Via TitusOneNine:
ELCA NEWS SERVICE
September 27, 2009
CHICAGO (ELCA) -- Community Church of Joy, Glendale, Ariz., ended its affiliation Sept. 27 with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States.
The congregation was the 10th largest in the ELCA with 6,800 baptized members. According to the 2009 ELCA Yearbook, Community Church of Joy's current operating expenses are more than $2.7 million. It gave more than $207,915 to the ELCA and other organizations in benevolence. By a unanimous vote of 129-0, Community Church of Joy terminated the relationship at a congregational meeting following worship.
"I was praying that (the vote) would be a clear direction from the congregation," said the Rev. Walter P. Kallestad, senior pastor of the congregation. Seeking to be consistent with the congregation's decision, Kallestad announced to the congregation his intention to resign from the ELCA's clergy roster.
Two votes were taken as part of a process to end the affiliation. An initial vote took place June 28, when 185 members voted 174-11 in favor of ending the relationship. Also in June, voting members chose to join Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ -- an association of 197 congregations in the United States "rooted in the Lutheran Confessions."
Community Church of Joy's vision, values and mission are no longer aligned with the ELCA, according to Kallestad. "There is such a different direction that the ELCA has chosen, a path they're traveling on, and we really believe that it just was not consistent to where God has called us. And so we're parting," he told the ELCA News Service.
On its Web site, Community Church of Joy cited three documents to help make clear the reasons for the congregation's actions. One document is about Israel and another is about Holy Scripture. A third document references the actions of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly on the topic of human sexuality.
The assembly approved a series of proposals to change ministry policies, including a change to allow Lutherans in lifelong, publicly accountable, monogamous same-gender relationships to serve as ELCA associates in ministry, clergy, deaconesses and diaconal ministers. The assembly also approved "Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust" -- the denomination's 10th social statement, which addresses a spectrum of topics relevant to human sexuality from a Lutheran perspective.
The Rev. Stephen S. Talmage, bishop of the ELCA Grand Canyon Synod, Phoenix, spoke to members of Community Church of Joy in early September. He said about 40 people were present, and about 20 of them were members of Community Church of Joy. Kallestad was not present.
"In the meeting I affirmed the ministry of Community Church of Joy," Talmage told the ELCA News Service. "I lifted up that Pastor Kallestad and the congregation have had a historical reputation of trying novel and creative things. They also, without a doubt, clearly have a heart for reaching the unchurched. They've pushed the envelope for the ELCA, having us look at how we do worship, how we evangelize and how we reach out."
Talmage said he also listed the ways in which Lutherans engage in mission and ministry across the country and overseas. "That will be lost, and that's sad," he said. "My hope is that, although they're leaving, we can still discover ways we can cooperate in ministry and celebrate our common commitment to growing disciples."
Talmage was not present for the Sept. 27 vote at Community Church of Joy. The Rev. John Q. Cockram, Shepherd of the Desert, Sun City, Ariz., represented the synod.
- - -
Information about Community Church of Joy is at http://www.joyonline.org on the Web.
For information contact:
John Brooks, Director (773) 380-2958 or news@elca.org
http://www.elca.org/news
ELCA News Blog: http://www.elca.org/news/blog
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
pecusa's lament
From Lionel Diemel's blog via Thinking Anglicans:
September 27, 2009
A Perspective on the Pawleys Island Case
It was with considerable dismay that I learned about the South Carolina Supreme Court decision in All Saints v. Campbell, the property dispute between the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and All Saints, Pawleys Island. In preparation for the weekly post on the news blog Pittsburgh Update last week, I asked attorney and Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh vice president Ken Stiles to read the opinion and provide some perspective on it. As it happened, Ken provided more perspective than Pittsburgh Update could use, so I asked him if I could post his thoughts on my own blog. He graciously agreed, and I hope that his remarks, now somewhat expanded, will help put the decision into perspective. (Readers who have not seen it should also see Nick Knisely’s post on The Lead concerning the decision.)
On September 18, 2009, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled against the Diocese of South Carolina and The Episcopal Church to allow the All Saints, Waccamaw (Pawleys Island), to disaffiliate from The Episcopal Church and join Rwanda’s Anglican Mission in America (AMiA, now Anglican Mission in the Americas) with its property. The Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling. This matter had been it litigation since 2000, when the diocese filled court papers claiming a trust interest in the parish’s property. In 2004, the parish vestry voted 9 to 1 to leave The Episcopal Church and join the AMiA.
The Supreme Court decision is a rare loss for The Episcopal Church in property litigation, but one has to look behind the immediate outcome to get a better sense of what this decision is and is not. The two issues of interest here are the Court’s treatment of the Dennis Canon and the cavalier way it approved the disassociation with The Episcopal Church.
The negation of the Dennis Canon is not as shocking as it seems. While all Episcopal Church parishes are assumed to have a trust relationship with their dioceses (and The Episcopal Church), the diocesan trust here was rendered null and void in 1903, when the Diocese of South Carolina signed a quitclaim deed giving any property interest the diocese had to the parish. (At issue was a question about the validity of the parish’s incorporation.) It is sometimes overlooked that the Dennis Canon did not and could not create a trust where none had existed before. The underlying assumption of the Dennis Canon is that there is always a trust relationship between a parish and the diocese dating from the establishment of the parish. To date, state courts have agreed with this. In this case, the diocese had given up its trust rights, so that there was nothing for the Dennis Canon to attach to.
The more troublesome aspect of this case is the Court’s holding that the parish had legally terminated its relationship with the diocese and The Episcopal Church:
Turning to the 2005 Action [in which a vestry loyal to The Episcopal Church sued for control of the parish], we find that the trial court applied the deference approach, determined that the congregation was part of a hierarchical organization, and deferred to the Diocese’s ecclesiastical authority’s determination that members of the minority vestry were the true officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. We disagree.
First, the Court held that the deference approach was no longer allowed in South Carolina. Instead, it applied the “neutral principles of law” test. Both approaches are allowed by the United States Supreme Court.
Church disputes that are resolved under the neutral principles of law approach do not turn on the single question of whether a church is congregational or hierarchical. Rather, the neutral principles of law approach permits the application of property, corporate, and other forms of law to church disputes. …
The 2005 case turns on a determination of whether the Articles of Amendment approved by the members of All Saints Waccamaw, Inc. on January 8, 2004 were adopted in compliance with the South Carolina Non-Profit Act. See S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1001, et. seq. We find that the Articles of Amendment were lawfully adopted and effectively severed the corporation’s legal ties to the ECUSA and the Diocese. Therefore, we find that the members of the majority vestry are the true officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. …
Pursuant to the South Carolina Non-Profit Act, a religious corporation may amend its Articles of Incorporation to add or change a provision permitted in the articles or delete a provision not required in the articles. … Amendment to a corporation’s articles, to be adopted, must be approved by (1) the board of directors, (2) the members “by two-thirds of the votes cast or a majority of the voting power, whichever is less,” and (3) any person whose approval is required by the Articles of Incorporation. … The passage of the Articles of Amendment approved by the congregation on January 8, 2004 complied with all three of these requirements. …
Finally, nothing in the All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. by-laws or the Constitutions and Canons of the ECUSA or Diocese requires third-party approval for amendments to the congregation’s corporate charter, therefore the congregation’s adoption of the Articles of Amendment complied with the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1003(a)(3). The statutory provisions pertaining to a religious corporation’s amendment of its corporate charter were amended in 1994 so as to add the option of third-party approval. See 1994 S.C. Acts 384. There is no evidence in the record that, since that time, the Diocese has ever attempted to gain approval power over amendments to the All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. corporate charter.
S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1003(a)(3) refers to S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1030, “Approval of the articles of incorporation and bylaws by third persons”:
The articles of only a religious corporation or public benefit corporation may require an amendment to the articles or bylaws to be approved in writing by a specified person or persons other than the board. The article provision may be amended only with the approval in writing of such person.
The Court is saying here that, since the diocese did not require the parish to add the “third-party approval” language to the parish charter after 1994, the parish was free to change its charter in any way it wanted.
This conclusion of the Court is troublesome because nowhere in the opinion was the accession clause of the diocesan constitution (see Article I) mentioned or explanation given as to why it did not apply to this case. If an accession clause had been found present and effective, the actions of the parish, even if they had been unanimous, would have been beyond their authority and therefore of no effect. Moreover, although it is difficult to do a complete analysis of the case in the absence of the corporate charter of All Saints—the charter does not seem to be on the Web—the Diocese of South Carolina’s Canon XXX, Section 1 (see canons here), would seem to prohibit what the Supreme Court of South Carolina has allowed:
It shall not be lawful for any Vestry, Trustees or other body authorized by laws of any State or Territory to hold property for any Diocese, Parish or Congregation, to encumber or alienate any dedicated and consecrated Church or Chapel, or any Church or Chapel which has been used solely for Divine Service, belonging to the Parish, Mission or Congregation which they represent, without the previous consent of the Bishop, acting with the advice and consent of the Standing Committee of the Diocese.
It would seem that the court is saying that the only document that need be considered is the parish charter; the diocesan constitution and canons count for naught. The failure of the South Carolina Supreme Court to address this issue is both surprising and distressing.
September 27, 2009
A Perspective on the Pawleys Island Case
It was with considerable dismay that I learned about the South Carolina Supreme Court decision in All Saints v. Campbell, the property dispute between the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and All Saints, Pawleys Island. In preparation for the weekly post on the news blog Pittsburgh Update last week, I asked attorney and Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh vice president Ken Stiles to read the opinion and provide some perspective on it. As it happened, Ken provided more perspective than Pittsburgh Update could use, so I asked him if I could post his thoughts on my own blog. He graciously agreed, and I hope that his remarks, now somewhat expanded, will help put the decision into perspective. (Readers who have not seen it should also see Nick Knisely’s post on The Lead concerning the decision.)
On September 18, 2009, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled against the Diocese of South Carolina and The Episcopal Church to allow the All Saints, Waccamaw (Pawleys Island), to disaffiliate from The Episcopal Church and join Rwanda’s Anglican Mission in America (AMiA, now Anglican Mission in the Americas) with its property. The Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling. This matter had been it litigation since 2000, when the diocese filled court papers claiming a trust interest in the parish’s property. In 2004, the parish vestry voted 9 to 1 to leave The Episcopal Church and join the AMiA.
The Supreme Court decision is a rare loss for The Episcopal Church in property litigation, but one has to look behind the immediate outcome to get a better sense of what this decision is and is not. The two issues of interest here are the Court’s treatment of the Dennis Canon and the cavalier way it approved the disassociation with The Episcopal Church.
The negation of the Dennis Canon is not as shocking as it seems. While all Episcopal Church parishes are assumed to have a trust relationship with their dioceses (and The Episcopal Church), the diocesan trust here was rendered null and void in 1903, when the Diocese of South Carolina signed a quitclaim deed giving any property interest the diocese had to the parish. (At issue was a question about the validity of the parish’s incorporation.) It is sometimes overlooked that the Dennis Canon did not and could not create a trust where none had existed before. The underlying assumption of the Dennis Canon is that there is always a trust relationship between a parish and the diocese dating from the establishment of the parish. To date, state courts have agreed with this. In this case, the diocese had given up its trust rights, so that there was nothing for the Dennis Canon to attach to.
The more troublesome aspect of this case is the Court’s holding that the parish had legally terminated its relationship with the diocese and The Episcopal Church:
Turning to the 2005 Action [in which a vestry loyal to The Episcopal Church sued for control of the parish], we find that the trial court applied the deference approach, determined that the congregation was part of a hierarchical organization, and deferred to the Diocese’s ecclesiastical authority’s determination that members of the minority vestry were the true officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. We disagree.
First, the Court held that the deference approach was no longer allowed in South Carolina. Instead, it applied the “neutral principles of law” test. Both approaches are allowed by the United States Supreme Court.
Church disputes that are resolved under the neutral principles of law approach do not turn on the single question of whether a church is congregational or hierarchical. Rather, the neutral principles of law approach permits the application of property, corporate, and other forms of law to church disputes. …
The 2005 case turns on a determination of whether the Articles of Amendment approved by the members of All Saints Waccamaw, Inc. on January 8, 2004 were adopted in compliance with the South Carolina Non-Profit Act. See S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1001, et. seq. We find that the Articles of Amendment were lawfully adopted and effectively severed the corporation’s legal ties to the ECUSA and the Diocese. Therefore, we find that the members of the majority vestry are the true officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. …
Pursuant to the South Carolina Non-Profit Act, a religious corporation may amend its Articles of Incorporation to add or change a provision permitted in the articles or delete a provision not required in the articles. … Amendment to a corporation’s articles, to be adopted, must be approved by (1) the board of directors, (2) the members “by two-thirds of the votes cast or a majority of the voting power, whichever is less,” and (3) any person whose approval is required by the Articles of Incorporation. … The passage of the Articles of Amendment approved by the congregation on January 8, 2004 complied with all three of these requirements. …
Finally, nothing in the All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. by-laws or the Constitutions and Canons of the ECUSA or Diocese requires third-party approval for amendments to the congregation’s corporate charter, therefore the congregation’s adoption of the Articles of Amendment complied with the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1003(a)(3). The statutory provisions pertaining to a religious corporation’s amendment of its corporate charter were amended in 1994 so as to add the option of third-party approval. See 1994 S.C. Acts 384. There is no evidence in the record that, since that time, the Diocese has ever attempted to gain approval power over amendments to the All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. corporate charter.
S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1003(a)(3) refers to S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1030, “Approval of the articles of incorporation and bylaws by third persons”:
The articles of only a religious corporation or public benefit corporation may require an amendment to the articles or bylaws to be approved in writing by a specified person or persons other than the board. The article provision may be amended only with the approval in writing of such person.
The Court is saying here that, since the diocese did not require the parish to add the “third-party approval” language to the parish charter after 1994, the parish was free to change its charter in any way it wanted.
This conclusion of the Court is troublesome because nowhere in the opinion was the accession clause of the diocesan constitution (see Article I) mentioned or explanation given as to why it did not apply to this case. If an accession clause had been found present and effective, the actions of the parish, even if they had been unanimous, would have been beyond their authority and therefore of no effect. Moreover, although it is difficult to do a complete analysis of the case in the absence of the corporate charter of All Saints—the charter does not seem to be on the Web—the Diocese of South Carolina’s Canon XXX, Section 1 (see canons here), would seem to prohibit what the Supreme Court of South Carolina has allowed:
It shall not be lawful for any Vestry, Trustees or other body authorized by laws of any State or Territory to hold property for any Diocese, Parish or Congregation, to encumber or alienate any dedicated and consecrated Church or Chapel, or any Church or Chapel which has been used solely for Divine Service, belonging to the Parish, Mission or Congregation which they represent, without the previous consent of the Bishop, acting with the advice and consent of the Standing Committee of the Diocese.
It would seem that the court is saying that the only document that need be considered is the parish charter; the diocesan constitution and canons count for naught. The failure of the South Carolina Supreme Court to address this issue is both surprising and distressing.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Fort Worth to Vote on Southern Cone Ties
From The Living Church:
Posted on: September 28, 2009
A member diocese of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) will consider a resolution that maintains the diocese’s ties with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone.
The resolution is being proposed by the Diocese of Fort Worth’s standing committee. The diocese’s convention will meet on Nov. 6 and 7 in Arlington, Texas. The resolution commits the diocese to continued participation in the ACNA, but also “maintains its status as a member diocese in the Province of the Southern Cone while the formal process of recognition of [ACNA] continues in the Anglican Communion.”
“At this point, the Anglican Church in North America is not yet fully recognized as a province of the Anglican Communion,” the standing committee said in an explanation. “We are working towards that goal, but it is a lengthy process involving the primates, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Anglican Consultative Council.”
The standing committee also says it is important for the diocese to remain within ACNA, in order to “support and encourage an authentic Anglican witness in North America.”
Another resolution urges the diocese to adopt the Ridley Cambridge draft of the Anglican Communion’s proposed covenant. A third resolution would inform Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America that the diocese shares his vision to “live, to actualize, and to participate in the full integrity of the Catholic Church—the full integrity of Orthodox Catholicism.”
In other diocesan news, the reconstituted Diocese of Pittsburgh will consider a resolution that authorizes a study of reuniting that diocese with the Diocese of Northwestern Pennsylvania. Northwestern Pennsylvania has not planned a study of its own, although the Pittsburgh resolution would invite participation by that Northwestern Pennsylvania's bishop, the Rt. Rev. Sean Rowe, and other diocesan leaders.
The reunion study is one of 20 resolutions presented for Pittsburgh's diocesan convention, which is scheduled for Oct. 16 and 17 at Trinity Cathedral. Another resolution encourages congregations to submit their responses to the draft covenant “as a preliminary to a response by the diocese.” Fifteen more resolutions would offer the first of two necessary votes to reverse constitutional changes that were made as previous diocesan conventions prepared to separate the diocese from the Episcopal Church.
Posted on: September 28, 2009
A member diocese of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) will consider a resolution that maintains the diocese’s ties with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone.
The resolution is being proposed by the Diocese of Fort Worth’s standing committee. The diocese’s convention will meet on Nov. 6 and 7 in Arlington, Texas. The resolution commits the diocese to continued participation in the ACNA, but also “maintains its status as a member diocese in the Province of the Southern Cone while the formal process of recognition of [ACNA] continues in the Anglican Communion.”
“At this point, the Anglican Church in North America is not yet fully recognized as a province of the Anglican Communion,” the standing committee said in an explanation. “We are working towards that goal, but it is a lengthy process involving the primates, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Anglican Consultative Council.”
The standing committee also says it is important for the diocese to remain within ACNA, in order to “support and encourage an authentic Anglican witness in North America.”
Another resolution urges the diocese to adopt the Ridley Cambridge draft of the Anglican Communion’s proposed covenant. A third resolution would inform Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America that the diocese shares his vision to “live, to actualize, and to participate in the full integrity of the Catholic Church—the full integrity of Orthodox Catholicism.”
In other diocesan news, the reconstituted Diocese of Pittsburgh will consider a resolution that authorizes a study of reuniting that diocese with the Diocese of Northwestern Pennsylvania. Northwestern Pennsylvania has not planned a study of its own, although the Pittsburgh resolution would invite participation by that Northwestern Pennsylvania's bishop, the Rt. Rev. Sean Rowe, and other diocesan leaders.
The reunion study is one of 20 resolutions presented for Pittsburgh's diocesan convention, which is scheduled for Oct. 16 and 17 at Trinity Cathedral. Another resolution encourages congregations to submit their responses to the draft covenant “as a preliminary to a response by the diocese.” Fifteen more resolutions would offer the first of two necessary votes to reverse constitutional changes that were made as previous diocesan conventions prepared to separate the diocese from the Episcopal Church.
Where Have All the Christians Gone?
Via VirtueOnline:
by Bruce Feiler
http://opinion.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=17321&content=21812281&pageNum=-1
Sept. 25, 2009
Christianity is plummeting in America, while the number of non-believers is skyrocketing.
A shocking new study of Americans' religious beliefs shows the beginnings of a major realignment in Americans' relationship with God. The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reveals that Protestants now represent half of all Americans, down almost 20 percent in the last twenty years. In the coming months, America will become a minority Protestant nation for the first time since the pilgrims.
The number of people who claim no religious affiliation, meanwhile, has doubled since 1990 to fifteen percent, its highest point in history. Non-believers now represent the third-highest group of Americans, after Catholics and Baptists.
Other headlines:
1) The number of Christians has declined 12% since 1990, and is now 76%, the lowest percentage in American history.
2) The growth of non-believers has come largely from men. Twenty percent of men express no religious affiliation; 12% of women.
3) Young people are fleeing faith. Nearly a quarter of Americans in their 20's profess no organized religion.
4) But these non-believers are not particularly atheist. That number hasn't budged and stands at less than 1 percent. (Agnostics are similarly less than 1 percent.) Instead, these individuals have a belief in God but no interest in organized religion, or they believe in a personal God but not in a formal faith tradition.
The implications for American society are profound. Americans' relationship with God, which drove many of the country's great transformations from the pilgrims to the founding fathers, the Civil War to the civil rights movement, is still intact. Eighty-two percent of Americans believe in God or a higher power.
But at the same time, the study offers yet another wake-up call for religious institutions.
First, catering to older believers is a recipe for failure; younger Americans are tuning out.
Second, Americans are interested in God, but they don't think existing institutions are helping them draw closer to God.
Finally, Americans' interest in religion has not always been stable. It dipped following the Revolution and again following Civil War. In both cases it rebounded because religious institutions adapted and found new ways of relating to everyday Americans.
Today, the rise of disaffection is so powerful that different denominations needs to band together to find a shared language of God that can move beyond the fading divisions of the past and begin moving toward a partnership of different-but-equal traditions.
Or risk becoming Europe, where religion is fast becoming an afterthought.
----Bruce Feiler is bestselling author of eight books, including "Walking the Bible" and "Abraham," and the host of the PBS series on "Walking the Bible." A frequent commentator on National Public Radio, CNN and FOX News. His latest book "America's Prophet: Moses and the American Story" will be published in October.
by Bruce Feiler
http://opinion.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=17321&content=21812281&pageNum=-1
Sept. 25, 2009
Christianity is plummeting in America, while the number of non-believers is skyrocketing.
A shocking new study of Americans' religious beliefs shows the beginnings of a major realignment in Americans' relationship with God. The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reveals that Protestants now represent half of all Americans, down almost 20 percent in the last twenty years. In the coming months, America will become a minority Protestant nation for the first time since the pilgrims.
The number of people who claim no religious affiliation, meanwhile, has doubled since 1990 to fifteen percent, its highest point in history. Non-believers now represent the third-highest group of Americans, after Catholics and Baptists.
Other headlines:
1) The number of Christians has declined 12% since 1990, and is now 76%, the lowest percentage in American history.
2) The growth of non-believers has come largely from men. Twenty percent of men express no religious affiliation; 12% of women.
3) Young people are fleeing faith. Nearly a quarter of Americans in their 20's profess no organized religion.
4) But these non-believers are not particularly atheist. That number hasn't budged and stands at less than 1 percent. (Agnostics are similarly less than 1 percent.) Instead, these individuals have a belief in God but no interest in organized religion, or they believe in a personal God but not in a formal faith tradition.
