recent canonical misadventure is purporting to remove from the ordained ministry a bishop in the Church of England canonically resident and working in England and subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Oxford and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Her canonical overreaching has now extended into the heart of the Church of England, placing in serious question the extent to which the Presiding Bishop continues to perceive herself as in communion with that church and its primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
On January 15, 2008, the Presiding Bishop purported to accept the “renunciation” of ordained ministry by Bishop Henry Scriven. It is now sadly evident that an actual renunciation is no longer a prerequisite for the Presiding Bishop’s “acceptance” of such an extraordinary action by a bishop of the church. In her zeal to remove from office those with whom she disagrees what started only two years ago as the canonically appropriate, if misguided, procedure of using presentments under the disciplinary canons of Title IV quickly evolved into abuse of the “abandonment of communion” canon in order to avoid the procedural protections afforded to those charged with presentment. But even the summary procedures of the abandonment canon require some process, including a vote in the House of Bishops by a majority of the bishops in TEC entitled to vote. The fact that she has been repeatedly unable to assemble such a majority has not stopped the Presiding Bishop from using this canon, most recently in the case of Bishop Duncan, who at the time he was purportedly deposed for “abandonment of communion” was still actively performing his duties as the Diocesan Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. After her widely criticized handling of Bishop Duncan, however, the Presiding Bishop dispensed with canonical process altogether and since then has simply adopted the tactic of “accepting” renunciations that were never given. Bishops of the church are removed with nothing more than the stroke of a pen.
The Presiding Bishop’s problem in the case of Bishop Scriven, however, is that he was not in fact a “Bishop of this Church” as required by the canon the Presiding Bishop invoked when she purported to remove him from the ordained ministry and to pronounce him “deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred on him in Ordinations.” Those “Ordinations” of which she purports to deprive him were conferred on Bishop Scriven not by TEC but by the Church of England, including by the Archbishop of Canterbury personally. The Presiding Bishop has no authority to deprive him of the ministry conferred on him by his ordination in the Church of England.
Bishop Scriven was consecrated as a bishop in the Church of England by the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey. He initially served as Suffragan Bishop in the Church of England’s Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe. At the same time, he also served as Assisting Bishop in TEC, acting in that capacity for Presiding Bishop Edmund Browning in the Convocation of American Churches in Europe.
In 2002, Bishop Scriven was again asked to serve as an Assistant Bishop in TEC, this time by Bishop Duncan and the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Under the applicable canon, III.12.5, assistant bishops may be selected from among either “Bishops of this Church” or “Bishops of a Church in communion with this Church.” For bishops in the latter category, special procedures are followed, including obtaining the consent of the church in which the bishop was consecrated and the consents of the TEC House of Bishops. Notwithstanding his prior service as an assisting bishop in TEC, Bishop Scriven’s appointment in Pittsburgh was treated as falling in this latter category in recognition of the fact that he was a bishop of the Church of England. Approval from the Church of England was given personally by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Bishop Scriven served as Assistant Bishop in Pittsburgh until September 2008. Under Canon III.12.5(e), the tenure of an Assistant Bishop automatically ends when the tenure of the diocesan bishop under whom he serves ends. Thus, if the deposition of Bishop Duncan was legal, Bishop Scriven’s tenure as Assistant Bishop in Pittsburgh ended on September 19 , 2008, when the Presiding Bishop pronounced the sentence of deposition on Bishop Duncan. At that moment, Bishop Scriven ceased to be a bishop of TEC. The fact that his tenure as Assistant Bishop had been terminated was recognized both by the Diocese of Pittsburgh and Bishop Scriven, and he ceased to serve as Assistant Bishop on September 19, 2008, and ceased to be a bishop of TEC at that time. At that point he became what the rules of the House of Bishops refer to as a bishop from another Church in the Anglican Communion who is resident in a TEC diocese. Under Article I.2 of TEC’s Constitution, Bishop Scriven was not eligible for membership in the House of Bishops at that point, no longer being an Assistant Bishop, but would have been eligible for membership as a collegial member or nonvoting member under the rules of the House of Bishops had he requested such membership and had it been approved by that House. Therefore, no action was required to remove him from the House of Bishops, certainly not the inappropriate action of purporting to remove him from the ordained ministry. He ceased to be a member of the House of Bishops on September 19, 2008, by operation of canon law.