The implications for American society are profound. Americans' relationship with God, which drove many of the country's great transformations from the pilgrims to the founding fathers, the Civil War to the civil rights movement, is still intact. Eighty-two percent of Americans believe in God or a higher power.
But at the same time, the study offers yet another wake-up call for religious institutions.
First, catering to older believers is a recipe for failure; younger Americans are tuning out.
Second, Americans are interested in God, but they don't think existing institutions are helping them draw closer to God.
Finally, Americans' interest in religion has not always been stable. It dipped following the Revolution and again following Civil War. In both cases it rebounded because religious institutions adapted and found new ways of relating to everyday Americans.
Today, the rise of disaffection is so powerful that different denominations needs to band together to find a shared language of God that can move beyond the fading divisions of the past and begin moving toward a partnership of different-but-equal traditions.
Or risk becoming Europe, where religion is fast becoming an afterthought.
----Bruce Feiler is bestselling author of eight books, including "Walking the Bible" and "Abraham," and the host of the PBS series on "Walking the Bible." A frequent commentator on National Public Radio, CNN and FOX News. His latest book "America's Prophet: Moses and the American Story" will be published in October.
Crossing the Rubicon
This blog essay undercuts Bishop Adams assessment of GC09 that nothing has changed in pecusa. Of course, so do the statements from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Integrity, etc... ed.
From the Episcopal Majority via Stand Firm:
Posted by Em
I’m out of hibernation because of two significant resolutions passed by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church on same-sex blessings and the ordination of non-celibate gays.
The real Episcopal majority ought to take notice, not just because General Convention has given the green light for non-celibate gay priests and bishops and for blessings of gay unions, but because this was done facing down the clear majority of the Anglican world.
The title above taps a powerful, if well-used, analogy. When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River at the head of an army, there was no turning back. It would now be conquer the capitol or burn it down or die trying. Observers from all sides at General Convention reported that the Bishops and Deputies (voting delegates made up of clergy and laity) understood that this was a Rubicon moment for gay issues. It is clear to all that there will be no going back.
Leaders at opposite ends of the spectrum (and those in the middle) interpret the resolutions differently. Read the words carefully and decide for yourself. Following are extracts of the exact words of the crucial paragraphs (in italics) with connectors in [brackets]. The form is altered to bullet-points with underlines added for important points. My commentary is in regular print.
Resolution D025 Title: “Anglican Communion: Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion”
Read the whole text.
The title of the resolution dodges the subject of the resolution—the ordination of partnered gays to all ministries of the church—but does show an awareness that the resolution has implications for the Anglican Communion. Notice the word “witness.” The Episcopal Church (TEC hereafter) leadership sees it as a gospel mission to spread the belief contained in the resolution. Read on.
>General Convention … acknowledge[s] that … the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships characterized by fidelity, monogamy… and …holy love….
After stating the reality that same-sex couples are members in good standing in this church, a foundational assertion is made that such relationships which have the qualities of fidelity and monogamy are also “holy.” Everything else in these two resolutions flows from that assertion. It is one thing for us as individuals to make an evaluation that gay unions demonstrate love; it is another thing for the church to declare that such unions are holy. “Holy”—applied to humans in the Bible and in Christian teaching—means “set apart by God and for God.” If this is the case for many gay unions, then who can stand in the way of ordination to all the ministries of the church or of liturgical blessings on these unions? In fact, the second resolution is the logical follow-up to this one.
>General Convention recognize[s] that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God’s call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst
Everyone will agree that there are many partnered gays in various ministries in TEC. But, this part of the resolution adds a crucial step: It says God has called such persons into these ministries. This “ups the stakes” from a simple assertion of fact by pronouncing that this is a work of God. General Convention could have restrained itself at this point; instead, it made a self-conscious declaration on behalf of God.
>General Convention affirm[s] that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church
Divide this compound sentence into two assertions. The first is that “God has called … such individuals” to all the ordained ministries of this church. This repetition of the previous strong assertion about God doing this confirms the purposefulness of the strong majority at General Convention to speak for God. Note that the only open example of such individuals in the office of bishop is the Bishop of New Hampshire. This part of the resolution declares officially, possibly for the first time. that the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson was the positive will of God.
The second part of the compound sentence is the prophetic prediction: “God…may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church.” Here’s the practical point. If it is God calling to this, how can anyone stand in the way? This is the greenest of green lights for the next consecration of a non-celibate gay bishop. The cover story of Episcopal Life (August 2009), written by the Editor, states: “…convention unambiguously stated that gay and lesbian people may be called to ordination at all levels.” Note that Episcopal Life is the official news organ of TEC. One very clear headline about these matters was altered at the insistence of the Presiding Bishop.
It is certain that more non-celibate gays will be made bishops. The Diocese of Minnesota has nominated a partnered lesbian for their next bishop. Los Angeles is considering two partnered gays for Suffragan Bishop.
Resolution C056 Title: Liturgies for Blessings
Read the whole text.
Remember this title throughout this commentary. Those seeking to keep the real meaning of this resolution under the radar of the Anglican Communion may have slipped here. While the resolution avoids the word “blessings,” it is highlighted in the title.
>Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music… collect and develop theological and liturgical resources, and report to the 77th [the next] General Convention
The opening resolve listed the various civil arrangements for same-sex marriage, civil unions, and other partnerships. Everyone understands at some level that this part of the resolution is a directive to develop liturgies that would work in various civil situations and in states with no such provisions. No one expects the next General Convention to reverse this movement toward liturgies. Episcopal Life reports that Convention “…authorized the church to collect and develop resources for blessing same-gender couples” (front page). Another article in the same paper, but a staff writer, puts it this way: Convention authorized “…developing resources that could be used for blessing same-gender relationships” (page 2)
>Bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church
Please note that this part of the resolution covers all bishops and particularly those detailed. And again, everyone understands that “generous pastoral response” includes sacramental blessings of various kinds. “May provide” is nothing other than clear permission. Any bishop who wishes to move forward with blessings, in whatever form, is now free to do so. This is the authorization.
SUMMARY: Virtually everyone recognizes that these resolutions open the way for additional non-celibate gay bishops and for widespread expansion of blessings for same-sex unions.
The resolutions are also a rejection of the personal appeal of the Archbishop of Canterbury to General Convention and of previous appeals by the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Presiding Bishop has tried to soften the meaning of the resolutions, but Episcopal Life is clear that D025 on ordination was proposed as “addressing Resolution [2006] B033” (Page 2—“Openness of Ordination).
Much has been made of these resolutions being descriptive, not prescriptive. Fine. They describe that the Episcopal Church has now officially affirmed (and no one thinks they will go back on this) that same-sex blessings are a matter of fidelity to the gospel and that people in same-sex relations have every right to be considered for ministry as priests and bishops. Furthermore, these both passed in each order with a super-majority (more than 66%). Roberts’Rules—the bible of parliamentary procedure—teaches that this is a definitive statement of the will of a deliberative assembly.
We at Episcopal Majority do not quibble with this. The strong majority in General Convention have spoken. The Episcopal Church has crossed the Rubicon; it will not go back.
We do wonder, though, about the majority of Episcopalians in the pews. We expect to see that many of them will quietly slip away to other churches. We worry for the souls of those who simply try to adapt to the new regime. We pray for those who keep trying to live out classic Christian faith and practice.
From the Episcopal Majority via Stand Firm:
Posted by Em
I’m out of hibernation because of two significant resolutions passed by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church on same-sex blessings and the ordination of non-celibate gays.
The real Episcopal majority ought to take notice, not just because General Convention has given the green light for non-celibate gay priests and bishops and for blessings of gay unions, but because this was done facing down the clear majority of the Anglican world.
The title above taps a powerful, if well-used, analogy. When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River at the head of an army, there was no turning back. It would now be conquer the capitol or burn it down or die trying. Observers from all sides at General Convention reported that the Bishops and Deputies (voting delegates made up of clergy and laity) understood that this was a Rubicon moment for gay issues. It is clear to all that there will be no going back.
Leaders at opposite ends of the spectrum (and those in the middle) interpret the resolutions differently. Read the words carefully and decide for yourself. Following are extracts of the exact words of the crucial paragraphs (in italics) with connectors in [brackets]. The form is altered to bullet-points with underlines added for important points. My commentary is in regular print.
Resolution D025 Title: “Anglican Communion: Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion”
Read the whole text.
The title of the resolution dodges the subject of the resolution—the ordination of partnered gays to all ministries of the church—but does show an awareness that the resolution has implications for the Anglican Communion. Notice the word “witness.” The Episcopal Church (TEC hereafter) leadership sees it as a gospel mission to spread the belief contained in the resolution. Read on.
>General Convention … acknowledge[s] that … the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships characterized by fidelity, monogamy… and …holy love….
After stating the reality that same-sex couples are members in good standing in this church, a foundational assertion is made that such relationships which have the qualities of fidelity and monogamy are also “holy.” Everything else in these two resolutions flows from that assertion. It is one thing for us as individuals to make an evaluation that gay unions demonstrate love; it is another thing for the church to declare that such unions are holy. “Holy”—applied to humans in the Bible and in Christian teaching—means “set apart by God and for God.” If this is the case for many gay unions, then who can stand in the way of ordination to all the ministries of the church or of liturgical blessings on these unions? In fact, the second resolution is the logical follow-up to this one.
>General Convention recognize[s] that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God’s call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst
Everyone will agree that there are many partnered gays in various ministries in TEC. But, this part of the resolution adds a crucial step: It says God has called such persons into these ministries. This “ups the stakes” from a simple assertion of fact by pronouncing that this is a work of God. General Convention could have restrained itself at this point; instead, it made a self-conscious declaration on behalf of God.
>General Convention affirm[s] that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church
Divide this compound sentence into two assertions. The first is that “God has called … such individuals” to all the ordained ministries of this church. This repetition of the previous strong assertion about God doing this confirms the purposefulness of the strong majority at General Convention to speak for God. Note that the only open example of such individuals in the office of bishop is the Bishop of New Hampshire. This part of the resolution declares officially, possibly for the first time. that the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson was the positive will of God.
The second part of the compound sentence is the prophetic prediction: “God…may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church.” Here’s the practical point. If it is God calling to this, how can anyone stand in the way? This is the greenest of green lights for the next consecration of a non-celibate gay bishop. The cover story of Episcopal Life (August 2009), written by the Editor, states: “…convention unambiguously stated that gay and lesbian people may be called to ordination at all levels.” Note that Episcopal Life is the official news organ of TEC. One very clear headline about these matters was altered at the insistence of the Presiding Bishop.
It is certain that more non-celibate gays will be made bishops. The Diocese of Minnesota has nominated a partnered lesbian for their next bishop. Los Angeles is considering two partnered gays for Suffragan Bishop.
Resolution C056 Title: Liturgies for Blessings
Read the whole text.
Remember this title throughout this commentary. Those seeking to keep the real meaning of this resolution under the radar of the Anglican Communion may have slipped here. While the resolution avoids the word “blessings,” it is highlighted in the title.
>Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music… collect and develop theological and liturgical resources, and report to the 77th [the next] General Convention
The opening resolve listed the various civil arrangements for same-sex marriage, civil unions, and other partnerships. Everyone understands at some level that this part of the resolution is a directive to develop liturgies that would work in various civil situations and in states with no such provisions. No one expects the next General Convention to reverse this movement toward liturgies. Episcopal Life reports that Convention “…authorized the church to collect and develop resources for blessing same-gender couples” (front page). Another article in the same paper, but a staff writer, puts it this way: Convention authorized “…developing resources that could be used for blessing same-gender relationships” (page 2)
>Bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church
Please note that this part of the resolution covers all bishops and particularly those detailed. And again, everyone understands that “generous pastoral response” includes sacramental blessings of various kinds. “May provide” is nothing other than clear permission. Any bishop who wishes to move forward with blessings, in whatever form, is now free to do so. This is the authorization.
SUMMARY: Virtually everyone recognizes that these resolutions open the way for additional non-celibate gay bishops and for widespread expansion of blessings for same-sex unions.
The resolutions are also a rejection of the personal appeal of the Archbishop of Canterbury to General Convention and of previous appeals by the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Presiding Bishop has tried to soften the meaning of the resolutions, but Episcopal Life is clear that D025 on ordination was proposed as “addressing Resolution [2006] B033” (Page 2—“Openness of Ordination).
Much has been made of these resolutions being descriptive, not prescriptive. Fine. They describe that the Episcopal Church has now officially affirmed (and no one thinks they will go back on this) that same-sex blessings are a matter of fidelity to the gospel and that people in same-sex relations have every right to be considered for ministry as priests and bishops. Furthermore, these both passed in each order with a super-majority (more than 66%). Roberts’Rules—the bible of parliamentary procedure—teaches that this is a definitive statement of the will of a deliberative assembly.
We at Episcopal Majority do not quibble with this. The strong majority in General Convention have spoken. The Episcopal Church has crossed the Rubicon; it will not go back.
We do wonder, though, about the majority of Episcopalians in the pews. We expect to see that many of them will quietly slip away to other churches. We worry for the souls of those who simply try to adapt to the new regime. We pray for those who keep trying to live out classic Christian faith and practice.
Monday, September 28, 2009
THE GREAT ANGLICAN REALIGNMENT
COMMENTARY
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
Sept 24, 2009
The time is fast approaching, and might well be upon us, when we who are faithful to the gospel and Holy Scripture will thank Bishop V. Gene Robinson for what he has achieved.
No bishop, priest or lay person has galvanized a church more in six years than this one man. As a practicing homosexual and a bishop he has brought clarity like no other person. It has been a singular and remarkable achievement, recognized not just by Episcopalians and Anglicans around the world, but by other denominations of various liberal stripes. A sitting president of the United States included Robinson in inauguration ceremonies.
The homo-genital bishop of New Hampshire has brought clarity to the world stage of Anglicanism that is breath taking in its breadth and magnitude.
He has been so successful that he has, almost single-handedly, divided the Anglican Communion. He has forced the Archbishop of Canterbury into a corner from which there seems little way out except to offer a "two-track" solution that might, at the end of the day, be no solution at all. The Windsor Report is dead. A Covenant seems less likely as the months pass with few agreeing on its content. Any attempts at discipline of the errant bishop and his denomination are met with ridicule and scorn.
It is any wonder that the pansexual organization Integrity ran up the flag declaring General Convention 2009 a victory for all things sexual? "Integrity Celebrates Virtual Clean Sweep on GC2009 Legislative Agenda" http://tinyurl.com/m72qma Heterosexual sex within the confines of marriage between a man and a woman is officially dead or at least just one option among many. The new sexual order is lesbi/gay, bi-sexual and transgender.
The Episcopal Church is now officially the "Gay Church" of America and we have Gene Robinson to thank for this. While there have been other notable homosexuals in secular literature and politics, and not a few Episcopal bishops, priests and laity, it took "courage" for Robinson to out himself and make it all official.
He has enshrined narcissism as acceptable, whining in public lectures and books while daring anyone to defy him on his personal behavior. He has caused bishops and prelates to cower before him groveling in mortification at their failure to behold his superior sexuality. Mea culpa, mea culpa mea maxima culpa.
He has gone where no bishop has gone before and he has done it with the surety that he will, in the end, win the culture wars.
His was not a Calvary Road, however, only the faux crucifixion on the Phallic Cross of his own desires wrapped tightly in the condoms of prevention.
There are no nail-pierced hands or "riven side flowing with blood" on which to gaze in awe causing sinners to sink to their knees in adoration, confession and repentance. The new sexual cross of personal fulfillment will have none of it.
We must all now bow before Robinson who has brought sexual enlightenment to the masses, especially Episcopalians, defying 7000 years of Scripture, theology and history. Fiat Lux.
And so the Great Realignment has begun, thanks to Bishop Robinson.
Who would have thought that a 'mere bishop' from Pittsburgh could galvanize 28 ecclesiastical jurisdictions and 100,000 Anglican souls, more bent on arguing with each other over such weighty issues as women's ordination, sacramental theology and more, into forming a new province in the Anglican Communion? Such a thing, should you have mentioned it in 2003, would have seen you laughed out of court. (The St. Louis Convention brought about 58 Anglican subdivisions). Not this time. Robinson has made the impossible, possible.
It is not just the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) that is now a reality. We have GAFCON and the growing Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans spreading like wild fire across the globe defying the old order, holding conventions, and declaring the faith and true Anglican Way.
None of this would have happened without Gene Robinson. He has been the catalyst for change. This sort of action has not been seen since Henry VIII divorced his wife, married a strumpet and then beheaded her.
In the end we will thank Robinson in much the same way we thank the Borgia Popes for giving us Martin Luther who brought the Reformation gospel of God's free grace to us all. It is clear that the Protestant movement was not simply the result of (only) Leo X. Its roots can be found in the extreme corruption, violence and perversion of faith in the Borgia period.
So too with Robinson. Sexual liberation has brought about a swath of death and destruction in the lives of millions of Americans dating back from the Sixties.
No matter, Robinson has legitimized it all, bringing "freedom" and "hope" to persons caught in the downward spiral of self-loathing and hatred. With drugs, death may now be delayed indefinitely.
Robinson has "won" and so the Grand Realignment of the Anglican Communion has started.
Thank you Bishop Robinson.
END
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
Sept 24, 2009
The time is fast approaching, and might well be upon us, when we who are faithful to the gospel and Holy Scripture will thank Bishop V. Gene Robinson for what he has achieved.
No bishop, priest or lay person has galvanized a church more in six years than this one man. As a practicing homosexual and a bishop he has brought clarity like no other person. It has been a singular and remarkable achievement, recognized not just by Episcopalians and Anglicans around the world, but by other denominations of various liberal stripes. A sitting president of the United States included Robinson in inauguration ceremonies.
The homo-genital bishop of New Hampshire has brought clarity to the world stage of Anglicanism that is breath taking in its breadth and magnitude.
He has been so successful that he has, almost single-handedly, divided the Anglican Communion. He has forced the Archbishop of Canterbury into a corner from which there seems little way out except to offer a "two-track" solution that might, at the end of the day, be no solution at all. The Windsor Report is dead. A Covenant seems less likely as the months pass with few agreeing on its content. Any attempts at discipline of the errant bishop and his denomination are met with ridicule and scorn.
It is any wonder that the pansexual organization Integrity ran up the flag declaring General Convention 2009 a victory for all things sexual? "Integrity Celebrates Virtual Clean Sweep on GC2009 Legislative Agenda" http://tinyurl.com/m72qma Heterosexual sex within the confines of marriage between a man and a woman is officially dead or at least just one option among many. The new sexual order is lesbi/gay, bi-sexual and transgender.
The Episcopal Church is now officially the "Gay Church" of America and we have Gene Robinson to thank for this. While there have been other notable homosexuals in secular literature and politics, and not a few Episcopal bishops, priests and laity, it took "courage" for Robinson to out himself and make it all official.
He has enshrined narcissism as acceptable, whining in public lectures and books while daring anyone to defy him on his personal behavior. He has caused bishops and prelates to cower before him groveling in mortification at their failure to behold his superior sexuality. Mea culpa, mea culpa mea maxima culpa.
He has gone where no bishop has gone before and he has done it with the surety that he will, in the end, win the culture wars.
His was not a Calvary Road, however, only the faux crucifixion on the Phallic Cross of his own desires wrapped tightly in the condoms of prevention.
There are no nail-pierced hands or "riven side flowing with blood" on which to gaze in awe causing sinners to sink to their knees in adoration, confession and repentance. The new sexual cross of personal fulfillment will have none of it.
We must all now bow before Robinson who has brought sexual enlightenment to the masses, especially Episcopalians, defying 7000 years of Scripture, theology and history. Fiat Lux.
And so the Great Realignment has begun, thanks to Bishop Robinson.
Who would have thought that a 'mere bishop' from Pittsburgh could galvanize 28 ecclesiastical jurisdictions and 100,000 Anglican souls, more bent on arguing with each other over such weighty issues as women's ordination, sacramental theology and more, into forming a new province in the Anglican Communion? Such a thing, should you have mentioned it in 2003, would have seen you laughed out of court. (The St. Louis Convention brought about 58 Anglican subdivisions). Not this time. Robinson has made the impossible, possible.
It is not just the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) that is now a reality. We have GAFCON and the growing Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans spreading like wild fire across the globe defying the old order, holding conventions, and declaring the faith and true Anglican Way.
None of this would have happened without Gene Robinson. He has been the catalyst for change. This sort of action has not been seen since Henry VIII divorced his wife, married a strumpet and then beheaded her.
In the end we will thank Robinson in much the same way we thank the Borgia Popes for giving us Martin Luther who brought the Reformation gospel of God's free grace to us all. It is clear that the Protestant movement was not simply the result of (only) Leo X. Its roots can be found in the extreme corruption, violence and perversion of faith in the Borgia period.
So too with Robinson. Sexual liberation has brought about a swath of death and destruction in the lives of millions of Americans dating back from the Sixties.
No matter, Robinson has legitimized it all, bringing "freedom" and "hope" to persons caught in the downward spiral of self-loathing and hatred. With drugs, death may now be delayed indefinitely.
Robinson has "won" and so the Grand Realignment of the Anglican Communion has started.
Thank you Bishop Robinson.
END
Time for Logic in Fort Worth
Via VirtueOnline:
By A.S. Haley
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/09/time-for-logic-in-fort-worth.html
September 23, 2009
With the full transcripts posted of both sessions of the hearing held in Fort Worth on the defendants' motion under Rule 12 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, now it becomes possible to see more clearly where this case is headed. The defendants in the case, Bishop Iker's Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and the six trustees (including Bishop Iker) of the Corporation which holds the property of that Diocese, had brought the motion to disqualify the plaintiffs' attorneys from claiming to appear in court on behalf of that same Diocese and Corporation.
First, the condensed version of the proceedings to date. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit call themselves "The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth", "The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth", and -- of course -- "The Episcopal Church." They filed an original petition, and then amended it after Bishop Iker responded with a motion to dismiss it.
On the same day they filed the amended petition, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a "partial summary judgment" -- meaning they wanted the court to enter judgment in their favor on the first part of their petition without holding a trial. (Documents making up the motion are linked at this page.) The date set to hear the motion is October 15.