To the extent Bishop Scriven continued to function in the Diocese of Pittsburgh it was with the permission of its ecclesiastical authority as a bishop consecrated by the Church of England canonically resident in another church. But on October 16, 2008, Bishop Scriven informed the Presiding Bishop, by letter copied to the Bishop of Oxford, that he was returning to the Church of England where he would become an Honorary Assistant Bishop of the Diocese of Oxford and be subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Oxford. The Presiding Bishop clearly acknowledged this fact in her letter of response, dated November 12, 2008: “I understand your request to resign as a member of the House of Bishops to mean that you will become a bishop of the Church of England, serving as assistant to the Bishop of Oxford.” Bishop Scriven has now resumed his residence in the Diocese of Oxford in the Church of England, where he is recognized as a bishop in good standing and has been asked to perform episcopal duties.
Notwithstanding these facts, on January 15, 2009, the Presiding Bishop purported to accept Bishop Scriven’s renunciation of his ministry “of this Church” and claimed to remove him from all ministry conferred in his “Ordinations.” Canon III.12.7, the canon under which the Presiding Bishop claimed to be acting, plainly applies only to a “Bishop of this Church.” The only way Bishop Scriven could have been a bishop of TEC on January 15 is if the deposition of Bishop Duncan were invalid. In such a case, Bishop Duncan would have continued to serve uninterrupted as Bishop of Pittsburgh and Bishop Scriven’s tenure as Assistant Bishop would not have ended by operation of Canon III.12.5(e). We doubt, however, that this is the theory under which the Presiding Bishop is operating.
Moreover, in addition to constituting an abuse of the canons, the Presiding Bishop’s action has profound consequences for TEC’s status as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion and its communion with the Church of England. The Declaration of Removal and Release states categorically that Bishop Scriven “is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred on him in Ordinations.” Those ordinations occurred, of course, in the Church of England. On its face, this declaration appears to prohibit a bishop in good standing in the Church of England from acting sacramentally in TEC. Since the use of Canon III.12.7 carries with it a certification that the bishop is not in violation of the constitution and canons and is not taken for causes that affect moral character, Bishop Scriven in this regard stands in no different position than any other bishop in the Church of England. If Bishop Scriven is so barred, is not the Archbishop of Canterbury barred as well?
Defenders of the Presiding Bishop’s course of conduct attempt to soften the impact of these actions by claiming that all that is being done by these acceptances of “renunciation” is the removal of a license to act in TEC. But this is clearly erroneous. All bishops, including all TEC bishops, require a license to act outside the dioceses in which they are canonically resident. Indeed, the very canon the Presiding Bishop invokes in the case of Bishop Scriven provides that “No Bishop shall perform episcopal acts or officiate by preaching, ministering the sacraments, or holding any public service in a Diocese other than that in which the Bishop is canonically resident, without permission or a license to perform occasional public services from the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese in which the Bishop desires to officiate or perform episcopal acts.” (III.12.3(e).) If all the Presiding Bishop accomplished in her Declaration of Removal of Bishop Scriven was to inform all the bishops of TEC and the other authorities to whom the declaration was sent that Bishop Scriven needs permission or a license to act in their dioceses, it was a waste of time. That was as true on January 14 as it was the next day after the declaration was issued.