Before that date, however, the defendants brought two motions (linked at this page): the motion under Rule 12 challenging the authority of the plaintiffs and their counsel to file suit on behalf of the entities they claim to be and to represent; and a motion to bring in as third-party defendants (i.e., defendants to an additional petition to be filed by the original defendants) Bishop Gulick and the other five persons claiming to have been elected as "Trustees" of the Diocesan Corporation at a special convention held on February 7 of this year. The plaintiffs responded with a request to postpone the hearing on the second motion until after the hearing on their motion for a partial summary judgment. The hearing on the Rule 12 motion, however, began on September 9, and after the court ran out of time, the hearing resumed again on September 16.
From the very outset of the hearing on September 9, the court appeared to have grasped the larger picture -- that Bishop Iker's diocese had voted to leave the Episcopal Church (USA) the previous November, that the people filing the current lawsuit were the minority who had not agreed to leave, and that the main dispute was all about who owned the Diocese's property:
THE COURT: Okay. And I don't mind doing that. I mean, I've read through that. Even if we grant it [the motion to postpone the hearing], we may still stay here and talk for a while just to figure out what's going on. Is the basis of this the piece of property? I mean, in general, are we talking about whether or not the property goes back to the main --
MR. NELSON: Your Honor, it involves Diocesan property, it involves the use of the seal, it involves holding oneself out as being the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese, those kinds of things that are taken up in the declaratory judgment part of the petition.
THE COURT: Because if 30,000 people want to leave a church, I mean, they can, and they can go somewhere else and start their own church. I don't think that that's the problem. The problem is whether they get to keep the property, and whether or not they get to keep the seal and -- okay; is that basically what we're talking about?
MR. NELSON: Yes, Your Honor.
We see right away from this exchange the slanted view of the big picture which Mr. Nelson, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, is trying to sell to the Court: that the plaintiffs have a claim to the property of the Diocese, because it is Bishop Iker who is "holding [him]self out as being the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese . . .". This, of course, is untrue, and just leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion later. The one thing Bishop Iker is not doing is "holding himself out as the Bishop" of a Diocese within the Episcopal Church (USA). He merely says he remains the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, and that is not the same thing (although the plaintiffs want to claim it is).
"Episcopal" simply means "of or pertaining to a bishop." It is not a trademark of the Episcopal Church (USA), as may be seen from a glance at a list of the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion. There are eight other provinces with that word in their title, including the Scottish Episcopal Church, from which the American Church took its name. The fact that the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth left the Episcopal Church (USA) in no way required it to drop the word "Episcopal" from its name. ECUSA's insistence that it has to shows, in fact, the category confusion that is rampant at 815, in its promotion of the name "The Episcopal Church", or "TEC". 815 would like everyone to believe there is only one "Episcopal Church, and that they are it. (That is why I refuse to use that name or acronym to describe them on this Weblog.) In doing so, ECUSA has forgotten the very meaning of the word "Episcopal" -- even if, for the moment, it is about the most bishop-driven Protestant church I know.
The problem, in fact, has not been created by Bishop Iker. All his Diocese did was meet in an Annual Convention which he (as Bishop) had duly called in November 2008, with a full quorum of both laity and clergy present, and vote overwhelmingly in both orders to adopt on second reading amendments which removed the language by which the Diocese acceded to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church (USA). As Judge Chupp made clear several times in the course of the hearing, they acted perfectly within their powers under Texas law when they did so (09/09/09, pp. 60-61):
THE COURT: Yeah, but, I mean, you're still talking about a body that voted to do something, and they voted something that you didn't like. And what I've got to figure out is, I guess, did they have the -- obviously, they have the authority to do that. They can vote and do what they want to do, that group of people. I -- well, I say that, I don't see where it says they can't.
Counsel for Bishop Gulick tried virtually every trick in the book to get the Judge to see things his way. First he overstated the law, and misrepresented what "courts" had decided (id. at 51):
MR. NELSON: And you're absolutely right, there isn't anything in there that says that specifically, nevertheless, the Courts have held that they cannot leave.
In actual fact, of course no appellate court of record anywhere has held that a Diocese may not leave ECUSA. When the Judge asked Mr. Nelson to see the "cases" decided by "the courts" to that effect, all Mr. Nelson could point him to was the interim ruling by the trial court in the San Joaquin litigation. (Trial courts are not published courts of record -- meaning that their rulings and decisions are not collected and published anywhere for other courts to read and follow. Citing to the ruling of a trial court -- and not a final one, but an interim one at that -- is about as useful as citing to your grandpa. And in California, attorneys are actually forbidden by Court rule from citing to unpublished and unpublishable decisions.)
Next, Mr. Nelson told the Court another whopper, and claimed that the Bishop Iker's Diocese could not keep its property when it voted to leave, because of the Dennis Canon (id. at 52):
THE COURT: But they [the Episcopal Church] claim that they own-do they really claim that they own the property, or does the diocese own the property?
MR. NELSON: It depends on what property we're talking about. Some property is held by the diocese and some is held by the corporation.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, either way, do they-the group on top, the Province, the Episcopal Church Province, do they claim they own any of the property?
MR. NELSON: Yes, under the Dennis Canon, which is 1.7.4, there is a trust provision that imposes a trust on property for the use and benefit of the-the wording is the Episcopal Church and a Diocese thereof; that is, of the Episcopal Church.
Now here is the actual language of the Dennis Canon:
All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. . . .
The Dennis Canon has no language that would apply to any property owned by a Diocese, but Mr. Nelson tried to claim that it would allow his group to take over Bishop Iker's diocesan bank accounts. The Judge could see that the fight was all about property, and that he did not have to resolve the ownership issue just yet. The Rule 12 motion challenged only the authority of the persons who hired the plaintiffs' attorneys -- whether they had the authority to represent the Diocese and the Corporation which they claimed to represent.
The Court was also troubled by the illogic of Mr. Nelson's argument that the vote to leave was ultra vires (beyond the Convention's powers, and hence void), but that by virtue of the Convention's holding the vote, the elected Trustees of the Corporation had automatically lost their seats on the Corporation (id. at 67-68):
THE COURT: Here's what I want y'all to do. I want y'all to write something to me, and I want you to write something to me saying that the convention in November didn't have the authority to vote. And what ultra vires means is they did something that's outside what they can do, I mean, whether it's illegal activity or anything like that. And you don't have to give me the whole booklet of canons, just cut and paste them, and show me where it says they don't have the authority to do that. And if they don't have the authority to do that, then what they did is probably -- could be void, and at that point in time they would have the authority to be here, because the board would be the board.
Well, in actuality, if -- here's the problem I think y'all have, too, though, if the board was voted on, regardless of the actions that they did, aren't they the ones that still have to hire you?
MR. NELSON: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Because if their actions become void, then they're still the board.
MR. NELSON: No.
THE COURT: Sure they are. They were voted on to be the board. That -- you're not going to tell me that them becoming board members is somehow void, are you?
MR. NELSON: That's exactly right. What I'm saying is in November of 2006, when they voted to align, everyone who was on those boards is gone, because they are no longer loyal Episcopalians.
"November 2006" may have been a slip of the tongue (the Convention actually passed the amendment in November 2008). But the argument that votes by elected deputies to a Diocesan Convention could automatically unseat the elected Trustees of a Board (who were not shown to have been deputies, or to have voted any particular way) struck the Judge as particularly bizarre, and inconsistent with the way such things work. Bodies who do things which are ultra vires and void accomplish nothing. If the vote to leave was null and void, then the Diocese did not leave, and then the elected Board members remain in their positions until their normal terms expire -- so the "Trustees" who were elected in February 2009, and who hired Mr. Nelson to file suit, did not have any authority:
THE COURT: Well, then you don't have the authority.
MR. NELSON: No, we had a special convention.
THE COURT: I don't think you have the authority if you're going to say that, I don't, because the problem I think you have is the Fort Worth Diocese voted, and they made a vote, and you're claiming their vote is void. And then, if you want to claim their vote is void, then they're still the board, because they didn't leave, right? I mean, what -- because the -- they voted -- you're saying two things. You're saying that they didn't have the right to leave, okay, and that should be void based on this case, right? And so if they didn't leave, then the board that was in place in November is still the board, because they would have been the board then, and your meeting wouldn't have been inclusive of them.
MS. WELLS: They're gone.
MR. NELSON: Their act --
THE COURT: They're not gone. If it's void, they're not gone, right? I mean, if that action is void, then your church is -- or the Diocese is still part of the Episcopal Church Province, isn't that -- that's what this case says, is that the Fort Worth Diocese is still part of the Province, the Episcopal Church Province. If I follow this case, that's what that would say. And, therefore, the board, which is the Fort Worth Diocese board is still the same board, except y'all went in and elected a different one at a special meeting, which I think is void, then.
The Judge was telling counsel he can't have it both ways: either the vote was invalid and the Diocese did not leave, in which case the Trustees would have had to resign their positions for their seats to become vacant; or the vote was valid, and the Diocese went to the Southern Cone Province -- along with its Corporation. In either case, the plaintiffs' attorneys could not have been hired by anyone with authority for the Diocese or for the Corporation. The Judge's logic was impeccable.
And this is the fatal flaw that lies at the heart of ECUSA's "winner-take-all" strategy. It tries to argue that a Diocese may never vote to leave, and that the only result of such a vote is that people leave, but the structure remains intact. But the people in question do not conveniently resign their positions, because in their view, they are leaving and taking the entire diocesan legal structure with them. So in their view, they are keeping their positions. Thus ECUSA has to come up with a way of claiming that those positions are in fact vacant. It goes through the charade of "deposing" the Bishop with far less than the required number of votes, but that does not solve the problem. The clergy deputies who voted for the amendment cannot be summarily removed without deposing them as well -- a process that takes six months. And there is no mechanism whatsoever for summarily "deposing" or "removing" a lay deputy from office.
Without such resignations, and without any mechanism for removing lay Convention deputies, the very next "special meeting" of the Diocese which is called is null and void itself. For the duly elected deputies from the last Convention are the ones who should be seated, but they are barred from attending by the unconstitutional device of imposing a "loyalty oath". And there cannot be a legal (one-third) quorum of loyalist clergy, because nearly nine-tenths of them went with Bishop Iker.
The problem of ECUSA and its remnant "Diocese" is that they just will not follow their own procedures to organize and become legitimate in the eyes of the law. Mr. Nelson, Bishop Gulick's attorney, even (unwittingly) described his own clients to the court and spelled out what they ought to have done (id. at 57):
MR. NELSON: What I'm saying is that the body gets together, and then it must be approved by the general convention in order to be a valid diocese. It can get together and call itself a diocese, but until it's approved and until that diocese agrees to accede to the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church, it is not a diocese and cannot be a diocese.
Precisely, Mr. Nelson, precisely. Your clients are not a "diocese", and cannot be one until they have gone through the requirements to be approved, and admitted into union with General Convention.
It remains to be seen what the plaintiffs will now do, in light of the trial court's order barring them from representing the "Diocese or Corporation associated with Bishop Iker." Their motion for partial summary judgment (75-page .pdf download link at this page) is unequivocal that one of the plaintiffs seeking the partial summary judgment is the Diocesan Corporation that was formed in 1983 (from p. 20 of the motion):
In February 1983, the Diocesan Corporation, which is the corporate plaintiff in this action, was formed in accordance with these constitutional and canonical requirements.
There is, and can be, in fact only one Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that was formed under Texas law in 1983, and that is the Corporation currently associated with Bishop Iker. The court has already in effect recognized its existence in its Rule 12 Order, because it ordered
. . . that Jonathan D. F. Nelson and Kathleen Wells are barred from appearing in this suit as attorneys for The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that is associated with Bishop Iker.
The language in bold was written into the Order in the Judge's own hand, and thus there can be no mistake about what it means: the plaintiffs' attorneys are barred from representing the Corporation which they claim is seeking the partial summary judgment.
It would appear that the plaintiffs and their counsel are utterly blind to this problem. On their Web page appears the following "explanation" of the Judge's Rule 12 order (bold emphasis in text added):
What the legal language of the September 16 order means
What the legal language of the order (click here to read it and note that the hand-written portions of the order are in the judge's own hand) means is this: essentially the court refused to strike the pleadings i.e. it ruled that the reorganized Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and the Corporation had the right to continue to sue the defendants and establish our right to seek declarative judgment. The defendants lost on their main argument that we should not be able to sue the defendants because they are the rightful diocese. This was the main objective of former Bishop Iker's attorneys, and they did not achieve it. The court left that determination for a later hearing.
The order also barred our attorneys from appearing on this suit as attorneys for the entities associated with Jack Iker. Our attorneys have, of course, never asserted that.
As is clear in the order, no other rulings were made. The judge did make comments and he did ask questions, but he made no other rulings.
Balderdash and poppycock. If there is and can be only one Diocesan Corporation organized in 1983, and that Corporation is still in the control of Bishop Iker and his co-Trustees, as plaintiffs admit on page 32 of their motion, then how can the plaintiffs still pretend to represent it, and to seek relief in its name? And how can they say they never claimed to represent it before?
There is only one way out of this quandary for the plaintiffs. They are going to have to form a new corporation under Texas law, and call it whatever they want. But it will not be the same Corporation as the one incorporated in 1983. Nor, for the same reason, will the "Diocese" which will now have to re-convene and re-appoint new Trustees, be the same Diocese which formed and was admitted to General Convention in 1983. To become a Diocese of the Episcopal Church, that group will have to follow the procedures spelled out by their attorney, Mr. Nelson, in the quote I gave above. By 2012, they should have their house in order -- if they can first remove the scales from their eyes.
Note: the same home Web page of the Fort Worth group under Bishop Gulick reports that the defendants have filed a motion to continue the hearing on the motion for partial summary judgment. Judge Chupp has set the motion for a continuance for hearing on October 2. Look for him to grant the motion, if only on the ground that the attorneys who filed it, Mr. Nelson and Ms. Wells, are barred from arguing it, for the reasons set out above.
The force of logic is about to be felt in Fort Worth.
END
By A.S. Haley
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/09/time-for-logic-in-fort-worth.html
September 23, 2009
With the full transcripts posted of both sessions of the hearing held in Fort Worth on the defendants' motion under Rule 12 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, now it becomes possible to see more clearly where this case is headed. The defendants in the case, Bishop Iker's Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and the six trustees (including Bishop Iker) of the Corporation which holds the property of that Diocese, had brought the motion to disqualify the plaintiffs' attorneys from claiming to appear in court on behalf of that same Diocese and Corporation.
First, the condensed version of the proceedings to date. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit call themselves "The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth", "The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth", and -- of course -- "The Episcopal Church." They filed an original petition, and then amended it after Bishop Iker responded with a motion to dismiss it.
On the same day they filed the amended petition, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a "partial summary judgment" -- meaning they wanted the court to enter judgment in their favor on the first part of their petition without holding a trial. (Documents making up the motion are linked at this page.) The date set to hear the motion is October 15.
Before that date, however, the defendants brought two motions (linked at this page): the motion under Rule 12 challenging the authority of the plaintiffs and their counsel to file suit on behalf of the entities they claim to be and to represent; and a motion to bring in as third-party defendants (i.e., defendants to an additional petition to be filed by the original defendants) Bishop Gulick and the other five persons claiming to have been elected as "Trustees" of the Diocesan Corporation at a special convention held on February 7 of this year. The plaintiffs responded with a request to postpone the hearing on the second motion until after the hearing on their motion for a partial summary judgment. The hearing on the Rule 12 motion, however, began on September 9, and after the court ran out of time, the hearing resumed again on September 16.
From the very outset of the hearing on September 9, the court appeared to have grasped the larger picture -- that Bishop Iker's diocese had voted to leave the Episcopal Church (USA) the previous November, that the people filing the current lawsuit were the minority who had not agreed to leave, and that the main dispute was all about who owned the Diocese's property:
THE COURT: Okay. And I don't mind doing that. I mean, I've read through that. Even if we grant it [the motion to postpone the hearing], we may still stay here and talk for a while just to figure out what's going on. Is the basis of this the piece of property? I mean, in general, are we talking about whether or not the property goes back to the main --
MR. NELSON: Your Honor, it involves Diocesan property, it involves the use of the seal, it involves holding oneself out as being the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese, those kinds of things that are taken up in the declaratory judgment part of the petition.
THE COURT: Because if 30,000 people want to leave a church, I mean, they can, and they can go somewhere else and start their own church. I don't think that that's the problem. The problem is whether they get to keep the property, and whether or not they get to keep the seal and -- okay; is that basically what we're talking about?
MR. NELSON: Yes, Your Honor.
We see right away from this exchange the slanted view of the big picture which Mr. Nelson, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, is trying to sell to the Court: that the plaintiffs have a claim to the property of the Diocese, because it is Bishop Iker who is "holding [him]self out as being the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese . . .". This, of course, is untrue, and just leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion later. The one thing Bishop Iker is not doing is "holding himself out as the Bishop" of a Diocese within the Episcopal Church (USA). He merely says he remains the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, and that is not the same thing (although the plaintiffs want to claim it is).
"Episcopal" simply means "of or pertaining to a bishop." It is not a trademark of the Episcopal Church (USA), as may be seen from a glance at a list of the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion. There are eight other provinces with that word in their title, including the Scottish Episcopal Church, from which the American Church took its name. The fact that the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth left the Episcopal Church (USA) in no way required it to drop the word "Episcopal" from its name. ECUSA's insistence that it has to shows, in fact, the category confusion that is rampant at 815, in its promotion of the name "The Episcopal Church", or "TEC". 815 would like everyone to believe there is only one "Episcopal Church, and that they are it. (That is why I refuse to use that name or acronym to describe them on this Weblog.) In doing so, ECUSA has forgotten the very meaning of the word "Episcopal" -- even if, for the moment, it is about the most bishop-driven Protestant church I know.
The problem, in fact, has not been created by Bishop Iker. All his Diocese did was meet in an Annual Convention which he (as Bishop) had duly called in November 2008, with a full quorum of both laity and clergy present, and vote overwhelmingly in both orders to adopt on second reading amendments which removed the language by which the Diocese acceded to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church (USA). As Judge Chupp made clear several times in the course of the hearing, they acted perfectly within their powers under Texas law when they did so (09/09/09, pp. 60-61):
THE COURT: Yeah, but, I mean, you're still talking about a body that voted to do something, and they voted something that you didn't like. And what I've got to figure out is, I guess, did they have the -- obviously, they have the authority to do that. They can vote and do what they want to do, that group of people. I -- well, I say that, I don't see where it says they can't.
Counsel for Bishop Gulick tried virtually every trick in the book to get the Judge to see things his way. First he overstated the law, and misrepresented what "courts" had decided (id. at 51):
MR. NELSON: And you're absolutely right, there isn't anything in there that says that specifically, nevertheless, the Courts have held that they cannot leave.
In actual fact, of course no appellate court of record anywhere has held that a Diocese may not leave ECUSA. When the Judge asked Mr. Nelson to see the "cases" decided by "the courts" to that effect, all Mr. Nelson could point him to was the interim ruling by the trial court in the San Joaquin litigation. (Trial courts are not published courts of record -- meaning that their rulings and decisions are not collected and published anywhere for other courts to read and follow. Citing to the ruling of a trial court -- and not a final one, but an interim one at that -- is about as useful as citing to your grandpa. And in California, attorneys are actually forbidden by Court rule from citing to unpublished and unpublishable decisions.)
Next, Mr. Nelson told the Court another whopper, and claimed that the Bishop Iker's Diocese could not keep its property when it voted to leave, because of the Dennis Canon (id. at 52):
THE COURT: But they [the Episcopal Church] claim that they own-do they really claim that they own the property, or does the diocese own the property?
MR. NELSON: It depends on what property we're talking about. Some property is held by the diocese and some is held by the corporation.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, either way, do they-the group on top, the Province, the Episcopal Church Province, do they claim they own any of the property?
MR. NELSON: Yes, under the Dennis Canon, which is 1.7.4, there is a trust provision that imposes a trust on property for the use and benefit of the-the wording is the Episcopal Church and a Diocese thereof; that is, of the Episcopal Church.
Now here is the actual language of the Dennis Canon:
All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. . . .
The Dennis Canon has no language that would apply to any property owned by a Diocese, but Mr. Nelson tried to claim that it would allow his group to take over Bishop Iker's diocesan bank accounts. The Judge could see that the fight was all about property, and that he did not have to resolve the ownership issue just yet. The Rule 12 motion challenged only the authority of the persons who hired the plaintiffs' attorneys -- whether they had the authority to represent the Diocese and the Corporation which they claimed to represent.
The Court was also troubled by the illogic of Mr. Nelson's argument that the vote to leave was ultra vires (beyond the Convention's powers, and hence void), but that by virtue of the Convention's holding the vote, the elected Trustees of the Corporation had automatically lost their seats on the Corporation (id. at 67-68):
THE COURT: Here's what I want y'all to do. I want y'all to write something to me, and I want you to write something to me saying that the convention in November didn't have the authority to vote. And what ultra vires means is they did something that's outside what they can do, I mean, whether it's illegal activity or anything like that. And you don't have to give me the whole booklet of canons, just cut and paste them, and show me where it says they don't have the authority to do that. And if they don't have the authority to do that, then what they did is probably -- could be void, and at that point in time they would have the authority to be here, because the board would be the board.
Well, in actuality, if -- here's the problem I think y'all have, too, though, if the board was voted on, regardless of the actions that they did, aren't they the ones that still have to hire you?
MR. NELSON: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Because if their actions become void, then they're still the board.
MR. NELSON: No.
THE COURT: Sure they are. They were voted on to be the board. That -- you're not going to tell me that them becoming board members is somehow void, are you?
MR. NELSON: That's exactly right. What I'm saying is in November of 2006, when they voted to align, everyone who was on those boards is gone, because they are no longer loyal Episcopalians.
"November 2006" may have been a slip of the tongue (the Convention actually passed the amendment in November 2008). But the argument that votes by elected deputies to a Diocesan Convention could automatically unseat the elected Trustees of a Board (who were not shown to have been deputies, or to have voted any particular way) struck the Judge as particularly bizarre, and inconsistent with the way such things work. Bodies who do things which are ultra vires and void accomplish nothing. If the vote to leave was null and void, then the Diocese did not leave, and then the elected Board members remain in their positions until their normal terms expire -- so the "Trustees" who were elected in February 2009, and who hired Mr. Nelson to file suit, did not have any authority:
THE COURT: Well, then you don't have the authority.
MR. NELSON: No, we had a special convention.
THE COURT: I don't think you have the authority if you're going to say that, I don't, because the problem I think you have is the Fort Worth Diocese voted, and they made a vote, and you're claiming their vote is void. And then, if you want to claim their vote is void, then they're still the board, because they didn't leave, right? I mean, what -- because the -- they voted -- you're saying two things. You're saying that they didn't have the right to leave, okay, and that should be void based on this case, right? And so if they didn't leave, then the board that was in place in November is still the board, because they would have been the board then, and your meeting wouldn't have been inclusive of them.
MS. WELLS: They're gone.
MR. NELSON: Their act --
THE COURT: They're not gone. If it's void, they're not gone, right? I mean, if that action is void, then your church is -- or the Diocese is still part of the Episcopal Church Province, isn't that -- that's what this case says, is that the Fort Worth Diocese is still part of the Province, the Episcopal Church Province. If I follow this case, that's what that would say. And, therefore, the board, which is the Fort Worth Diocese board is still the same board, except y'all went in and elected a different one at a special meeting, which I think is void, then.
The Judge was telling counsel he can't have it both ways: either the vote was invalid and the Diocese did not leave, in which case the Trustees would have had to resign their positions for their seats to become vacant; or the vote was valid, and the Diocese went to the Southern Cone Province -- along with its Corporation. In either case, the plaintiffs' attorneys could not have been hired by anyone with authority for the Diocese or for the Corporation. The Judge's logic was impeccable.
And this is the fatal flaw that lies at the heart of ECUSA's "winner-take-all" strategy. It tries to argue that a Diocese may never vote to leave, and that the only result of such a vote is that people leave, but the structure remains intact. But the people in question do not conveniently resign their positions, because in their view, they are leaving and taking the entire diocesan legal structure with them. So in their view, they are keeping their positions. Thus ECUSA has to come up with a way of claiming that those positions are in fact vacant. It goes through the charade of "deposing" the Bishop with far less than the required number of votes, but that does not solve the problem. The clergy deputies who voted for the amendment cannot be summarily removed without deposing them as well -- a process that takes six months. And there is no mechanism whatsoever for summarily "deposing" or "removing" a lay deputy from office.
Without such resignations, and without any mechanism for removing lay Convention deputies, the very next "special meeting" of the Diocese which is called is null and void itself. For the duly elected deputies from the last Convention are the ones who should be seated, but they are barred from attending by the unconstitutional device of imposing a "loyalty oath". And there cannot be a legal (one-third) quorum of loyalist clergy, because nearly nine-tenths of them went with Bishop Iker.
The problem of ECUSA and its remnant "Diocese" is that they just will not follow their own procedures to organize and become legitimate in the eyes of the law. Mr. Nelson, Bishop Gulick's attorney, even (unwittingly) described his own clients to the court and spelled out what they ought to have done (id. at 57):
MR. NELSON: What I'm saying is that the body gets together, and then it must be approved by the general convention in order to be a valid diocese. It can get together and call itself a diocese, but until it's approved and until that diocese agrees to accede to the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church, it is not a diocese and cannot be a diocese.
Precisely, Mr. Nelson, precisely. Your clients are not a "diocese", and cannot be one until they have gone through the requirements to be approved, and admitted into union with General Convention.
It remains to be seen what the plaintiffs will now do, in light of the trial court's order barring them from representing the "Diocese or Corporation associated with Bishop Iker." Their motion for partial summary judgment (75-page .pdf download link at this page) is unequivocal that one of the plaintiffs seeking the partial summary judgment is the Diocesan Corporation that was formed in 1983 (from p. 20 of the motion):
In February 1983, the Diocesan Corporation, which is the corporate plaintiff in this action, was formed in accordance with these constitutional and canonical requirements.
There is, and can be, in fact only one Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that was formed under Texas law in 1983, and that is the Corporation currently associated with Bishop Iker. The court has already in effect recognized its existence in its Rule 12 Order, because it ordered
. . . that Jonathan D. F. Nelson and Kathleen Wells are barred from appearing in this suit as attorneys for The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that is associated with Bishop Iker.
The language in bold was written into the Order in the Judge's own hand, and thus there can be no mistake about what it means: the plaintiffs' attorneys are barred from representing the Corporation which they claim is seeking the partial summary judgment.
It would appear that the plaintiffs and their counsel are utterly blind to this problem. On their Web page appears the following "explanation" of the Judge's Rule 12 order (bold emphasis in text added):
What the legal language of the September 16 order means
What the legal language of the order (click here to read it and note that the hand-written portions of the order are in the judge's own hand) means is this: essentially the court refused to strike the pleadings i.e. it ruled that the reorganized Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and the Corporation had the right to continue to sue the defendants and establish our right to seek declarative judgment. The defendants lost on their main argument that we should not be able to sue the defendants because they are the rightful diocese. This was the main objective of former Bishop Iker's attorneys, and they did not achieve it. The court left that determination for a later hearing.
The order also barred our attorneys from appearing on this suit as attorneys for the entities associated with Jack Iker. Our attorneys have, of course, never asserted that.
As is clear in the order, no other rulings were made. The judge did make comments and he did ask questions, but he made no other rulings.
Balderdash and poppycock. If there is and can be only one Diocesan Corporation organized in 1983, and that Corporation is still in the control of Bishop Iker and his co-Trustees, as plaintiffs admit on page 32 of their motion, then how can the plaintiffs still pretend to represent it, and to seek relief in its name? And how can they say they never claimed to represent it before?
There is only one way out of this quandary for the plaintiffs. They are going to have to form a new corporation under Texas law, and call it whatever they want. But it will not be the same Corporation as the one incorporated in 1983. Nor, for the same reason, will the "Diocese" which will now have to re-convene and re-appoint new Trustees, be the same Diocese which formed and was admitted to General Convention in 1983. To become a Diocese of the Episcopal Church, that group will have to follow the procedures spelled out by their attorney, Mr. Nelson, in the quote I gave above. By 2012, they should have their house in order -- if they can first remove the scales from their eyes.
Note: the same home Web page of the Fort Worth group under Bishop Gulick reports that the defendants have filed a motion to continue the hearing on the motion for partial summary judgment. Judge Chupp has set the motion for a continuance for hearing on October 2. Look for him to grant the motion, if only on the ground that the attorneys who filed it, Mr. Nelson and Ms. Wells, are barred from arguing it, for the reasons set out above.
The force of logic is about to be felt in Fort Worth.
END
Diocese of Rio Grande: St. Marks on the Mesa Splits, Majority Found New Anglican Church
from Stand Firm by Sarah Hey:
[Note: since this is from several sources, I've tried to post only what I believe to be fairly reliable. If I find further details or have to correct, I'll try to remember to note it in the comments.]
This morning it was announced at the worship service that all but one vestry member, and all staff save Deacons Beth and Emilio Torres are departing St. Mark's on the Mesa, Albuquerque, and are founding Christ the King Anglican parish. Estimates of the numbers of parishioners that will leave for the new church vary -- it looks as if it will be somewhere between 70 to 80%. The new church's bishop is Bishop John Guernsey.
St. Mark's is one of the largest parishes in Rio Grande -- if not the largest -- with an ASA of about 300 in 2007.
In addition, I understand the small parish of Our Saviour, in Albuquerque, along with its priest, Father Harold Trott has departed TEC; that parish had around 70 ASA.
The priest in charge at St. Mark's will be, I believe, Interim Bishop Bill Frey.
While the departures are understandable -- as I've pointed out for a while, many people do not wish to be a part of a national organization that is as corrupt and heretical as TEC even if their diocesan leadership is fantastic -- from my own perspective it also represents a stunning repudiation of the interminable and turgid bishop search process that has been winding its way through the institutional maw since the departure of Bishop Steenson for Rome [please note -- my mentioning Bishop Steenson does not mean that this post is now about Bishop Steenson]. Much of the length of that search process seems to be because the diocesan leaders have a belief that the diocese will be "unified" by a reconciliation process while dragging out the bishop search process over a long period of time.
Of course . . . in the light of the departures of the many parishioners that have taken place in this diocese, it does appear as if the diocese will be more "unified" . . . in the customary TEC way . . . by the departure of many conservatives.
Although I am sorry to see them go, I do wish these Anglican Christians well, and great joy and peace in a new place.
[Note: since this is from several sources, I've tried to post only what I believe to be fairly reliable. If I find further details or have to correct, I'll try to remember to note it in the comments.]
This morning it was announced at the worship service that all but one vestry member, and all staff save Deacons Beth and Emilio Torres are departing St. Mark's on the Mesa, Albuquerque, and are founding Christ the King Anglican parish. Estimates of the numbers of parishioners that will leave for the new church vary -- it looks as if it will be somewhere between 70 to 80%. The new church's bishop is Bishop John Guernsey.
St. Mark's is one of the largest parishes in Rio Grande -- if not the largest -- with an ASA of about 300 in 2007.
In addition, I understand the small parish of Our Saviour, in Albuquerque, along with its priest, Father Harold Trott has departed TEC; that parish had around 70 ASA.
The priest in charge at St. Mark's will be, I believe, Interim Bishop Bill Frey.
While the departures are understandable -- as I've pointed out for a while, many people do not wish to be a part of a national organization that is as corrupt and heretical as TEC even if their diocesan leadership is fantastic -- from my own perspective it also represents a stunning repudiation of the interminable and turgid bishop search process that has been winding its way through the institutional maw since the departure of Bishop Steenson for Rome [please note -- my mentioning Bishop Steenson does not mean that this post is now about Bishop Steenson]. Much of the length of that search process seems to be because the diocesan leaders have a belief that the diocese will be "unified" by a reconciliation process while dragging out the bishop search process over a long period of time.
Of course . . . in the light of the departures of the many parishioners that have taken place in this diocese, it does appear as if the diocese will be more "unified" . . . in the customary TEC way . . . by the departure of many conservatives.
Although I am sorry to see them go, I do wish these Anglican Christians well, and great joy and peace in a new place.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Conscience Without Sunset
From The Living Church:
Posted on: September 25, 2009
By Edward S. Little II
Four years ago I wrote an article, “Living With Tares,” responding to an editorial in the evangelical magazine Christianity Today that had described schism as sometimes necessary and offered the Episcopal Church as its primary cautionary tale. I argued that I remain in the Episcopal Church because biblical faithfulness requires me to do so; because Jesus is Lord of the Church, and it’s up to him—and not us—to sort things out in the end.
In light of the actions of the 76th General Convention, I find myself revisiting that article and asking the question again: Why do I stay? Does our Lord have a continuing purpose for people like me, a bridge-building conservative and evangelical Catholic, in the Episcopal Church? If so, what is it? And what are the conditions required for continuing and faithful engagement with the church?
I ask these questions with a heavy heart. The bonds of affection in this church are deep. I minister, and gratefully so, to gay and lesbian parishioners all around my diocese. Many of my most beloved friends are colleague bishops who vote on the opposite side of the issues that divide us. I see Jesus in them, and I pray they see him in me. They are brothers and sisters in Christ.
Yet reality forces hard questions. General Convention took definitive action. Resolutions D025 and C056 answered two questions with clarity. The first has to do with human sexuality. “[S]ame-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships ... have responded to God’s call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. ... God has called and may call such individuals to any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church” (D025). “[T]he Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music ... [shall] collect and develop theological and liturgical resources”; and, in the meantime, “bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church” (C056).
We have made our decision. The restraint called for in B033 of the 75th General Convention has been set aside. Bishops may authorize blessings (that’s the clear implication of the “generous pastoral response”), and liturgies are on their way. Our course has been inexorably determined. The conversation about human sexuality is effectively over.
We answered a second question at General Convention as well: The question of the Anglican Communion, and its life and ministry. The Windsor Report presents a nuanced and balanced picture of the Church, a Catholic vision of interdependent life, carefully weighing the need for autonomy on one side of the scale and the need for accountability on the other. Our actions put us clearly on the autonomy side of the spectrum. In approving Resolutions D025 and C056, we have said No to the Anglican Communion. We have rejected two of the three moratoria requested by the Windsor Report and the four Instruments of Communion (most recently, at its May meeting, by the Anglican Consultative Council), and ignored the plea of the Archbishop of Canterbury in his General Convention sermon that we do nothing to exacerbate our divisions. The trajectory of the Episcopal Church propels us to the fringe of the Anglican Communion. Again, the conversation about ecclesiology is effectively over.
During General Convention a host of colleagues assured me of their love and friendship and their appreciation of conservative voices like mine. For that I am profoundly grateful; their expressions were heartfelt and deeply moving. But given the margins by which D025 and C056 were approved, it’s clear the traditional perspective is a dwindling minority in the church. There aren’t many of us left. What do people like me need from the church? We need the ability to live and to act according to our convictions, and to be assured that we have a permanent place in the church. This may seem like a simple and obvious matter, but it isn’t.
The final resolve of D025 recognizes that “members of the Episcopal Church ... are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.” True enough. But our recent history demonstrates that people in the position of a theological minority may ultimately find their position canonically outlawed. That was certainly the experience of those who cannot affirm the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate.
In 1977, the year following canonical provision for the ordination of women, the House of Bishops — in its famous statement drawn up at Port St. Lucie, Fla.—said that “no Bishop, Priest, Deacon or Lay person should be coerced or penalized in any manner nor suffer any canonical disabilities as a result of his or her conscientious objection to or support of the 65th General Convention’s action with regard to the ordination of women to the priesthood or episcopate.” To be sure, these words emanated from one house alone, and thus do not carry the full weight of the church’s highest governing body; but nonetheless, Port St. Lucie is a classic restatement of the priority of conscience when Christians disagree on matters of deep conviction.
This provision for what our Lutheran friends call “bound conscience” was not to last, however. I was a member of the House of Deputies in 1997 when General Convention — by amending Canon III.8.1 — declared objection to the ordination of women canonically illegal. It is no longer possible, under the canons, to be ordained in the Episcopal Church if one cannot support women in all orders of ministry. Speech after speech supporting the change in 1997 ended with some variation of the claim that: “This is not a conscience issue. It’s a justice issue.”
Twelve years later, there are very few left in our church who do not affirm the ordination of women. As a strong supporter of the ordination of women to all orders, I grieve that there is no longer a place in the church for those who cannot conscientiously support this practice. Will the same fate befall those who oppose the theological, ethical, and ecclesiological decisions of the 76th General Convention? I fear that the answer is Yes. Not immediately; not, perhaps, in 2012 or 2015. But someday people like me will find ourselves on the margins, without the ability to test a vocation to ordained ministry, our position banned, theological uniformity imposed. The speeches of 1997 will find new expression.
Lord Carey of Clifton, the 103rd Archbishop of Canterbury, asked a difficult question in April at a conference sponsored by the Anglican Communion Institute: “Can conservative believers be assured that they have a future place in TEC without censure or opposition?” This question is both apt and pressing. We need a conscience clause with canonical and constitutional authority, a conscience clause that contains no sunset provision, that cannot be revoked. If the Episcopal Church is to be truly diverse — if conservative Christians are to find a place in our life in the next decade or the one following—then the 77th General Convention must turn its attention to the inclusion of theological minorities. Without that assurance, the unraveling of our church, already a tragic reality, will continue apace. The inevitable pattern will re-emerge, as conservatives move from honored minority to tolerated dissidents to canonical outlaws. I (and others like me) will not be among those who leave; but we may well be among the last conservatives left. And so we must, I believe, bend heart, mind, and will to the protection and permanent place of traditional voices in our church.
The Rt. Rev. Edward S. Little II is the Bishop of Northern Indiana, and a member of the Communion Partners coalition.
Posted on: September 25, 2009
By Edward S. Little II
Four years ago I wrote an article, “Living With Tares,” responding to an editorial in the evangelical magazine Christianity Today that had described schism as sometimes necessary and offered the Episcopal Church as its primary cautionary tale. I argued that I remain in the Episcopal Church because biblical faithfulness requires me to do so; because Jesus is Lord of the Church, and it’s up to him—and not us—to sort things out in the end.
In light of the actions of the 76th General Convention, I find myself revisiting that article and asking the question again: Why do I stay? Does our Lord have a continuing purpose for people like me, a bridge-building conservative and evangelical Catholic, in the Episcopal Church? If so, what is it? And what are the conditions required for continuing and faithful engagement with the church?
I ask these questions with a heavy heart. The bonds of affection in this church are deep. I minister, and gratefully so, to gay and lesbian parishioners all around my diocese. Many of my most beloved friends are colleague bishops who vote on the opposite side of the issues that divide us. I see Jesus in them, and I pray they see him in me. They are brothers and sisters in Christ.
Yet reality forces hard questions. General Convention took definitive action. Resolutions D025 and C056 answered two questions with clarity. The first has to do with human sexuality. “[S]ame-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships ... have responded to God’s call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. ... God has called and may call such individuals to any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church” (D025). “[T]he Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music ... [shall] collect and develop theological and liturgical resources”; and, in the meantime, “bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church” (C056).
We have made our decision. The restraint called for in B033 of the 75th General Convention has been set aside. Bishops may authorize blessings (that’s the clear implication of the “generous pastoral response”), and liturgies are on their way. Our course has been inexorably determined. The conversation about human sexuality is effectively over.
We answered a second question at General Convention as well: The question of the Anglican Communion, and its life and ministry. The Windsor Report presents a nuanced and balanced picture of the Church, a Catholic vision of interdependent life, carefully weighing the need for autonomy on one side of the scale and the need for accountability on the other. Our actions put us clearly on the autonomy side of the spectrum. In approving Resolutions D025 and C056, we have said No to the Anglican Communion. We have rejected two of the three moratoria requested by the Windsor Report and the four Instruments of Communion (most recently, at its May meeting, by the Anglican Consultative Council), and ignored the plea of the Archbishop of Canterbury in his General Convention sermon that we do nothing to exacerbate our divisions. The trajectory of the Episcopal Church propels us to the fringe of the Anglican Communion. Again, the conversation about ecclesiology is effectively over.
During General Convention a host of colleagues assured me of their love and friendship and their appreciation of conservative voices like mine. For that I am profoundly grateful; their expressions were heartfelt and deeply moving. But given the margins by which D025 and C056 were approved, it’s clear the traditional perspective is a dwindling minority in the church. There aren’t many of us left. What do people like me need from the church? We need the ability to live and to act according to our convictions, and to be assured that we have a permanent place in the church. This may seem like a simple and obvious matter, but it isn’t.
The final resolve of D025 recognizes that “members of the Episcopal Church ... are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.” True enough. But our recent history demonstrates that people in the position of a theological minority may ultimately find their position canonically outlawed. That was certainly the experience of those who cannot affirm the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate.
In 1977, the year following canonical provision for the ordination of women, the House of Bishops — in its famous statement drawn up at Port St. Lucie, Fla.—said that “no Bishop, Priest, Deacon or Lay person should be coerced or penalized in any manner nor suffer any canonical disabilities as a result of his or her conscientious objection to or support of the 65th General Convention’s action with regard to the ordination of women to the priesthood or episcopate.” To be sure, these words emanated from one house alone, and thus do not carry the full weight of the church’s highest governing body; but nonetheless, Port St. Lucie is a classic restatement of the priority of conscience when Christians disagree on matters of deep conviction.
This provision for what our Lutheran friends call “bound conscience” was not to last, however. I was a member of the House of Deputies in 1997 when General Convention — by amending Canon III.8.1 — declared objection to the ordination of women canonically illegal. It is no longer possible, under the canons, to be ordained in the Episcopal Church if one cannot support women in all orders of ministry. Speech after speech supporting the change in 1997 ended with some variation of the claim that: “This is not a conscience issue. It’s a justice issue.”
Twelve years later, there are very few left in our church who do not affirm the ordination of women. As a strong supporter of the ordination of women to all orders, I grieve that there is no longer a place in the church for those who cannot conscientiously support this practice. Will the same fate befall those who oppose the theological, ethical, and ecclesiological decisions of the 76th General Convention? I fear that the answer is Yes. Not immediately; not, perhaps, in 2012 or 2015. But someday people like me will find ourselves on the margins, without the ability to test a vocation to ordained ministry, our position banned, theological uniformity imposed. The speeches of 1997 will find new expression.
Lord Carey of Clifton, the 103rd Archbishop of Canterbury, asked a difficult question in April at a conference sponsored by the Anglican Communion Institute: “Can conservative believers be assured that they have a future place in TEC without censure or opposition?” This question is both apt and pressing. We need a conscience clause with canonical and constitutional authority, a conscience clause that contains no sunset provision, that cannot be revoked. If the Episcopal Church is to be truly diverse — if conservative Christians are to find a place in our life in the next decade or the one following—then the 77th General Convention must turn its attention to the inclusion of theological minorities. Without that assurance, the unraveling of our church, already a tragic reality, will continue apace. The inevitable pattern will re-emerge, as conservatives move from honored minority to tolerated dissidents to canonical outlaws. I (and others like me) will not be among those who leave; but we may well be among the last conservatives left. And so we must, I believe, bend heart, mind, and will to the protection and permanent place of traditional voices in our church.
The Rt. Rev. Edward S. Little II is the Bishop of Northern Indiana, and a member of the Communion Partners coalition.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Anglican Bishop Minns tells Lutherans to leave
By Julia Duin on Sept. 25, 2009 into Belief Blog (of the Washington Times):
I was just about to go to bed at 1 a.m. today when I saw that the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) - one of several groups representing the 100,000 or so Episcopalians who have left their denomination for more conservative climes - has posted a video for the benefit of a this weekend's Lutheran CORE meeting near Indianapolis.
Lutheran CORE has drawn 1,200+ folks to a meeting to discuss what future - if any - conservatives have in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America now that that the denomination has OK'd gay clergy as of last month. The CORE folks have given every indication they're heading out the door to form a new group or join with other dissident Lutheran groups.
And CANA is encouraging them to move out, according to a short video posted on YouTube. CANA's lead bishop, Martyn Minns, until recently the rector of Truro Church in Fairfax, Va., shows up in somewhat informal garb with a number of icons and religious paintings behind him. Am not sure the reason for the rodeo music accompaniment but sure enough, the bishop tells Lutherans that "We know the pain; we've been there" in reference to how his parish and 14 other churches left the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia from 2005-2007 - and the ensuing lawsuit that occurred when they tried to take their property with them. (They won the suit on the local level but it is on appeal).
"We know the joy and freedom that came when we move away from a church that has frankly lost its way," the bishop said. "You're not alone..."