What the Presiding Bishop clearly intended was not this trivial notification, but the more significant one of barring Bishop Scriven from receiving any such permission. And the sole reason for that debarment is that he returned to the Church of England, the church of his ordination and consecration to the episcopate, where he is now a bishop in good standing. The Presiding Bishop treated his return to the Church of England in precisely the same manner she treated Bishop Steenson’s move to the Church of Rome. Does the Presiding Bishop draw no distinction between the two? Has the Presiding Bishop now broken communion with the Church of England?
Thus, it appears that the Presiding Bishop has attempted to remove from the ministry—or at a minimum, bar from TEC– a bishop of the Church of England who is subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Oxford and is working in England as director of a missionary society of the Church of England, the patron of which is the Archbishop of Canterbury. At this point, one must ask whether the Presiding Bishop is incapable of interpreting the canons or incapable instead of following them. Her abuse of the canons has now reached beyond TEC and into the Church of England itself.
We have called attention to the problems inherent in sloppy and inappropriate application of the canons and in serious departures from the Constitution of The Episcopal Church. In the case of Bishop Scriven we are witnessing a new problem: the knock-on effect of using canons for purposes for which they are not intended with the consequence of calling into question the very character of catholic life across provinces of our Anglican Communion. Perhaps this is the autonomous counterpart of the autonomous actions in respect of Gene Robinson. The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, in seeking to deal with what is regarded as a problem within her own province, has so misused the canons that it is no longer clear if The Episcopal Church understands what ordination and interchangeability of ministry in a Communion entails. Has The Episcopal Church de facto ceased to view itself and its Constitution and Canons as meaningfully related to the life of catholic Anglicanism at the most basic level and instead sees them as laws governing (it might be hoped) a national denomination and really nothing more? If so, we call on those Bishops of TEC who wish this church to remain “a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, in communion with the See of Canterbury” to call a halt to this conduct or to request that the Presiding Bishop clarify what her understanding is of the place of The Episcopal Church within the Anglican Communion.
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Tuesday, January 27th, 2009
The Reverend Canon Professor Christopher Seitz
The Reverend Dr. Philip Turner
The Reverend Dr. Ephraim Radner
Mark McCall, Esq.
In recent months ACI has asked with increasing urgency whether the Presiding Bishop is willing and able to comply with the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Her most recent canonical misadventure is purporting to remove from the ordained ministry a bishop in the Church of England canonically resident and working in England and subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Oxford and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Her canonical overreaching has now extended into the heart of the Church of England, placing in serious question the extent to which the Presiding Bishop continues to perceive herself as in communion with that church and its primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
On January 15, 2008, the Presiding Bishop purported to accept the “renunciation” of ordained ministry by Bishop Henry Scriven. It is now sadly evident that an actual renunciation is no longer a prerequisite for the Presiding Bishop’s “acceptance” of such an extraordinary action by a bishop of the church. In her zeal to remove from office those with whom she disagrees what started only two years ago as the canonically appropriate, if misguided, procedure of using presentments under the disciplinary canons of Title IV quickly evolved into abuse of the “abandonment of communion” canon in order to avoid the procedural protections afforded to those charged with presentment. But even the summary procedures of the abandonment canon require some process, including a vote in the House of Bishops by a majority of the bishops in TEC entitled to vote. The fact that she has been repeatedly unable to assemble such a majority has not stopped the Presiding Bishop from using this canon, most recently in the case of Bishop Duncan, who at the time he was purportedly deposed for “abandonment of communion” was still actively performing his duties as the Diocesan Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. After her widely criticized handling of Bishop Duncan, however, the Presiding Bishop dispensed with canonical process altogether and since then has simply adopted the tactic of “accepting” renunciations that were never given. Bishops of the church are removed with nothing more than the stroke of a pen.
The Presiding Bishop’s problem in the case of Bishop Scriven, however, is that he was not in fact a “Bishop of this Church” as required by the canon the Presiding Bishop invoked when she purported to remove him from the ordained ministry and to pronounce him “deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred on him in Ordinations.” Those “Ordinations” of which she purports to deprive him were conferred on Bishop Scriven not by TEC but by the Church of England, including by the Archbishop of Canterbury personally. The Presiding Bishop has no authority to deprive him of the ministry conferred on him by his ordination in the Church of England.