I was just about to go to bed at 1 a.m. today when I saw that the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) - one of several groups representing the 100,000 or so Episcopalians who have left their denomination for more conservative climes - has posted a video for the benefit of a this weekend's Lutheran CORE meeting near Indianapolis.
Lutheran CORE has drawn 1,200+ folks to a meeting to discuss what future - if any - conservatives have in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America now that that the denomination has OK'd gay clergy as of last month. The CORE folks have given every indication they're heading out the door to form a new group or join with other dissident Lutheran groups.
And CANA is encouraging them to move out, according to a short video posted on YouTube. CANA's lead bishop, Martyn Minns, until recently the rector of Truro Church in Fairfax, Va., shows up in somewhat informal garb with a number of icons and religious paintings behind him. Am not sure the reason for the rodeo music accompaniment but sure enough, the bishop tells Lutherans that "We know the pain; we've been there" in reference to how his parish and 14 other churches left the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia from 2005-2007 - and the ensuing lawsuit that occurred when they tried to take their property with them. (They won the suit on the local level but it is on appeal).
"We know the joy and freedom that came when we move away from a church that has frankly lost its way," the bishop said. "You're not alone..."
Friday, September 25, 2009
Conservative Lutherans overflow upcoming conference
Via the American Anglican Council:
By Julia Duin on Sept. 23, 2009
Belief Blog (of the Washington Times)
There seems to be no shortage of folks from the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America who are upset about several votes last month at the denomination's convention in Minneapolis. For those of you who weren't reading about how -- despite a tornado that showed up on a key day of the conference -- the denomination voted to approve gay clergy and, by implication, same-sex blessings -- a huge switch that placed the ELCA as America's largest mainline Protestant denomination to accept homosxual ministers.
Lutheran CORE, the chief opposition group, had slated a convention to start this Friday in Indianapolis, and they recently sent out a bulletin saying their registrations were swamped. Not only did organizers have to move the venue to a larger church -- a Roman Catholic one, in fact -- but as of Sept. 14, they had reached their limit of 1,200 attendees. Some of you who are older than 50 may remember an era in which Lutherans and Catholics never spoke to one another, much less shared worship spaces.
And so I love the quote on CORE's press release: "It is wonderfully ironic that Lutherans who started 500 years ago as a movement to reform the Roman Catholic Church would now return to a Catholic Church to re-form themselves," said the Rev. Mark Chavez of Landisville, Pa., director of Lutheran CORE.
Anyway, the Lutherans say they will be looking into creating some kind of alternative to the ELCA. Two retired ELCA bishops are involved, so this could get really interesting should these folks decide to fly the ELCA coop. Judging by their press release, they've already decided to go; they just have not decided on the specifics. However, there's a proposed constitution on their Web site, so the exit strategy is pretty public. Sounds as if they learned something from the Episcopalians who took the same step in 2003 (when the denomination approved Anglicanism's first openly gay bishop); that is, when your denomination veers left, don't stick around to try to change things. Read their press release here.
And the ELCA itself must be a bit nervous about this gathering. ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson just sent out a pastoral letter saying he is "disappointed" some people are encouraging congregations and members to take actions that "will diminish our capacity for ministry," which could affect planting and renewing congregations, educating leaders, sending missionaries, responding to domestic and international hunger concerns, and rebuilding communities after disasters. You can read his letter here.
What is really interesting is that the number of people attending the CORE gathering may outnumber those who gathered in Minneapolis last month.
-- Julia Duin, religion editor
By Julia Duin on Sept. 23, 2009
Belief Blog (of the Washington Times)
There seems to be no shortage of folks from the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America who are upset about several votes last month at the denomination's convention in Minneapolis. For those of you who weren't reading about how -- despite a tornado that showed up on a key day of the conference -- the denomination voted to approve gay clergy and, by implication, same-sex blessings -- a huge switch that placed the ELCA as America's largest mainline Protestant denomination to accept homosxual ministers.
Lutheran CORE, the chief opposition group, had slated a convention to start this Friday in Indianapolis, and they recently sent out a bulletin saying their registrations were swamped. Not only did organizers have to move the venue to a larger church -- a Roman Catholic one, in fact -- but as of Sept. 14, they had reached their limit of 1,200 attendees. Some of you who are older than 50 may remember an era in which Lutherans and Catholics never spoke to one another, much less shared worship spaces.
And so I love the quote on CORE's press release: "It is wonderfully ironic that Lutherans who started 500 years ago as a movement to reform the Roman Catholic Church would now return to a Catholic Church to re-form themselves," said the Rev. Mark Chavez of Landisville, Pa., director of Lutheran CORE.
Anyway, the Lutherans say they will be looking into creating some kind of alternative to the ELCA. Two retired ELCA bishops are involved, so this could get really interesting should these folks decide to fly the ELCA coop. Judging by their press release, they've already decided to go; they just have not decided on the specifics. However, there's a proposed constitution on their Web site, so the exit strategy is pretty public. Sounds as if they learned something from the Episcopalians who took the same step in 2003 (when the denomination approved Anglicanism's first openly gay bishop); that is, when your denomination veers left, don't stick around to try to change things. Read their press release here.
And the ELCA itself must be a bit nervous about this gathering. ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson just sent out a pastoral letter saying he is "disappointed" some people are encouraging congregations and members to take actions that "will diminish our capacity for ministry," which could affect planting and renewing congregations, educating leaders, sending missionaries, responding to domestic and international hunger concerns, and rebuilding communities after disasters. You can read his letter here.
What is really interesting is that the number of people attending the CORE gathering may outnumber those who gathered in Minneapolis last month.
-- Julia Duin, religion editor
A Message from Bishop David Anderson
From the American Anglican Council:
Beloved in Christ,
As we went to press last week there was breaking news of the decision of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, finding in favor of the local parish of All Saints', Pawley's Island and against the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and The Episcopal Church (TEC). Among the findings of the court is that the so-called "Dennis Canon" is illegal in SC and has no effect. The basis for this is that one person can't establish a trust on someone else's property. It is the person who owns the property that is the one to establish a trust, if they wish to. Makes sense, doesn't it? As the court stated in the finding, "It is an axiomatic principle of law that a person or entity must hold title to property in order to declare that it is held in trust for the benefit of another or transfer legal title to one person for the benefit of another."
The argument of TEC over the last decade has been that the parishes acquiesced in the process by sending parish representatives to their diocesan conventions which elected diocesan deputies, which in turn sent those deputies to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 1979, when, in a murky process, the Dennis Canon may have been passed by Canon Law procedure. Then after the convention, parishes were not directly notified that their property had been alienated by this new imposed trust, so since they weren't notified, of course they didn't take immediate action to refute it. Therefore, by this process of indirect representation before the fact and lack of action after the fact, the trust was imposed, if you believe TEC. Unfortunately, several courts have deferred to the assertions of the Presiding Bishop's legal counsel and bought this line of thinking.
In reality this is similar to the television program "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?" A fifth grader could tell you that it isn't fair for a teacher to take a student's bicycle that he rode to school and claim it is hers. So, the courts ruling in favor of TEC would have bombed out on the television program that measures fifth grade intelligence.
Thank God that courts are now beginning to see through the artificial complexity of TEC's arguments. Comments by the judge in the Ft. Worth litigation stated the obvious, and now that is reinforced by the South Carolina Supreme Court. The finding would seem to say that any Episcopal congregation with clear title to their property in the Diocese of Upper South (USC) or South Carolina could walk away, if they followed some easy to understand guidelines embedded in the decision. In the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, the question for an orthodox Anglican Episcopal Church might well be, why would they stay? Yes, the Second Coming is promised and waited upon with hopeful anticipation among the faithful. Other than that, are they hopeful that they can elect an orthodox bishop for USC? If they did, it seems unlikely that the new bishop would secure confirmation from TEC, unless he/she somehow bound the diocese in perpetuity to TEC, something the bishop alone doesn't have the authority to do.
In the Diocese of South Carolina, there is a dilemma. Some congregations are ready to bolt, even though they have an orthodox bishop, +Mark Lawrence. If Bishop Lawrence is willing to take SC out of TEC, he has the SC courts to back him, and it seems that almost all of his parishes would follow him. If he chooses to stay and TEC continues on its present trajectory, he risks seeing a steady erosion of some of his larger parishes. This in time would leave him with the remaining balance tilted toward the more liberal parishes who want to stay in TEC, significantly reducing his options. Our take on the situation is that the strategic time for Bishop Lawrence to act is in the next three or four months, and if he sends a clear message that departure consideration is on the table, most of his parishes would wait for him. Bishop Lawrence has done one of the best analysis of the wreck of the Episcopal Church by current liberal leaders, and he is widely known to be solidly orthodox. It may be that this is a Kairos moment that has now been presented to him. Pray for him earnestly.
Now we move from the serious to the bizarre but sad. Greg Griffith reports on the Stand Firm in Faith blog that the arcane antics of Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori have taken a new low. In an article titled "815 Appeals for Donations to Sue Christians" he shares a letter that the Episcopal Church Mission Funding Initiative has sent out to select attorneys in the Episcopal Church. The director of the Mission Funding Initiative, The Rev. Susan J. McCone, wrote on September 18, asking attorneys to give to the Episcopal Church litigation mission called the St. Ives' Fund. No, seriously, she did this, and it is considered missionary work of TEC to litigate. Having a family member and friends who are attorneys, I do understand that attorneys need full employment, but really, invoking the Patron Saint of Attorneys to be the Patron Saint of Litigation! We can now jest that the Mission Department of the Episcopal Church is Dewey, Suem and Howe, and not be too far off. Ms. McCone reminds her recipients to make their checks out to the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, and write St. Ives Fund on the memo line. Keep in mind that this is on Mission Fund Initiative Letterhead, and with her name as the director.
For some time rumor has circulated that the trust funds in the care of TEC were being renamed, using numbers like Swiss accounts, and stripping them of the text that indicated how the donors intended the funds to be used. We have not run with that story, but now in light of the above action, investigative journalists may want to dig into that rumor which has been on the street for almost a year.
Back to positive news, the North American Anglican Cursillo folks who are out of TEC have reorganized and formed Anglican 4th Day (The Episcopal Church currently holds a license from the Roman Catholic Cursillo movement for the trademark name "Cursillo"). In Canada, the 2009 meeting of the Canadian House of Bishops stated that "diocesan bishops have the authority to decide who may serve on Cursillo leadership teams," and pointed out that clergy and laity who are members of the Anglican Network in Canada, which is affiliated with the new Anglican Church in North America, should not be given permission to have any role in the Cursillo movement. Looking at this from a positive standpoint, I agree that the 4th Day movement should be separate from the Anglican Church of Canada and their heterodox beliefs and practices, and in the States, free from TEC's influence as well.
The battle within the Daughters of the King (DOK) seems to be resolving itself with the formation of the Daughters of the Holy Cross, which will be an order for women within the Anglican Church in North America. Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori directly intervened to express her opinion to the DOK that they should change their practices and now exclude non-Episcopalians, and so hundreds of former DOK members felt unwelcome in their order. The Daughters of the Holy Cross gives them the opportunity to take similar vows and continue the valuable work they did under their former order. Daughters of the Holy Cross, may our Lord bless and sustain you in your work and ministry, done to his honor and glory.
And last but not least, Alpha USA is holding a national conference this October 20-21 in Orlando, Florida. I encourage you to look into this discipleship event and consider attending. I'm also pleased to announce that if you decide to attend, you'll receive a special discount of $70 off the standard rate of $159. To register and receive this discount, go to www.alphausa.org/conference and enter the voucher code "bishopnac09". You can also call the call center at 1-800-362-5742 and provide the voucher code to an agent in the call center. Please consider attending this wonderful discipleship and training conference.
Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
Beloved in Christ,
As we went to press last week there was breaking news of the decision of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, finding in favor of the local parish of All Saints', Pawley's Island and against the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and The Episcopal Church (TEC). Among the findings of the court is that the so-called "Dennis Canon" is illegal in SC and has no effect. The basis for this is that one person can't establish a trust on someone else's property. It is the person who owns the property that is the one to establish a trust, if they wish to. Makes sense, doesn't it? As the court stated in the finding, "It is an axiomatic principle of law that a person or entity must hold title to property in order to declare that it is held in trust for the benefit of another or transfer legal title to one person for the benefit of another."
The argument of TEC over the last decade has been that the parishes acquiesced in the process by sending parish representatives to their diocesan conventions which elected diocesan deputies, which in turn sent those deputies to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 1979, when, in a murky process, the Dennis Canon may have been passed by Canon Law procedure. Then after the convention, parishes were not directly notified that their property had been alienated by this new imposed trust, so since they weren't notified, of course they didn't take immediate action to refute it. Therefore, by this process of indirect representation before the fact and lack of action after the fact, the trust was imposed, if you believe TEC. Unfortunately, several courts have deferred to the assertions of the Presiding Bishop's legal counsel and bought this line of thinking.
In reality this is similar to the television program "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?" A fifth grader could tell you that it isn't fair for a teacher to take a student's bicycle that he rode to school and claim it is hers. So, the courts ruling in favor of TEC would have bombed out on the television program that measures fifth grade intelligence.
Thank God that courts are now beginning to see through the artificial complexity of TEC's arguments. Comments by the judge in the Ft. Worth litigation stated the obvious, and now that is reinforced by the South Carolina Supreme Court. The finding would seem to say that any Episcopal congregation with clear title to their property in the Diocese of Upper South (USC) or South Carolina could walk away, if they followed some easy to understand guidelines embedded in the decision. In the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, the question for an orthodox Anglican Episcopal Church might well be, why would they stay? Yes, the Second Coming is promised and waited upon with hopeful anticipation among the faithful. Other than that, are they hopeful that they can elect an orthodox bishop for USC? If they did, it seems unlikely that the new bishop would secure confirmation from TEC, unless he/she somehow bound the diocese in perpetuity to TEC, something the bishop alone doesn't have the authority to do.
In the Diocese of South Carolina, there is a dilemma. Some congregations are ready to bolt, even though they have an orthodox bishop, +Mark Lawrence. If Bishop Lawrence is willing to take SC out of TEC, he has the SC courts to back him, and it seems that almost all of his parishes would follow him. If he chooses to stay and TEC continues on its present trajectory, he risks seeing a steady erosion of some of his larger parishes. This in time would leave him with the remaining balance tilted toward the more liberal parishes who want to stay in TEC, significantly reducing his options. Our take on the situation is that the strategic time for Bishop Lawrence to act is in the next three or four months, and if he sends a clear message that departure consideration is on the table, most of his parishes would wait for him. Bishop Lawrence has done one of the best analysis of the wreck of the Episcopal Church by current liberal leaders, and he is widely known to be solidly orthodox. It may be that this is a Kairos moment that has now been presented to him. Pray for him earnestly.
Now we move from the serious to the bizarre but sad. Greg Griffith reports on the Stand Firm in Faith blog that the arcane antics of Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori have taken a new low. In an article titled "815 Appeals for Donations to Sue Christians" he shares a letter that the Episcopal Church Mission Funding Initiative has sent out to select attorneys in the Episcopal Church. The director of the Mission Funding Initiative, The Rev. Susan J. McCone, wrote on September 18, asking attorneys to give to the Episcopal Church litigation mission called the St. Ives' Fund. No, seriously, she did this, and it is considered missionary work of TEC to litigate. Having a family member and friends who are attorneys, I do understand that attorneys need full employment, but really, invoking the Patron Saint of Attorneys to be the Patron Saint of Litigation! We can now jest that the Mission Department of the Episcopal Church is Dewey, Suem and Howe, and not be too far off. Ms. McCone reminds her recipients to make their checks out to the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, and write St. Ives Fund on the memo line. Keep in mind that this is on Mission Fund Initiative Letterhead, and with her name as the director.
For some time rumor has circulated that the trust funds in the care of TEC were being renamed, using numbers like Swiss accounts, and stripping them of the text that indicated how the donors intended the funds to be used. We have not run with that story, but now in light of the above action, investigative journalists may want to dig into that rumor which has been on the street for almost a year.
Back to positive news, the North American Anglican Cursillo folks who are out of TEC have reorganized and formed Anglican 4th Day (The Episcopal Church currently holds a license from the Roman Catholic Cursillo movement for the trademark name "Cursillo"). In Canada, the 2009 meeting of the Canadian House of Bishops stated that "diocesan bishops have the authority to decide who may serve on Cursillo leadership teams," and pointed out that clergy and laity who are members of the Anglican Network in Canada, which is affiliated with the new Anglican Church in North America, should not be given permission to have any role in the Cursillo movement. Looking at this from a positive standpoint, I agree that the 4th Day movement should be separate from the Anglican Church of Canada and their heterodox beliefs and practices, and in the States, free from TEC's influence as well.
The battle within the Daughters of the King (DOK) seems to be resolving itself with the formation of the Daughters of the Holy Cross, which will be an order for women within the Anglican Church in North America. Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori directly intervened to express her opinion to the DOK that they should change their practices and now exclude non-Episcopalians, and so hundreds of former DOK members felt unwelcome in their order. The Daughters of the Holy Cross gives them the opportunity to take similar vows and continue the valuable work they did under their former order. Daughters of the Holy Cross, may our Lord bless and sustain you in your work and ministry, done to his honor and glory.
And last but not least, Alpha USA is holding a national conference this October 20-21 in Orlando, Florida. I encourage you to look into this discipleship event and consider attending. I'm also pleased to announce that if you decide to attend, you'll receive a special discount of $70 off the standard rate of $159. To register and receive this discount, go to www.alphausa.org/conference and enter the voucher code "bishopnac09". You can also call the call center at 1-800-362-5742 and provide the voucher code to an agent in the call center. Please consider attending this wonderful discipleship and training conference.
Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
Quincy Statement on Rump Diocese Actions
from Stand Firm by Greg Griffith
The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Quincy, part of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, has issued a statement regarding recent actions taken against its clergy by an Episcopal bishop.
“The supposed inhibitions and depositions of our clergy have no bearing on those clergy, or on their ministries, since our diocese is no longer under the authority of the Episcopal Church. The actions of Episcopal Bishop John Buchanan simply mean that the Episcopal Church no longer wants these clergy to be allowed to function in any of their churches,” said Fr. John Spencer, President of the Quincy Standing Committee.
Buchanan, Fr. Spencer said, represents a new Episcopal diocese in central Illinois that was organized last April. In late August, Buchanan sent letters supposedly accepting the “renunciation of the ordained ministry” of the Episcopal church by several Quincy clergy, and declaring that those clergy were deprived of all the authority conveyed in ordination. “We did leave the Episcopal Church,” Spencer said, “but we didn’t renounce our ordination vows, or abandon our ministries.” Those named by Buchanan included The Rev. Edward den Blaauwen, The Rev. John Spencer, The Rev. Richard Chapin, The Rev. Thomas Janikowski, The Rev. Lewis Payne, The Rev James Marshall, and The Rev. Peter Powell.
Then, on September 8, Buchanan issued another letter claiming to “inhibit” another group of Quincy clergy from carrying on their ministries. Those named included The Rev. Andy Ainley, The Rev. William Barnds, the Rev. Michael Brooks, The Rev. Harold Camacho Castro, The Rev. Eric Craig, the Rev. Richard Crist, The Rev. James Derbyshire, The Rev. Shawn Doubet, The Rev. Ronald Drummond, The Rev. Charles Flinn, The Rev. Gus Franklin, The Rev. Thomas Gimple, The Rev. M. Bill Knapp, The Rev. Louis Mahue, The Rev. Arthur Mattox, The Rev. Steven McClaskey, The Rt. Rev. Alberto Morales, The Rev. Nicholas Pierce, The Rev. Luis Gonzalez, The Rev. V. Joey Scalisi, The Rev. William Swatos, The Rev. Robert Tiling, The Rev. David Wagner, The Rev. Ronald White, The Rev. Deacon Rod Bales, The Rev. Deacon Paul Brooks, The Rev. Deacon Diane Brooks, The Rev. Deacon Dennis Brown, The Rev. Deacon Phillip Fleming, The Rev. Deacon Danny Grimes, The Rev. Deacon K. Krewer, The Rev. Deacon Joshua Miller, The Rev. Deacon William Timmons, and The Rev. Deacon Christian Whatley.
“What Bishop Buchanan either doesn’t understand, or just doesn’t want to accept,” Fr. Spencer said, “is that the Diocese of Quincy separated itself from the Episcopal Church last November. When we did that, we made it very clear that the rules and canons of the Episcopal Church no longer have any authority or control over our diocese, or our clergy.”
“By contrast,” Spencer added, “once we knew which of our clergy wanted to stay behind in the Episcopal Church, we simply released them from our clergy roster as priests and deacons in good standing. We never questioned their integrity, or their right to continue in ministry. They have not shown us the same courtesy, or respect.”
Additionally, Spencer said, Abbot Morales, Fr. Camacho Castro and Fr. Gonzalez are members of St. Benedict’s Abbey in Bartonville, an ecumenical abbey, and were never under the control of the Episcopal Church.
To add to the confusion, Spencer said, the new Episcopal diocese adopted a similar name, The Diocese of Quincy of the Episcopal Church. “But they didn’t stop there,” Spencer said. “They have put up a website that lists all the churches of our diocese as churches of their diocese. They are intentionally misleading people.” For example, the church Spencer serves, St. Francis in Lake of the Woods Plaza, Dunlap, “has nothing whatever to do with the new Episcopalian diocese. But they list St. Francis as one of their churches. They know this is false.”
At their Synod last November, the historic Diocese of Quincy, founded in 1877, realigned as a member of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone (South America). At their upcoming Synod in October, they expect to formally affiliate with the Anglican Church in North America, a new jurisdiction of some 700 churches in the U.S. and Canada who have left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada because those groups have fallen away from historic Christian teaching and discipline.
The legitimate website of the original Diocese of Quincy, Spencer says, is http://www.dioceseofquincy.org. “Don’t accept imitations,” he said.
The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Quincy, part of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, has issued a statement regarding recent actions taken against its clergy by an Episcopal bishop.
“The supposed inhibitions and depositions of our clergy have no bearing on those clergy, or on their ministries, since our diocese is no longer under the authority of the Episcopal Church. The actions of Episcopal Bishop John Buchanan simply mean that the Episcopal Church no longer wants these clergy to be allowed to function in any of their churches,” said Fr. John Spencer, President of the Quincy Standing Committee.