Bishop Scriven was consecrated as a bishop in the Church of England by the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey. He initially served as Suffragan Bishop in the Church of England’s Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe. At the same time, he also served as Assisting Bishop in TEC, acting in that capacity for Presiding Bishop Edmund Browning in the Convocation of American Churches in Europe.
In 2002, Bishop Scriven was again asked to serve as an Assistant Bishop in TEC, this time by Bishop Duncan and the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Under the applicable canon, III.12.5, assistant bishops may be selected from among either “Bishops of this Church” or “Bishops of a Church in communion with this Church.” For bishops in the latter category, special procedures are followed, including obtaining the consent of the church in which the bishop was consecrated and the consents of the TEC House of Bishops. Notwithstanding his prior service as an assisting bishop in TEC, Bishop Scriven’s appointment in Pittsburgh was treated as falling in this latter category in recognition of the fact that he was a bishop of the Church of England. Approval from the Church of England was given personally by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Bishop Scriven served as Assistant Bishop in Pittsburgh until September 2008. Under Canon III.12.5(e), the tenure of an Assistant Bishop automatically ends when the tenure of the diocesan bishop under whom he serves ends. Thus, if the deposition of Bishop Duncan was legal, Bishop Scriven’s tenure as Assistant Bishop in Pittsburgh ended on September 19 , 2008, when the Presiding Bishop pronounced the sentence of deposition on Bishop Duncan. At that moment, Bishop Scriven ceased to be a bishop of TEC. The fact that his tenure as Assistant Bishop had been terminated was recognized both by the Diocese of Pittsburgh and Bishop Scriven, and he ceased to serve as Assistant Bishop on September 19, 2008, and ceased to be a bishop of TEC at that time. At that point he became what the rules of the House of Bishops refer to as a bishop from another Church in the Anglican Communion who is resident in a TEC diocese. Under Article I.2 of TEC’s Constitution, Bishop Scriven was not eligible for membership in the House of Bishops at that point, no longer being an Assistant Bishop, but would have been eligible for membership as a collegial member or nonvoting member under the rules of the House of Bishops had he requested such membership and had it been approved by that House. Therefore, no action was required to remove him from the House of Bishops, certainly not the inappropriate action of purporting to remove him from the ordained ministry. He ceased to be a member of the House of Bishops on September 19, 2008, by operation of canon law.
To the extent Bishop Scriven continued to function in the Diocese of Pittsburgh it was with the permission of its ecclesiastical authority as a bishop consecrated by the Church of England canonically resident in another church. But on October 16, 2008, Bishop Scriven informed the Presiding Bishop, by letter copied to the Bishop of Oxford, that he was returning to the Church of England where he would become an Honorary Assistant Bishop of the Diocese of Oxford and be subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Oxford. The Presiding Bishop clearly acknowledged this fact in her letter of response, dated November 12, 2008: “I understand your request to resign as a member of the House of Bishops to mean that you will become a bishop of the Church of England, serving as assistant to the Bishop of Oxford.” Bishop Scriven has now resumed his residence in the Diocese of Oxford in the Church of England, where he is recognized as a bishop in good standing and has been asked to perform episcopal duties.
Notwithstanding these facts, on January 15, 2009, the Presiding Bishop purported to accept Bishop Scriven’s renunciation of his ministry “of this Church” and claimed to remove him from all ministry conferred in his “Ordinations.” Canon III.12.7, the canon under which the Presiding Bishop claimed to be acting, plainly applies only to a “Bishop of this Church.” The only way Bishop Scriven could have been a bishop of TEC on January 15 is if the deposition of Bishop Duncan were invalid. In such a case, Bishop Duncan would have continued to serve uninterrupted as Bishop of Pittsburgh and Bishop Scriven’s tenure as Assistant Bishop would not have ended by operation of Canon III.12.5(e). We doubt, however, that this is the theory under which the Presiding Bishop is operating.