Buchanan, Fr. Spencer said, represents a new Episcopal diocese in central Illinois that was organized last April. In late August, Buchanan sent letters supposedly accepting the “renunciation of the ordained ministry” of the Episcopal church by several Quincy clergy, and declaring that those clergy were deprived of all the authority conveyed in ordination. “We did leave the Episcopal Church,” Spencer said, “but we didn’t renounce our ordination vows, or abandon our ministries.” Those named by Buchanan included The Rev. Edward den Blaauwen, The Rev. John Spencer, The Rev. Richard Chapin, The Rev. Thomas Janikowski, The Rev. Lewis Payne, The Rev James Marshall, and The Rev. Peter Powell.
Then, on September 8, Buchanan issued another letter claiming to “inhibit” another group of Quincy clergy from carrying on their ministries. Those named included The Rev. Andy Ainley, The Rev. William Barnds, the Rev. Michael Brooks, The Rev. Harold Camacho Castro, The Rev. Eric Craig, the Rev. Richard Crist, The Rev. James Derbyshire, The Rev. Shawn Doubet, The Rev. Ronald Drummond, The Rev. Charles Flinn, The Rev. Gus Franklin, The Rev. Thomas Gimple, The Rev. M. Bill Knapp, The Rev. Louis Mahue, The Rev. Arthur Mattox, The Rev. Steven McClaskey, The Rt. Rev. Alberto Morales, The Rev. Nicholas Pierce, The Rev. Luis Gonzalez, The Rev. V. Joey Scalisi, The Rev. William Swatos, The Rev. Robert Tiling, The Rev. David Wagner, The Rev. Ronald White, The Rev. Deacon Rod Bales, The Rev. Deacon Paul Brooks, The Rev. Deacon Diane Brooks, The Rev. Deacon Dennis Brown, The Rev. Deacon Phillip Fleming, The Rev. Deacon Danny Grimes, The Rev. Deacon K. Krewer, The Rev. Deacon Joshua Miller, The Rev. Deacon William Timmons, and The Rev. Deacon Christian Whatley.
“What Bishop Buchanan either doesn’t understand, or just doesn’t want to accept,” Fr. Spencer said, “is that the Diocese of Quincy separated itself from the Episcopal Church last November. When we did that, we made it very clear that the rules and canons of the Episcopal Church no longer have any authority or control over our diocese, or our clergy.”
“By contrast,” Spencer added, “once we knew which of our clergy wanted to stay behind in the Episcopal Church, we simply released them from our clergy roster as priests and deacons in good standing. We never questioned their integrity, or their right to continue in ministry. They have not shown us the same courtesy, or respect.”
Additionally, Spencer said, Abbot Morales, Fr. Camacho Castro and Fr. Gonzalez are members of St. Benedict’s Abbey in Bartonville, an ecumenical abbey, and were never under the control of the Episcopal Church.
To add to the confusion, Spencer said, the new Episcopal diocese adopted a similar name, The Diocese of Quincy of the Episcopal Church. “But they didn’t stop there,” Spencer said. “They have put up a website that lists all the churches of our diocese as churches of their diocese. They are intentionally misleading people.” For example, the church Spencer serves, St. Francis in Lake of the Woods Plaza, Dunlap, “has nothing whatever to do with the new Episcopalian diocese. But they list St. Francis as one of their churches. They know this is false.”
At their Synod last November, the historic Diocese of Quincy, founded in 1877, realigned as a member of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone (South America). At their upcoming Synod in October, they expect to formally affiliate with the Anglican Church in North America, a new jurisdiction of some 700 churches in the U.S. and Canada who have left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada because those groups have fallen away from historic Christian teaching and discipline.
The legitimate website of the original Diocese of Quincy, Spencer says, is http://www.dioceseofquincy.org. “Don’t accept imitations,” he said.
PEORIA, IL: Potemkin Diocese of Quincy Inhibits and Deposes 34 Priests
Seven Priests earlier deposed. Vows not renounced, says Standing Committee President
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
September 22, 2009
The Rt. Rev. John Buchanan, Episcopal Bishop of the Potemkin Diocese of Quincy, has inhibited and deposed 34 priests and deacons from the original Diocese of Quincy, saying they had renounced their orders and could no longer function as priests in The Episcopal Church.
In late August, Buchanan sent letters accepting the alleged "renunciation of the ordained ministry" of the Episcopal Church to several Quincy clergy and declaring that those clergy are now deprived of all the authority conveyed in ordination.
Those named by Buchanan include: The Rev. Edward den Blaauwen, The Rev. John Spencer, The Rev. Richard Chapin, The Rev. Thomas Janikowski, The Rev. Lewis Payne, The Rev James Marshall, and The Rev. Peter Powell.
"We did leave the Episcopal Church," said Fr. John Spencer, President of the Quincy Standing Committee. "We did not renounce our ordination vows, or abandon our ministries," he said in a press statement from the Anglican Diocese of Quincy.
"The supposed inhibitions and depositions of our clergy have no bearing on those clergy, or on their ministries, since our diocese is no longer under the authority of the Episcopal Church. The actions of Episcopal Bishop John Buchanan simply mean that the Episcopal Church no longer wants these clergy to be allowed to function in any of their churches," said Fr. Spencer.
Buchanan represents a new Episcopal diocese in central Illinois that was organized last April.
"What Bishop Buchanan either doesn't understand, or just doesn't want to accept, is that the Diocese of Quincy separated itself from the Episcopal Church last November. When we did that, we made it very clear that the rules and canons of the Episcopal Church no longer have any authority or control over our diocese, or our clergy," said Spencer.
"By contrast," Spencer added, "once we knew which of our clergy wanted to stay behind in the Episcopal Church, we simply released them from our clergy roster as priests and deacons in good standing. We never questioned their integrity, or their right to continue in ministry. They have not shown us the same courtesy, or respect."
Furthermore, Abbot Morales, Fr. Camacho Castro and Fr. Gonzalez are members of St. Benedict's Abbey in Bartonville, an ecumenical abbey, and never were under the control of the Episcopal Church, said Spencer.
"To add to the confusion, the new Episcopal diocese adopted a similar name, The Diocese of Quincy of the Episcopal Church. But they didn't stop there. They have put up a website that lists all the churches of our diocese as churches of their diocese. They are intentionally misleading people.
"The church I serve, St. Francis in Lake of the Woods Plaza, Dunlap, has nothing whatever to do with the new Episcopalian diocese. But they list St. Francis as one of their churches. They know this is false."
At their Synod last November, the historic Diocese of Quincy, founded in 1877, realigned as a member of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone (South America). At their upcoming Synod in October, they expect to formally affiliate with the Anglican Church in North America, a new jurisdiction of some 700 churches in the U.S. and Canada who have left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada because those groups have fallen away from historic Christian teaching and discipline. On September 8, Buchanan issued yet another letter claiming to "inhibit" a larger group of Quincy clergy.
Those named are:
The Rev. Andy Ainley,
The Rev. William Barnds,
The Rev. Michael Brooks,
The Rev. Harold Camacho Castro,
The Rev. Eric Craig,
The Rev. Richard Crist,
The Rev. James Derbyshire, T
The Rev. Shawn Doubet,
The Rev. Ronald Drummond,
The Rev. Charles Flinn,
The Rev. Gus Franklin,
The Rev. Thomas Gimple,
The Rev. M. Bill Knapp,
The Rev. Louis Mahue,
The Rev. Arthur Mattox,
The Rev. Steven McClaskey,
The Rt. Rev. Alberto Morales,
The Rev. Nicholas Pierce,
The Rev. Luis Gonzalez,
The Rev. V. Joey Scalisi,
The Rev. William Swatos,
The Rev. Robert Tiling,
The Rev. David Wagner,
The Rev. Ronald White,
The Rev. Deacon Rod Bales,
The Rev. Deacon Paul Brooks,
The Rev. Deacon Diane Brooks,
The Rev. Deacon Dennis Brown,
The Rev. Deacon Phillip Fleming,
The Rev. Deacon Danny Grimes,
The Rev. Deacon K. Krewer,
The Rev. Deacon Joshua Miller,
The Rev. Deacon William Timmons,
The Rev. Deacon Christian Whatley
The legitimate website of the original Diocese of Quincy can be found here: www.dioceseofquincy.org. "Don't accept imitations," he said.
END
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
September 22, 2009
The Rt. Rev. John Buchanan, Episcopal Bishop of the Potemkin Diocese of Quincy, has inhibited and deposed 34 priests and deacons from the original Diocese of Quincy, saying they had renounced their orders and could no longer function as priests in The Episcopal Church.
In late August, Buchanan sent letters accepting the alleged "renunciation of the ordained ministry" of the Episcopal Church to several Quincy clergy and declaring that those clergy are now deprived of all the authority conveyed in ordination.
Those named by Buchanan include: The Rev. Edward den Blaauwen, The Rev. John Spencer, The Rev. Richard Chapin, The Rev. Thomas Janikowski, The Rev. Lewis Payne, The Rev James Marshall, and The Rev. Peter Powell.
"We did leave the Episcopal Church," said Fr. John Spencer, President of the Quincy Standing Committee. "We did not renounce our ordination vows, or abandon our ministries," he said in a press statement from the Anglican Diocese of Quincy.
"The supposed inhibitions and depositions of our clergy have no bearing on those clergy, or on their ministries, since our diocese is no longer under the authority of the Episcopal Church. The actions of Episcopal Bishop John Buchanan simply mean that the Episcopal Church no longer wants these clergy to be allowed to function in any of their churches," said Fr. Spencer.
Buchanan represents a new Episcopal diocese in central Illinois that was organized last April.
"What Bishop Buchanan either doesn't understand, or just doesn't want to accept, is that the Diocese of Quincy separated itself from the Episcopal Church last November. When we did that, we made it very clear that the rules and canons of the Episcopal Church no longer have any authority or control over our diocese, or our clergy," said Spencer.
"By contrast," Spencer added, "once we knew which of our clergy wanted to stay behind in the Episcopal Church, we simply released them from our clergy roster as priests and deacons in good standing. We never questioned their integrity, or their right to continue in ministry. They have not shown us the same courtesy, or respect."
Furthermore, Abbot Morales, Fr. Camacho Castro and Fr. Gonzalez are members of St. Benedict's Abbey in Bartonville, an ecumenical abbey, and never were under the control of the Episcopal Church, said Spencer.
"To add to the confusion, the new Episcopal diocese adopted a similar name, The Diocese of Quincy of the Episcopal Church. But they didn't stop there. They have put up a website that lists all the churches of our diocese as churches of their diocese. They are intentionally misleading people.
"The church I serve, St. Francis in Lake of the Woods Plaza, Dunlap, has nothing whatever to do with the new Episcopalian diocese. But they list St. Francis as one of their churches. They know this is false."
At their Synod last November, the historic Diocese of Quincy, founded in 1877, realigned as a member of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone (South America). At their upcoming Synod in October, they expect to formally affiliate with the Anglican Church in North America, a new jurisdiction of some 700 churches in the U.S. and Canada who have left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada because those groups have fallen away from historic Christian teaching and discipline. On September 8, Buchanan issued yet another letter claiming to "inhibit" a larger group of Quincy clergy.
Those named are:
The Rev. Andy Ainley,
The Rev. William Barnds,
The Rev. Michael Brooks,
The Rev. Harold Camacho Castro,
The Rev. Eric Craig,
The Rev. Richard Crist,
The Rev. James Derbyshire, T
The Rev. Shawn Doubet,
The Rev. Ronald Drummond,
The Rev. Charles Flinn,
The Rev. Gus Franklin,
The Rev. Thomas Gimple,
The Rev. M. Bill Knapp,
The Rev. Louis Mahue,
The Rev. Arthur Mattox,
The Rev. Steven McClaskey,
The Rt. Rev. Alberto Morales,
The Rev. Nicholas Pierce,
The Rev. Luis Gonzalez,
The Rev. V. Joey Scalisi,
The Rev. William Swatos,
The Rev. Robert Tiling,
The Rev. David Wagner,
The Rev. Ronald White,
The Rev. Deacon Rod Bales,
The Rev. Deacon Paul Brooks,
The Rev. Deacon Diane Brooks,
The Rev. Deacon Dennis Brown,
The Rev. Deacon Phillip Fleming,
The Rev. Deacon Danny Grimes,
The Rev. Deacon K. Krewer,
The Rev. Deacon Joshua Miller,
The Rev. Deacon William Timmons,
The Rev. Deacon Christian Whatley
The legitimate website of the original Diocese of Quincy can be found here: www.dioceseofquincy.org. "Don't accept imitations," he said.
END
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
S.C. Decision Could Have Far-Reaching Impact
From The Living Church via TitusOneNine:
Posted on: September 22, 2009
The Supreme Court of South Carolina has resolved a long-running dispute between All Saints Church, Pawleys Island, and the Diocese of South Carolina. In a unanimous ruling written by Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal, the court said that the Episcopal Church's Dennis Canon does not apply to the congregation, which was founded before the Episcopal Church.
“It is an axiomatic principle of law that a person or entity must hold title to property in order to declare that it is held in trust for the benefit of another or transfer legal title to one person for the benefit of another,” the court ruled. “The diocese did not, at the time it recorded the 2000 notice, have any interest in the congregation's property.”
It is not yet clear whether the Episcopal Church will appeal the decision. “My understanding is that the legal team is currently reviewing the ruling,” said Neva Rae Fox, the Episcopal Church’s public affairs officer.
The dispute between All Saints and the diocese dates back to 2000, when the Rev. Chuck Murphy was consecrated as one of two founding bishops of the Anglican Mission in the Americas. The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., who was then the Bishop of South Carolina, was initially supportive of Bishop Murphy's consecration. But after the diocese filed a notice with the Georgetown County clerk of court saying that the congregation held the property in trust for the diocese, the congregation filed suit against both the diocese and the Episcopal Church.
Bishop Murphy hailed the ruling in a message sent to AMiA congregations.
“In addition to being a complete victory for all of us here at All Saints, Pawleys Island, it is a profoundly important legal decision repudiating the ‘authority’ of the Dennis Canon,” he wrote. “I believe that this will have enormous implications not only for the two Episcopal dioceses in South Carolina, but, I suspect, for other churches throughout the U.S.A.”
Attorney Dale Rye of Georgetown, Texas, wrote that he was troubled by the court’s ruling.
“It does not take a rocket scientist to see where the notion that congregations are necessarily independent entities can lead,” he wrote. “How is a diocese to enforce its disciplinary canons if a defrocked pastor’s parish simply chooses to ignore the decree? How is a bishop to enforce use of the authorized liturgy when the highest court in the state has stated that he is powerless to control a local congregation?”
Posted on: September 22, 2009
The Supreme Court of South Carolina has resolved a long-running dispute between All Saints Church, Pawleys Island, and the Diocese of South Carolina. In a unanimous ruling written by Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal, the court said that the Episcopal Church's Dennis Canon does not apply to the congregation, which was founded before the Episcopal Church.
“It is an axiomatic principle of law that a person or entity must hold title to property in order to declare that it is held in trust for the benefit of another or transfer legal title to one person for the benefit of another,” the court ruled. “The diocese did not, at the time it recorded the 2000 notice, have any interest in the congregation's property.”
It is not yet clear whether the Episcopal Church will appeal the decision. “My understanding is that the legal team is currently reviewing the ruling,” said Neva Rae Fox, the Episcopal Church’s public affairs officer.
The dispute between All Saints and the diocese dates back to 2000, when the Rev. Chuck Murphy was consecrated as one of two founding bishops of the Anglican Mission in the Americas. The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., who was then the Bishop of South Carolina, was initially supportive of Bishop Murphy's consecration. But after the diocese filed a notice with the Georgetown County clerk of court saying that the congregation held the property in trust for the diocese, the congregation filed suit against both the diocese and the Episcopal Church.
Bishop Murphy hailed the ruling in a message sent to AMiA congregations.
“In addition to being a complete victory for all of us here at All Saints, Pawleys Island, it is a profoundly important legal decision repudiating the ‘authority’ of the Dennis Canon,” he wrote. “I believe that this will have enormous implications not only for the two Episcopal dioceses in South Carolina, but, I suspect, for other churches throughout the U.S.A.”
Attorney Dale Rye of Georgetown, Texas, wrote that he was troubled by the court’s ruling.
“It does not take a rocket scientist to see where the notion that congregations are necessarily independent entities can lead,” he wrote. “How is a diocese to enforce its disciplinary canons if a defrocked pastor’s parish simply chooses to ignore the decree? How is a bishop to enforce use of the authorized liturgy when the highest court in the state has stated that he is powerless to control a local congregation?”
pecusa solicits funds for litigation
Just when I thought that pecusa had hit bottom I read this:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/media/mccone_letter.gif
pecusa has created a St. Ives Fund to support litigation against former Episcopalians. Again, didn't Jesus have something to say about litigation? Yes He did and He wasn't positive about the practice.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/media/mccone_letter.gif
pecusa has created a St. Ives Fund to support litigation against former Episcopalians. Again, didn't Jesus have something to say about litigation? Yes He did and He wasn't positive about the practice.
Appointed Episcopal bishop takes action against the clergy of The Diocese of Quincy
by BabyBlue
The Presiding Bishop's litigation strategy has been to set up shadow dioceses, financed by the national office, appoint a shadow bishop to sue the departing diocese and depose the clergy that voted to separate from The Episcopal Church. The Diocese of Quincy responds (via e-mail):
The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Quincy, part of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, has issued a statement regarding recent actions taken against its clergy by an Episcopal bishop.
“The supposed inhibitions and depositions of our clergy have no bearing on those clergy, or on their ministries, since our diocese is no longer under the authority of the Episcopal Church. The actions of Episcopal Bishop John Buchanan simply mean that the Episcopal Church no longer wants these clergy to be allowed to function in any of their churches,” said Fr. John Spencer, President of the Quincy Standing Committee.
Buchanan, Fr. Spencer said, represents a new Episcopal diocese in central Illinois that was organized last April. In late August, Buchanan sent letters supposedly accepting the “renunciation of the ordained ministry” of the Episcopal church by several Quincy clergy, and declaring that those clergy were deprived of all the authority conveyed in ordination. “We did leave the Episcopal Church,” Spencer said, “but we didn’t renounce our ordination vows, or abandon our ministries.” Those named by Buchanan included The Rev. Edward den Blaauwen, The Rev. John Spencer, The Rev. Richard Chapin, The Rev. Thomas Janikowski, The Rev. Lewis Payne, The Rev James Marshall, and The Rev. Peter Powell.
Then, on September 8, Buchanan issued another letter claiming to “inhibit” another group of Quincy clergy from carrying on their ministries. Those named included The Rev. Andy Ainley, The Rev. William Barnds, the Rev. Michael Brooks, The Rev. Harold Camacho Castro, The Rev. Eric Craig, the Rev. Richard Crist, The Rev. James Derbyshire, The Rev. Shawn Doubet, The Rev. Ronald Drummond, The Rev. Charles Flinn, The Rev. Gus Franklin, The Rev. Thomas Gimple, The Rev. M. Bill Knapp, The Rev. Louis Mahue, The Rev. Arthur Mattox, The Rev. Steven McClaskey, The Rt. Rev. Alberto Morales, The Rev. Nicholas Pierce, The Rev. Luis Gonzalez, The Rev. V. Joey Scalisi, The Rev. William Swatos, The Rev. Robert Tiling, The Rev. David Wagner, The Rev. Ronald White, The Rev. Deacon Rod Bales, The Rev. Deacon Paul Brooks, The Rev. Deacon Diane Brooks, The Rev. Deacon Dennis Brown, The Rev. Deacon Phillip Fleming, The Rev. Deacon Danny Grimes, The Rev. Deacon K. Krewer, The Rev. Deacon Joshua Miller, The Rev. Deacon William Timmons, and The Rev. Deacon Christian Whatley.
“What Bishop Buchanan either doesn’t understand, or just doesn’t want to accept,” Fr. Spencer said, “is that the Diocese of Quincy separated itself from the Episcopal Church last November. When we did that, we made it very clear that the rules and canons of the Episcopal Church no longer have any authority or control over our diocese, or our clergy.”
“By contrast,” Spencer added, “once we knew which of our clergy wanted to stay behind in the Episcopal Church, we simply released them from our clergy roster as priests and deacons in good standing. We never questioned their integrity, or their right to continue in ministry. They have not shown us the same courtesy, or respect.”
Additionally, Spencer said, Abbot Morales, Fr. Camacho Castro and Fr. Gonzalez are members of St. Benedict’s Abbey in Bartonville, an ecumenical abbey, and were never under the control of the Episcopal Church.
To add to the confusion, Spencer said, the new Episcopal diocese adopted a similar name, The Diocese of Quincy of the Episcopal Church. “But they didn’t stop there,” Spencer said. “They have put up a website that lists all the churches of our diocese as churches of their diocese. They are intentionally misleading people.” For example, the church Spencer serves, St. Francis in Lake of the Woods Plaza, Dunlap, “has nothing whatever to do with the new Episcopalian diocese. But they list St. Francis as one of their churches. They know this is false.”
At their Synod last November, the historic Diocese of Quincy, founded in 1877, realigned as a member of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone (South America). At their upcoming Synod in October, they expect to formally affiliate with the Anglican Church in North America, a new jurisdiction of some 700 churches in the U.S. and Canada who have left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada because those groups have fallen away from historic Christian teaching and discipline.
The legitimate website of the original Diocese of Quincy, Spencer says, is “Don’t accept imitations,” he said.
The Presiding Bishop's litigation strategy has been to set up shadow dioceses, financed by the national office, appoint a shadow bishop to sue the departing diocese and depose the clergy that voted to separate from The Episcopal Church. The Diocese of Quincy responds (via e-mail):
The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Quincy, part of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, has issued a statement regarding recent actions taken against its clergy by an Episcopal bishop.
“The supposed inhibitions and depositions of our clergy have no bearing on those clergy, or on their ministries, since our diocese is no longer under the authority of the Episcopal Church. The actions of Episcopal Bishop John Buchanan simply mean that the Episcopal Church no longer wants these clergy to be allowed to function in any of their churches,” said Fr. John Spencer, President of the Quincy Standing Committee.