Moreover, in addition to constituting an abuse of the canons, the Presiding Bishop’s action has profound consequences for TEC’s status as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion and its communion with the Church of England. The Declaration of Removal and Release states categorically that Bishop Scriven “is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred on him in Ordinations.” Those ordinations occurred, of course, in the Church of England. On its face, this declaration appears to prohibit a bishop in good standing in the Church of England from acting sacramentally in TEC. Since the use of Canon III.12.7 carries with it a certification that the bishop is not in violation of the constitution and canons and is not taken for causes that affect moral character, Bishop Scriven in this regard stands in no different position than any other bishop in the Church of England. If Bishop Scriven is so barred, is not the Archbishop of Canterbury barred as well?
Defenders of the Presiding Bishop’s course of conduct attempt to soften the impact of these actions by claiming that all that is being done by these acceptances of “renunciation” is the removal of a license to act in TEC. But this is clearly erroneous. All bishops, including all TEC bishops, require a license to act outside the dioceses in which they are canonically resident. Indeed, the very canon the Presiding Bishop invokes in the case of Bishop Scriven provides that “No Bishop shall perform episcopal acts or officiate by preaching, ministering the sacraments, or holding any public service in a Diocese other than that in which the Bishop is canonically resident, without permission or a license to perform occasional public services from the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese in which the Bishop desires to officiate or perform episcopal acts.” (III.12.3(e).) If all the Presiding Bishop accomplished in her Declaration of Removal of Bishop Scriven was to inform all the bishops of TEC and the other authorities to whom the declaration was sent that Bishop Scriven needs permission or a license to act in their dioceses, it was a waste of time. That was as true on January 14 as it was the next day after the declaration was issued.
What the Presiding Bishop clearly intended was not this trivial notification, but the more significant one of barring Bishop Scriven from receiving any such permission. And the sole reason for that debarment is that he returned to the Church of England, the church of his ordination and consecration to the episcopate, where he is now a bishop in good standing. The Presiding Bishop treated his return to the Church of England in precisely the same manner she treated Bishop Steenson’s move to the Church of Rome. Does the Presiding Bishop draw no distinction between the two? Has the Presiding Bishop now broken communion with the Church of England?
Thus, it appears that the Presiding Bishop has attempted to remove from the ministry—or at a minimum, bar from TEC– a bishop of the Church of England who is subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Oxford and is working in England as director of a missionary society of the Church of England, the patron of which is the Archbishop of Canterbury. At this point, one must ask whether the Presiding Bishop is incapable of interpreting the canons or incapable instead of following them. Her abuse of the canons has now reached beyond TEC and into the Church of England itself.
We have called attention to the problems inherent in sloppy and inappropriate application of the canons and in serious departures from the Constitution of The Episcopal Church. In the case of Bishop Scriven we are witnessing a new problem: the knock-on effect of using canons for purposes for which they are not intended with the consequence of calling into question the very character of catholic life across provinces of our Anglican Communion. Perhaps this is the autonomous counterpart of the autonomous actions in respect of Gene Robinson. The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, in seeking to deal with what is regarded as a problem within her own province, has so misused the canons that it is no longer clear if The Episcopal Church understands what ordination and interchangeability of ministry in a Communion entails. Has The Episcopal Church de facto ceased to view itself and its Constitution and Canons as meaningfully related to the life of catholic Anglicanism at the most basic level and instead sees them as laws governing (it might be hoped) a national denomination and really nothing more? If so, we call on those Bishops of TEC who wish this church to remain “a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, in communion with the See of Canterbury” to call a halt to this conduct or to request that the Presiding Bishop clarify what her understanding is of the place of The Episcopal Church within the Anglican Communion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)