Buchanan, Fr. Spencer said, represents a new Episcopal diocese in central Illinois that was organized last April. In late August, Buchanan sent letters supposedly accepting the “renunciation of the ordained ministry” of the Episcopal church by several Quincy clergy, and declaring that those clergy were deprived of all the authority conveyed in ordination. “We did leave the Episcopal Church,” Spencer said, “but we didn’t renounce our ordination vows, or abandon our ministries.” Those named by Buchanan included The Rev. Edward den Blaauwen, The Rev. John Spencer, The Rev. Richard Chapin, The Rev. Thomas Janikowski, The Rev. Lewis Payne, The Rev James Marshall, and The Rev. Peter Powell.
Then, on September 8, Buchanan issued another letter claiming to “inhibit” another group of Quincy clergy from carrying on their ministries. Those named included The Rev. Andy Ainley, The Rev. William Barnds, the Rev. Michael Brooks, The Rev. Harold Camacho Castro, The Rev. Eric Craig, the Rev. Richard Crist, The Rev. James Derbyshire, The Rev. Shawn Doubet, The Rev. Ronald Drummond, The Rev. Charles Flinn, The Rev. Gus Franklin, The Rev. Thomas Gimple, The Rev. M. Bill Knapp, The Rev. Louis Mahue, The Rev. Arthur Mattox, The Rev. Steven McClaskey, The Rt. Rev. Alberto Morales, The Rev. Nicholas Pierce, The Rev. Luis Gonzalez, The Rev. V. Joey Scalisi, The Rev. William Swatos, The Rev. Robert Tiling, The Rev. David Wagner, The Rev. Ronald White, The Rev. Deacon Rod Bales, The Rev. Deacon Paul Brooks, The Rev. Deacon Diane Brooks, The Rev. Deacon Dennis Brown, The Rev. Deacon Phillip Fleming, The Rev. Deacon Danny Grimes, The Rev. Deacon K. Krewer, The Rev. Deacon Joshua Miller, The Rev. Deacon William Timmons, and The Rev. Deacon Christian Whatley.
“What Bishop Buchanan either doesn’t understand, or just doesn’t want to accept,” Fr. Spencer said, “is that the Diocese of Quincy separated itself from the Episcopal Church last November. When we did that, we made it very clear that the rules and canons of the Episcopal Church no longer have any authority or control over our diocese, or our clergy.”
“By contrast,” Spencer added, “once we knew which of our clergy wanted to stay behind in the Episcopal Church, we simply released them from our clergy roster as priests and deacons in good standing. We never questioned their integrity, or their right to continue in ministry. They have not shown us the same courtesy, or respect.”
Additionally, Spencer said, Abbot Morales, Fr. Camacho Castro and Fr. Gonzalez are members of St. Benedict’s Abbey in Bartonville, an ecumenical abbey, and were never under the control of the Episcopal Church.
To add to the confusion, Spencer said, the new Episcopal diocese adopted a similar name, The Diocese of Quincy of the Episcopal Church. “But they didn’t stop there,” Spencer said. “They have put up a website that lists all the churches of our diocese as churches of their diocese. They are intentionally misleading people.” For example, the church Spencer serves, St. Francis in Lake of the Woods Plaza, Dunlap, “has nothing whatever to do with the new Episcopalian diocese. But they list St. Francis as one of their churches. They know this is false.”
At their Synod last November, the historic Diocese of Quincy, founded in 1877, realigned as a member of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone (South America). At their upcoming Synod in October, they expect to formally affiliate with the Anglican Church in North America, a new jurisdiction of some 700 churches in the U.S. and Canada who have left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada because those groups have fallen away from historic Christian teaching and discipline.
The legitimate website of the original Diocese of Quincy, Spencer says, is “Don’t accept imitations,” he said.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The Episcopal Church Faces Losses, Merges, New Movements and Increasing International Opprobrium
News Analysis
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
Sept. 21, 2009
It was not a good week for The Episcopal Church.
In fact one might say, it has been disastrous with no good news in sight; unless one views the victory flag run up by the pansexual organization Integrity saying they won everything at General Convention and it is now time to let the champagne flow. See victory celebrations here: http://www.integrityfortworth.org/main/index.htm "Integrity Celebrates Virtual Clean Sweep on GC2009 Legislative Agenda"
That might be theirs and TEC's last hurrah. Consider this.
A Church of England archdeacon (the equivalent of a TEC Suffragan Bishop) from London, who has the ear of the Archbishop of Canterbury, told an American audience of evangelical Episcopalians at Virginia Theological Seminary that The Episcopal Church has caused the greatest spiritual catastrophe since the Reformation and that the tear in the fabric of the Anglican Communion is near terminal.
The Dennis Canon has been harpooned by the state Supreme Court of South Carolina. One could forgive a jubilant Bishop Chuck Murphy (AMiA) when he declared a complete legal victory, announcing that it will have enormous implications not only for the two Episcopal dioceses in South Carolina, but for other churches throughout the U.S.A.
San Joaquin attorney Allan S. Haley weighed in on the decision, "The Dennis Canon only 'purports' to declare a trust; it does not in fact establish an effective trust under South Carolina law, because the person declaring the trust -- the national Church -- does not own the property..."
He concluded by saying that this is truly an historic decision for all Episcopal parishes in the Diocese of South Carolina and the Diocese of Upper South Carolina. "The result could see a mass exodus of parishes from the Church in that State, and a further weakening of ECUSA."
It also demonstrates that Bishop Walter Dennis was the equivalent of a Trojan Horse for the Episcopal Church (USA).
VOL has been told that at least four parishes are considering leaving the Diocese of South Carolina while one parish St. Andrews, Mt. Pleasant is going through a 40-day discernment period. Of course this ruling opens the door for the entire diocese to leave.
Weighing in on the declining situation in TEC, the newly anointed Archbishop of ACNA, the Most Rev. Robert Duncan told an Oklahoma City audience this week at St. James Anglican Church that he wants one thousand new Anglican churches planted in the U.S. and Canada. Hardly good news to the ears of Mrs. Jefferts Schori.
The evangelical catholic leader also said mainline Protestant churches are failing because they have gotten off track from the Gospel. That's putting it mildly.
A case in point of Episcopal Church failure in planting new churches was when the Rev. John Yates rector of Falls Church, VA, was told by then Virginia Bishop Peter James Lee that he was not permitted to plant churches in the area. When the parish left TEC and voted to join CANA, Yates promptly planted six new churches. If one thousand new churches are born, they might well be able to buy empty and dying Episcopal churches.
Another case in point is historic St. Stephen's in Center City Philadelphia. It has 10 people on a Sunday similar to Church of the Advocate. The Diocese of PA has the parish "on the dole" as it is too historically prominent to close officially. But come the day when the diocese runs out of money (Charles Bennison virtually bankrupted it with the purchase of Camp Wapiti), a "For Sale" will be visible in the neighborhood.
To further make the point, the Diocese of Colorado announced, that as a result of the extraordinary legal expenses associated with the property litigation involving Grace Church in Colorado Springs, their reserves have been substantially reduced. Litigation cost them $2,900,000 causing the Diocese's unrestricted reserves to decline from $4,900,000 at January 1, 2006 to a mere $750,000. The lesson for the National Church is that the only one who wins in litigation is the lawyers.
VOL revealed this week that the Diocese of New York is facing economic trials and tribulations despite a $12 million budget and may close small parishes that are no longer economically viable. One cannot sustain the unsustainable forever.
Then came the historic announcement of the launch of FCA-NA by Canon Phil Ashey, COO of the American Anglican Council, during a SEWAAC meeting at Nashotah House. He and it were greeted with thunderous applause. And why not? The American Anglican Council has applied for recognition of FCA-NA as a "Ministry Partner" of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) under its Canons. People applauded because they recognize that FCA-NA meets a need to "leave no Anglican behind."
Another blow to Katharine Jefferts Schori.
The Archbishop of Canterbury believes he can solve the Anglican Communion dilemma by offering a "two-track" solution. That is not going to fly because the Liberals and pansexualists seethe at any notion of seeing themselves as second-class Anglicans. Gene Robinson, Louie Crew and TEC's pansexualists will have none of it.
Furthermore, if the Listening Process is a "gift" to the church, orthodox Anglicans are sending it back marked "undeliverable".
Clearly the most disheartening news for TEC this week came from the Potemkin Diocese of Pittsburgh when it announced that it was seeking a merger with the Diocese of Northwestern PA. Unable to sustain itself as a legitimate diocese, it is seeking to reunite with the Episcopal Diocese of Northwestern Pennsylvania. In ecclesiastical terms it is called "juncturing" .According to a report from the diocese, this could be achieved under the provisions of Title I, canon 10, section 6 of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, 2006.
What this ultimately means is that even if the faux diocese wins the litigation over properties - the rented downtown diocesan headquarters and endowment, apparently they don't want the parishes - is a pyrrhic victory. Pittsburgh is unsustainable as a stand-alone diocese and needs to reunite with another diocese.
So, as the original diocese is now under the Province of the Southern Cone and ACNA, The Episcopal Church, in point of fact, has literally no presence in Pittsburgh. There is no Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. Poof, gone up in a cloud of ecclesiastical smoke.
People will go on worshipping in Episcopal and Anglican churches of course, but they will be unevenly and lopsidedly split between the Diocese of Northwestern PA and the Southern Cone. One more Episcopal diocese bites the dust.
To add insult to injury, The Anglican Mission in the Americas ordained three new bishops in Pasadena, CA, and plans to start planting churches right under Episcopal Bishop Jon Bruno's nose.
The Rt. Rev. Keith L. Ackerman's announced the institution of The Order of the Daughters of the Holy Cross and promptly admitted 90+ members. A joyous service was held at Holy Cross Anglican Church in Loganville, GA.
A group of Cursillo leaders from the Anglican Church in North America created a new organization, known as Anglican 4thDay, to continue Cursillo training and traditions this week. Articles of Incorporation were approved and signed, board members elected, bylaws adopted, and a first draft of the Anglican 4thDay handbook prepared and reviewed. By early 2010, it will be possible to form Anglican 4thDay branches and become full members of Cursillo through a new secretariat. "The name "Anglican 4thDay" was selected as it best symbolizes the Cursillo experience, which begins with small group interactions and leads to a three-day retreat," said a news release from ACNA.
All in all, it was not a good week for TEC. The Episcopal Church is reaping what it has sown and is still sowing. The old order is dying. A new order is being born. Truly God is not mocked.
END
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
Sept. 21, 2009
It was not a good week for The Episcopal Church.
In fact one might say, it has been disastrous with no good news in sight; unless one views the victory flag run up by the pansexual organization Integrity saying they won everything at General Convention and it is now time to let the champagne flow. See victory celebrations here: http://www.integrityfortworth.org/main/index.htm "Integrity Celebrates Virtual Clean Sweep on GC2009 Legislative Agenda"
That might be theirs and TEC's last hurrah. Consider this.
A Church of England archdeacon (the equivalent of a TEC Suffragan Bishop) from London, who has the ear of the Archbishop of Canterbury, told an American audience of evangelical Episcopalians at Virginia Theological Seminary that The Episcopal Church has caused the greatest spiritual catastrophe since the Reformation and that the tear in the fabric of the Anglican Communion is near terminal.
The Dennis Canon has been harpooned by the state Supreme Court of South Carolina. One could forgive a jubilant Bishop Chuck Murphy (AMiA) when he declared a complete legal victory, announcing that it will have enormous implications not only for the two Episcopal dioceses in South Carolina, but for other churches throughout the U.S.A.
San Joaquin attorney Allan S. Haley weighed in on the decision, "The Dennis Canon only 'purports' to declare a trust; it does not in fact establish an effective trust under South Carolina law, because the person declaring the trust -- the national Church -- does not own the property..."
He concluded by saying that this is truly an historic decision for all Episcopal parishes in the Diocese of South Carolina and the Diocese of Upper South Carolina. "The result could see a mass exodus of parishes from the Church in that State, and a further weakening of ECUSA."
It also demonstrates that Bishop Walter Dennis was the equivalent of a Trojan Horse for the Episcopal Church (USA).
VOL has been told that at least four parishes are considering leaving the Diocese of South Carolina while one parish St. Andrews, Mt. Pleasant is going through a 40-day discernment period. Of course this ruling opens the door for the entire diocese to leave.
Weighing in on the declining situation in TEC, the newly anointed Archbishop of ACNA, the Most Rev. Robert Duncan told an Oklahoma City audience this week at St. James Anglican Church that he wants one thousand new Anglican churches planted in the U.S. and Canada. Hardly good news to the ears of Mrs. Jefferts Schori.
The evangelical catholic leader also said mainline Protestant churches are failing because they have gotten off track from the Gospel. That's putting it mildly.
A case in point of Episcopal Church failure in planting new churches was when the Rev. John Yates rector of Falls Church, VA, was told by then Virginia Bishop Peter James Lee that he was not permitted to plant churches in the area. When the parish left TEC and voted to join CANA, Yates promptly planted six new churches. If one thousand new churches are born, they might well be able to buy empty and dying Episcopal churches.
Another case in point is historic St. Stephen's in Center City Philadelphia. It has 10 people on a Sunday similar to Church of the Advocate. The Diocese of PA has the parish "on the dole" as it is too historically prominent to close officially. But come the day when the diocese runs out of money (Charles Bennison virtually bankrupted it with the purchase of Camp Wapiti), a "For Sale" will be visible in the neighborhood.
To further make the point, the Diocese of Colorado announced, that as a result of the extraordinary legal expenses associated with the property litigation involving Grace Church in Colorado Springs, their reserves have been substantially reduced. Litigation cost them $2,900,000 causing the Diocese's unrestricted reserves to decline from $4,900,000 at January 1, 2006 to a mere $750,000. The lesson for the National Church is that the only one who wins in litigation is the lawyers.
VOL revealed this week that the Diocese of New York is facing economic trials and tribulations despite a $12 million budget and may close small parishes that are no longer economically viable. One cannot sustain the unsustainable forever.
Then came the historic announcement of the launch of FCA-NA by Canon Phil Ashey, COO of the American Anglican Council, during a SEWAAC meeting at Nashotah House. He and it were greeted with thunderous applause. And why not? The American Anglican Council has applied for recognition of FCA-NA as a "Ministry Partner" of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) under its Canons. People applauded because they recognize that FCA-NA meets a need to "leave no Anglican behind."
Another blow to Katharine Jefferts Schori.
The Archbishop of Canterbury believes he can solve the Anglican Communion dilemma by offering a "two-track" solution. That is not going to fly because the Liberals and pansexualists seethe at any notion of seeing themselves as second-class Anglicans. Gene Robinson, Louie Crew and TEC's pansexualists will have none of it.
Furthermore, if the Listening Process is a "gift" to the church, orthodox Anglicans are sending it back marked "undeliverable".
Clearly the most disheartening news for TEC this week came from the Potemkin Diocese of Pittsburgh when it announced that it was seeking a merger with the Diocese of Northwestern PA. Unable to sustain itself as a legitimate diocese, it is seeking to reunite with the Episcopal Diocese of Northwestern Pennsylvania. In ecclesiastical terms it is called "juncturing" .According to a report from the diocese, this could be achieved under the provisions of Title I, canon 10, section 6 of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, 2006.
What this ultimately means is that even if the faux diocese wins the litigation over properties - the rented downtown diocesan headquarters and endowment, apparently they don't want the parishes - is a pyrrhic victory. Pittsburgh is unsustainable as a stand-alone diocese and needs to reunite with another diocese.
So, as the original diocese is now under the Province of the Southern Cone and ACNA, The Episcopal Church, in point of fact, has literally no presence in Pittsburgh. There is no Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. Poof, gone up in a cloud of ecclesiastical smoke.
People will go on worshipping in Episcopal and Anglican churches of course, but they will be unevenly and lopsidedly split between the Diocese of Northwestern PA and the Southern Cone. One more Episcopal diocese bites the dust.
To add insult to injury, The Anglican Mission in the Americas ordained three new bishops in Pasadena, CA, and plans to start planting churches right under Episcopal Bishop Jon Bruno's nose.
The Rt. Rev. Keith L. Ackerman's announced the institution of The Order of the Daughters of the Holy Cross and promptly admitted 90+ members. A joyous service was held at Holy Cross Anglican Church in Loganville, GA.
A group of Cursillo leaders from the Anglican Church in North America created a new organization, known as Anglican 4thDay, to continue Cursillo training and traditions this week. Articles of Incorporation were approved and signed, board members elected, bylaws adopted, and a first draft of the Anglican 4thDay handbook prepared and reviewed. By early 2010, it will be possible to form Anglican 4thDay branches and become full members of Cursillo through a new secretariat. "The name "Anglican 4thDay" was selected as it best symbolizes the Cursillo experience, which begins with small group interactions and leads to a three-day retreat," said a news release from ACNA.
All in all, it was not a good week for TEC. The Episcopal Church is reaping what it has sown and is still sowing. The old order is dying. A new order is being born. Truly God is not mocked.
END
DCNY: Thoroughly LIberal
Louie Crew has put up the votes for the two controversial resolutions at this summer's General Convention. D025 pertains to electing sexually active homosexuals to the episcopate and D056 is about same sex blessings. Crew has published data provided by the General Convention office and it enumerates that the delegation for the Diocese of Central New York voted completely for these two resolutions that the Archbishop of Canterbury cautioned the GC not to pass. The DCNY bishop, clergy delegates and lay delegates all voted for these resolutions. Delegations from other dioceses were divided, in some delegations clergy delegates differed from lay delegates, but not for the DCNY. The ABC in his reflections on GC said that pecusa is walking further away from the Anglican Communion. As a result pecusa may earn a second class status in the Anglican Communion. The DCNY delegation is a party to the possible demotion of pecusa. I thought you might like to know this.
A better future for the Anglican Communion?
From Thinking Anglicans:
Saturday, 19 September 2009
Ekklesia has published a detailed analysis of Rowan Williams’ recent Reflections paper, written by Savi Hensman. {http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2502}
See A better future for the Anglican Communion?
Here’s the abstract:
Rowan Williams has recently proposed major changes in the way the Anglican Communion is organised. Because of growing willingness in the Episcopal Church (TEC) to recognise the status and ministry of lesbian and gay people, and the global disagreement on this issue, he is putting forward a “two-track” approach. Provinces such as TEC in North America would not be able to carry out certain functions such as representing the Anglican Communion in ecumenical circles, while those which signed up to a Covenant would have a more central position. This research paper describes the background, examines the evidence on which the Archbishop’s main points are based, discusses their implications, and corrects some mistaken assumptions about history and practice. Inter alia it tackles a number of key theological issues. It suggests that a two-level Communion would be practically and spiritually harmful and suggests a different approach, less focused on institutional structures, that could be more effective in addressing divisions and ultimately enabling Anglicans to move towards a deeper unity.
Saturday, 19 September 2009
Ekklesia has published a detailed analysis of Rowan Williams’ recent Reflections paper, written by Savi Hensman. {http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2502}
See A better future for the Anglican Communion?
Here’s the abstract:
Rowan Williams has recently proposed major changes in the way the Anglican Communion is organised. Because of growing willingness in the Episcopal Church (TEC) to recognise the status and ministry of lesbian and gay people, and the global disagreement on this issue, he is putting forward a “two-track” approach. Provinces such as TEC in North America would not be able to carry out certain functions such as representing the Anglican Communion in ecumenical circles, while those which signed up to a Covenant would have a more central position. This research paper describes the background, examines the evidence on which the Archbishop’s main points are based, discusses their implications, and corrects some mistaken assumptions about history and practice. Inter alia it tackles a number of key theological issues. It suggests that a two-level Communion would be practically and spiritually harmful and suggests a different approach, less focused on institutional structures, that could be more effective in addressing divisions and ultimately enabling Anglicans to move towards a deeper unity.
“It seems good to us and the Holy Spirit”: The “Us” of General Convention
From Covenant Communion via Stand Firm and Anglican Mainstream:
August 6th, 2009
By Ephraim Radner, Covenant
The more sinful the church, the more that church is reducible to the descriptions of the social scientists, the more “merely” it functions just as any other organization…. So, the theological analysis that does indeed need to be done, should includes this question: which ecclesiology are we now to grasp after, one oriented to our sin or one oriented to our redemption?
Let us leave aside the substantive theological aspects of the recent Episcopal Church General Convention. They are important, of course. But I am interested here in the dynamics of decision-making that underlay the way things turned out. I am interested because these “transactional” aspects, as some call them, may tell us a lot about the future. And we are hearing a lot about these aspects from the Convention: it was surprisingly “respectful”, many have reported; it was engaged without “acrimony” and “contention”, and despite the momentous topics addressed, people were calm and relatively relaxed. All very different from past conventions, with their hand-wringing, protests, weeping and gnashing of teeth. “Where are all the passionate arguments?” many wondered, breathing a slightly uncomfortable sigh of relief. The explanations for the relative peace breaking out varied: some said that the traditionalists of TEC’ had all been “purged” or disappeared or were simply too exhausted and defeated to raise a ruckus; others said that the church had finally moved to a real “consensus” about previously contested matters of sexuality. “This is who we are!”, the Convention could finally say with some coherence.
The “purging” and the “consensus” explanations are probably both right to some degree. But it is a complicated overlap that merits some reflection. This is what I want to offer now. I have been doing some reading of late on the matter of how church councils “decide” things. And inevitably I have had to delve into some of the social scientific literature on related topics. There are two writers in particular who, I think, have something to say about this particular council we call the General Convention that has just met. And applying some of their broad insights can indeed, I suggest, help us to map the future a little bit.
Here, then, are some of the major elements of their thinking that may be pertinent, which I can lay out in the most generalized of ways.
The first thinker in question is Serge Moscovici, a well-known French social psychologist, who did some important experimental and theoretical work from the 1960’s through the 1980’s on “consensus” in organizations both small and large. (I am thinking here of his 1992/1994 book, written with Willem Doise, called Conflict and Consensus: A General Theory of Collective Decisions.) One of Moscovici’s goals was to counter the then (and still) widespread presupposition that healthy group decision-making tends to “converge” towards the middle, leaving the extreme views of participants aside as the majority moves through discussion and compromise to a more central outlook. But one of the consequences of this postulate of moderated convergence, Moscovici argued, has been the tendency of group leadership to drive out extreme views, wary of their power to upset things. This can be done in many ways, through discouragement, disenfranchisement, shame, manipulation and so on. But it happens rather forcefully in many groups.
And the consequences of excluding “extreme” views, on the basis of some assumption that consensus represents a “moderated convergence”, Moscovici claims, have been generally disastrous on several counts. First, such exclusion tends to limit participation in decision-making altogether: more and more people “abstain” from participation, assuming that their views will not be heard in any case. This means that decisions once reached, while they appear to have few objections voiced against them, are only uncertainly representative of a broad consensus: who really knows what people agree with, if many say or do nothing at all? The corollary of abstention – something one sees even in broad democracies like the United States – is the concentration of decision-making in smaller and smaller hands. Moscovici calls this consolidation a form of “combination”, where smaller units of expertise “combine” in determining consensus. But no matter how competent these experts may be – experts in knowledge, in interest, in activist skills – their decision-making tendencies will be increasingly insulated from alternative views, with the end result of, shall we say, blindness in the face of complex problems. Ironically, the postulate of “moderated convergence” ends by establishing extremism at least in terms of wisdom and prudence. Political examples from the discernment and decision-making around Pearl Harbor, the Korean War, the Bay of Pigs and so on have been widely studied on this matter: smart people, buffered from alternative views (because “extremist”), taking what turn out to be disastrous courses of action.
Moscovici himself, along with others, did experiments and collected data that demonstrated that the postulate of moderated convergence is in fact not the freest, and in his view healthiest, way of reaching consensus. Given relatively un-coerced or un-manipulated parameters of action, groups tend to reach consensus, not through lopping off extreme views and inching towards the middle through compromise. Rather, a relatively free decision-making process will engage in vital wrestling with extreme views, and that engagement will often end by coalescing around some version of an extreme view itself! In other words, as extreme and divergent views are permitted and deliberately engaged over time with freedom from constraint, people actually learn things and change their minds, and a more creative consensus emerges that tends to be more decisive, yet also more aware, in its understanding of what is at stake and what the risks and opportunities actually are. One of the main issues that comes from this kind of research is this: how organize decision-making so as to encourage this form of creative consensus? Leaving aside the theological aspects of this matter, the question is surely timely for churches!.
The second thinker I have found helpful in reflecting on church councils is better known in the United States, and that is Albert O. Hirschman, economist and social scientist. One of Hirschman’s most popular books is called Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Response to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Published in 1970, the book has been revisited several times since, by Hirschman himself among others. The book’s argument is simple and elegant, but also complex in its implications. In general, Hirschman argues, the real or perceived “decline” in an organization’s quality can be identified and responded to in two ways: by leaving (“exit”) or by “voicing” criticism and reform. This is true with respect to an organization’s membership (e.g. employees) or by “consumers” of an organization’s goods. In real life, of course, “exit” is not always possible (imagine citizens of a closed and coercive society) or easy, and “voice” is not always clearly granted or used. Exit requires available alternatives, and voice requires available procedures. Furthermore, as these two elements exist along a spectrum, response itself can become subtle.
Hirschman, finally, adds a third element in his mix, and that is “loyalty”, a kind of internal psychological or cultural component that informs a participant’s understanding and use of available means of exit and voice. After all, if someone is utterly committed to an organization – say, a political party – “decline” itself will be read in certain ways that mitigate the utilization of available means of exit and voice.
Hirschman’s concepts could be used to argue for the appropriateness of “monopolies” in certain circumstances, e.g. public schools, on the basis of the need to maintain the “voiced” participation of citizens in generalized education, rather than diluting such education through easy exit and multiple choices that no longer offer contexts of accountability. But his categories are also obviously relevant to organizations like churches.
So now let us take some of these ideas and move backwards, as it were, from the recently concluded General Convention. It is obvious that there are fewer traditionalists within the ranks of General Convention deputations and within the House of Bishops. The proportional voting breakdowns on key resolutions regarding sexuality point this out. Yet it is also the case that even here – within the 3-1 proportions of progressive to traditionalist groups – the “voicing” of objections was even less prominent, and the character of “abstention” more looming. At one point in the debate, it was reported, a liberal bishop said he was “uneasy” that there were so few conservatives coming up to the mike. What can account for this?
Most obviously, we know that traditionalists have left the Episcopal Church. But do we actually know how many? And, do we know whether the delegates to General Convention proportionately “represent” the actual viewpoints of TEC’s broader membership? How would we know? It would appear that TEC’s obvious and rather significant loss of membership is a sign of exit. Is the exit a sign of loss of “voice” as well? In which case, we are dealing, not with something that has happened decisively at the 2009 General Convention, but of something that has been happening over the course of several years: perceived decline in the church, voiced dissent, frustration, abstention, exit, and the disappearance of one set of “extreme views”.
We can try to test this possibility. The largest recent “exits” from TEC, obviously, came after the 2003 Convention. Yet why did so many choose to leave at that time rather than stay as “dissident reformers” who raised their voices against what they perceived to be the “decline” of TEC? According to Hirschman’s theory, there are several factors working together: the perceived loss of voice, the availability of alternatives through exit, and a weakened set of constraining loyalties. If this is so, it points us back further, then, perhaps to the formation of the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), in 2000. It was at this time, after all, that a clear set of alternatives for exit was established, according to a model that was then followed after 2003: foreign jurisdictions taking departing clergy, congregations, and finally dioceses under their wing, and so somehow maintaining “Anglican Communion” identity (unlike earlier “continuing churches” of “exiting” members). But what of voice and loyalty?
Here we come to the most interesting aspect of this history. Clearly traditionalist voices were losing ground for some time before 2000. Why else would departures have been organized? At the same time, however, ties of loyalty among traditionalists to TEC were also being weakened. How and when did this happen? I would identify two aspects – education and mission – that focus the matter in the 1970’s. (I might also point to matters of Prayer Book revision and woman’s ordination, but I am less convinced that the numbers would bear these two aspects out as being of the same importance.) The founding of Trinity School for Ministry in 1976, with Alfred Stanway as its first dean, represents just this focus. The seminary was started, as we know, out of a perceived need to regain a more “orthodox’ evangelical educational foothold in the Episcopal Church, and also to nourish and renewed missionary commitment and skill set.
Both of these elements, the founders believed, were in “decline” within TEC. But this perception arose from an orientation that had been formed very explicitly by the Charismatic-Evangelical movement that had grown up in the earlier part of the decade.
I believe that a polarizing dynamic took root just at this point in the church, and took root decisively. When I began work in 1981 as an appointed missionary of the Episcopal Church (working in Burundi), I entered a world, organized from the national offices at 815 Second Avenue, New York, that was deeply suspicious of Charismatic-Evangelicals. I know this, because at the time I shared the suspicion and engaged the dynamics of that suspicion! But I was experiencing something that had already embedded itself in the outlook of church leaders. TEC had shrunk its missionary support enormously by this time, a process that began in the 1960’s, for a host of ideological, not to mention simple practical reasons. Although one ought rightly to look at the theological shifts of the church that began in the 1950’s and earlier, the dynamics of missionary and educational struggle only emerged in the 1970’s. And this seems to me to be the cross-roads of decision-making for our church. The question I would then ask is Moscovici’s: what were the dynamics of consensus that took over then, such that abstention and exit became the major choices adopted by traditionalists within the church?
What I would suggest is the following. The advent of the Charismatic-Evangelical revival within the Episcopal Church, which ended by focusing upon education and mission, was something new to the church. (“Evangelicalism” among Episcopalians, insofar as it existed at all, meant something quite different before the 1970’s.) The Charismatic-Evangelical movement represented an “extreme” set of views, that came into conflict with both earlier “traditional’ Episcopal outlooks, but also with the liberal drift in theological education and mission that was already a strong current within the church. And, quite frankly, the decision-making structures of the church did not know what to do with this movement. It was, as George Sumner has put it, a new “Methodist moment” for Anglicanism especially in North America. And nothing was learned from the past! Consciously or unconsciously, the executive network of the Eipscopal Church sought to exclude the role of Charismatic-Evangelicals within the ordering centers of power, especially the executive power of the national headquarters this contrasts with the Church of England).
At the same time, the Charismatic-Evangelical movement itself shifted more and more in a broader cultural evangelical direction, flourished in many areas, and attracted new members whose “loyalty” to the specifically “Episcopal Church” was thin. Indeed, ecclesial loyalty in general began to thin out in the 1970’s and 1980’s, in all sectors of TEC’s membership, as the more consumerist approach to spiritual commitment (or “fulfillment”) became embedded in American religious culture. But the point is this: the advent of the sexuality debate within TEC arrived within a decision-making system in which two realities were now well-established. First, what had were viewed as “conservative” viewpoints were already colored by the suspicions of extremism (the common epithetic of conservatives as “fundamentalists” goes back to the 1970’s and has gained steam) and were therefore held at bay. Having discussions in the church always foundered on this prejudice. And second, thin ecclesial loyalties were ready for alternate choices as they became available. From 2000 on, this becomes the recipe for exit by traditionalists, and “combination” consensus by an insular progressive elite.
All of this is conjecture, I realize. And none of it is particularly relevant to our current situation except insofar as it points to the future. Here Moscovici’s theories lay out a path of somewhat discouraging potential. As traditionalists leave TEC, consensus decision-making will prove more and more devoid of accountable divergent thinking, and the decisions made will become less and less informed and representative. This spells danger and self-destruction for the Episcopal Church. Alas, though, the same is true for the exiting groups. From the perspective of decision-making, the loss of divergent thinking will affect traditionalists who leave TEC as negatively in their own sphere as the liberal church they have left behind: alternative views will be suspect as “extreme” and councils “buffered” from their effects; small groups of decision-makers will prevail over the engagement of broad participation; and, just as importantly, the existence of multiple and available choices will spur exit over loyalty. American Anglicanism has never appeared so vulnerable as now (Canada is just a few steps behind).
A warning, then, a warning to all world Anglicans! All you who pass by! Do not touch the American disease! Too many choices, too many fears, insecurities and enmities, too few loyalties. The Anglican Communion cannot turn into an enclave. That is not what Christian communion embodies. Yet, should it simply split apart, it will become a set of enclaves, spreading their little seeds of insularity.
Of course, I have been deliberately avoiding any theological analysis here. Are churches merely social organizations, to be described according to (debatable) transactional models? What of God’s purposes and the promises of Christ? What of the power of the Holy Spirit? What of the Way, the Truth, and the Life as absolutely given? My guess is that the more sinful the church, the more that church is reducible to the descriptions of the social scientists, the more “merely” it functions just as any other organization. That is my guess. But sin is forgivable, and grace is given. So, the theological analysis that does indeed need to be done, should includes this question: which ecclesiology are we now to grasp after, one oriented to our sin or one oriented to our redemption? Or is it even possible to distinguish the two any longer?
August 6th, 2009
By Ephraim Radner, Covenant
The more sinful the church, the more that church is reducible to the descriptions of the social scientists, the more “merely” it functions just as any other organization…. So, the theological analysis that does indeed need to be done, should includes this question: which ecclesiology are we now to grasp after, one oriented to our sin or one oriented to our redemption?
Let us leave aside the substantive theological aspects of the recent Episcopal Church General Convention. They are important, of course. But I am interested here in the dynamics of decision-making that underlay the way things turned out. I am interested because these “transactional” aspects, as some call them, may tell us a lot about the future. And we are hearing a lot about these aspects from the Convention: it was surprisingly “respectful”, many have reported; it was engaged without “acrimony” and “contention”, and despite the momentous topics addressed, people were calm and relatively relaxed. All very different from past conventions, with their hand-wringing, protests, weeping and gnashing of teeth. “Where are all the passionate arguments?” many wondered, breathing a slightly uncomfortable sigh of relief. The explanations for the relative peace breaking out varied: some said that the traditionalists of TEC’ had all been “purged” or disappeared or were simply too exhausted and defeated to raise a ruckus; others said that the church had finally moved to a real “consensus” about previously contested matters of sexuality. “This is who we are!”, the Convention could finally say with some coherence.
The “purging” and the “consensus” explanations are probably both right to some degree. But it is a complicated overlap that merits some reflection. This is what I want to offer now. I have been doing some reading of late on the matter of how church councils “decide” things. And inevitably I have had to delve into some of the social scientific literature on related topics. There are two writers in particular who, I think, have something to say about this particular council we call the General Convention that has just met. And applying some of their broad insights can indeed, I suggest, help us to map the future a little bit.
Here, then, are some of the major elements of their thinking that may be pertinent, which I can lay out in the most generalized of ways.
The first thinker in question is Serge Moscovici, a well-known French social psychologist, who did some important experimental and theoretical work from the 1960’s through the 1980’s on “consensus” in organizations both small and large. (I am thinking here of his 1992/1994 book, written with Willem Doise, called Conflict and Consensus: A General Theory of Collective Decisions.) One of Moscovici’s goals was to counter the then (and still) widespread presupposition that healthy group decision-making tends to “converge” towards the middle, leaving the extreme views of participants aside as the majority moves through discussion and compromise to a more central outlook. But one of the consequences of this postulate of moderated convergence, Moscovici argued, has been the tendency of group leadership to drive out extreme views, wary of their power to upset things. This can be done in many ways, through discouragement, disenfranchisement, shame, manipulation and so on. But it happens rather forcefully in many groups.
And the consequences of excluding “extreme” views, on the basis of some assumption that consensus represents a “moderated convergence”, Moscovici claims, have been generally disastrous on several counts. First, such exclusion tends to limit participation in decision-making altogether: more and more people “abstain” from participation, assuming that their views will not be heard in any case. This means that decisions once reached, while they appear to have few objections voiced against them, are only uncertainly representative of a broad consensus: who really knows what people agree with, if many say or do nothing at all? The corollary of abstention – something one sees even in broad democracies like the United States – is the concentration of decision-making in smaller and smaller hands. Moscovici calls this consolidation a form of “combination”, where smaller units of expertise “combine” in determining consensus. But no matter how competent these experts may be – experts in knowledge, in interest, in activist skills – their decision-making tendencies will be increasingly insulated from alternative views, with the end result of, shall we say, blindness in the face of complex problems. Ironically, the postulate of “moderated convergence” ends by establishing extremism at least in terms of wisdom and prudence. Political examples from the discernment and decision-making around Pearl Harbor, the Korean War, the Bay of Pigs and so on have been widely studied on this matter: smart people, buffered from alternative views (because “extremist”), taking what turn out to be disastrous courses of action.
Moscovici himself, along with others, did experiments and collected data that demonstrated that the postulate of moderated convergence is in fact not the freest, and in his view healthiest, way of reaching consensus. Given relatively un-coerced or un-manipulated parameters of action, groups tend to reach consensus, not through lopping off extreme views and inching towards the middle through compromise. Rather, a relatively free decision-making process will engage in vital wrestling with extreme views, and that engagement will often end by coalescing around some version of an extreme view itself! In other words, as extreme and divergent views are permitted and deliberately engaged over time with freedom from constraint, people actually learn things and change their minds, and a more creative consensus emerges that tends to be more decisive, yet also more aware, in its understanding of what is at stake and what the risks and opportunities actually are. One of the main issues that comes from this kind of research is this: how organize decision-making so as to encourage this form of creative consensus? Leaving aside the theological aspects of this matter, the question is surely timely for churches!.
The second thinker I have found helpful in reflecting on church councils is better known in the United States, and that is Albert O. Hirschman, economist and social scientist. One of Hirschman’s most popular books is called Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Response to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Published in 1970, the book has been revisited several times since, by Hirschman himself among others. The book’s argument is simple and elegant, but also complex in its implications. In general, Hirschman argues, the real or perceived “decline” in an organization’s quality can be identified and responded to in two ways: by leaving (“exit”) or by “voicing” criticism and reform. This is true with respect to an organization’s membership (e.g. employees) or by “consumers” of an organization’s goods. In real life, of course, “exit” is not always possible (imagine citizens of a closed and coercive society) or easy, and “voice” is not always clearly granted or used. Exit requires available alternatives, and voice requires available procedures. Furthermore, as these two elements exist along a spectrum, response itself can become subtle.
Hirschman, finally, adds a third element in his mix, and that is “loyalty”, a kind of internal psychological or cultural component that informs a participant’s understanding and use of available means of exit and voice. After all, if someone is utterly committed to an organization – say, a political party – “decline” itself will be read in certain ways that mitigate the utilization of available means of exit and voice.
Hirschman’s concepts could be used to argue for the appropriateness of “monopolies” in certain circumstances, e.g. public schools, on the basis of the need to maintain the “voiced” participation of citizens in generalized education, rather than diluting such education through easy exit and multiple choices that no longer offer contexts of accountability. But his categories are also obviously relevant to organizations like churches.
So now let us take some of these ideas and move backwards, as it were, from the recently concluded General Convention. It is obvious that there are fewer traditionalists within the ranks of General Convention deputations and within the House of Bishops. The proportional voting breakdowns on key resolutions regarding sexuality point this out. Yet it is also the case that even here – within the 3-1 proportions of progressive to traditionalist groups – the “voicing” of objections was even less prominent, and the character of “abstention” more looming. At one point in the debate, it was reported, a liberal bishop said he was “uneasy” that there were so few conservatives coming up to the mike. What can account for this?
Most obviously, we know that traditionalists have left the Episcopal Church. But do we actually know how many? And, do we know whether the delegates to General Convention proportionately “represent” the actual viewpoints of TEC’s broader membership? How would we know? It would appear that TEC’s obvious and rather significant loss of membership is a sign of exit. Is the exit a sign of loss of “voice” as well? In which case, we are dealing, not with something that has happened decisively at the 2009 General Convention, but of something that has been happening over the course of several years: perceived decline in the church, voiced dissent, frustration, abstention, exit, and the disappearance of one set of “extreme views”.
We can try to test this possibility. The largest recent “exits” from TEC, obviously, came after the 2003 Convention. Yet why did so many choose to leave at that time rather than stay as “dissident reformers” who raised their voices against what they perceived to be the “decline” of TEC? According to Hirschman’s theory, there are several factors working together: the perceived loss of voice, the availability of alternatives through exit, and a weakened set of constraining loyalties. If this is so, it points us back further, then, perhaps to the formation of the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), in 2000. It was at this time, after all, that a clear set of alternatives for exit was established, according to a model that was then followed after 2003: foreign jurisdictions taking departing clergy, congregations, and finally dioceses under their wing, and so somehow maintaining “Anglican Communion” identity (unlike earlier “continuing churches” of “exiting” members). But what of voice and loyalty?
Here we come to the most interesting aspect of this history. Clearly traditionalist voices were losing ground for some time before 2000. Why else would departures have been organized? At the same time, however, ties of loyalty among traditionalists to TEC were also being weakened. How and when did this happen? I would identify two aspects – education and mission – that focus the matter in the 1970’s. (I might also point to matters of Prayer Book revision and woman’s ordination, but I am less convinced that the numbers would bear these two aspects out as being of the same importance.) The founding of Trinity School for Ministry in 1976, with Alfred Stanway as its first dean, represents just this focus. The seminary was started, as we know, out of a perceived need to regain a more “orthodox’ evangelical educational foothold in the Episcopal Church, and also to nourish and renewed missionary commitment and skill set.
Both of these elements, the founders believed, were in “decline” within TEC. But this perception arose from an orientation that had been formed very explicitly by the Charismatic-Evangelical movement that had grown up in the earlier part of the decade.
I believe that a polarizing dynamic took root just at this point in the church, and took root decisively. When I began work in 1981 as an appointed missionary of the Episcopal Church (working in Burundi), I entered a world, organized from the national offices at 815 Second Avenue, New York, that was deeply suspicious of Charismatic-Evangelicals. I know this, because at the time I shared the suspicion and engaged the dynamics of that suspicion! But I was experiencing something that had already embedded itself in the outlook of church leaders. TEC had shrunk its missionary support enormously by this time, a process that began in the 1960’s, for a host of ideological, not to mention simple practical reasons. Although one ought rightly to look at the theological shifts of the church that began in the 1950’s and earlier, the dynamics of missionary and educational struggle only emerged in the 1970’s. And this seems to me to be the cross-roads of decision-making for our church. The question I would then ask is Moscovici’s: what were the dynamics of consensus that took over then, such that abstention and exit became the major choices adopted by traditionalists within the church?
What I would suggest is the following. The advent of the Charismatic-Evangelical revival within the Episcopal Church, which ended by focusing upon education and mission, was something new to the church. (“Evangelicalism” among Episcopalians, insofar as it existed at all, meant something quite different before the 1970’s.) The Charismatic-Evangelical movement represented an “extreme” set of views, that came into conflict with both earlier “traditional’ Episcopal outlooks, but also with the liberal drift in theological education and mission that was already a strong current within the church. And, quite frankly, the decision-making structures of the church did not know what to do with this movement. It was, as George Sumner has put it, a new “Methodist moment” for Anglicanism especially in North America. And nothing was learned from the past! Consciously or unconsciously, the executive network of the Eipscopal Church sought to exclude the role of Charismatic-Evangelicals within the ordering centers of power, especially the executive power of the national headquarters this contrasts with the Church of England).
At the same time, the Charismatic-Evangelical movement itself shifted more and more in a broader cultural evangelical direction, flourished in many areas, and attracted new members whose “loyalty” to the specifically “Episcopal Church” was thin. Indeed, ecclesial loyalty in general began to thin out in the 1970’s and 1980’s, in all sectors of TEC’s membership, as the more consumerist approach to spiritual commitment (or “fulfillment”) became embedded in American religious culture. But the point is this: the advent of the sexuality debate within TEC arrived within a decision-making system in which two realities were now well-established. First, what had were viewed as “conservative” viewpoints were already colored by the suspicions of extremism (the common epithetic of conservatives as “fundamentalists” goes back to the 1970’s and has gained steam) and were therefore held at bay. Having discussions in the church always foundered on this prejudice. And second, thin ecclesial loyalties were ready for alternate choices as they became available. From 2000 on, this becomes the recipe for exit by traditionalists, and “combination” consensus by an insular progressive elite.
All of this is conjecture, I realize. And none of it is particularly relevant to our current situation except insofar as it points to the future. Here Moscovici’s theories lay out a path of somewhat discouraging potential. As traditionalists leave TEC, consensus decision-making will prove more and more devoid of accountable divergent thinking, and the decisions made will become less and less informed and representative. This spells danger and self-destruction for the Episcopal Church. Alas, though, the same is true for the exiting groups. From the perspective of decision-making, the loss of divergent thinking will affect traditionalists who leave TEC as negatively in their own sphere as the liberal church they have left behind: alternative views will be suspect as “extreme” and councils “buffered” from their effects; small groups of decision-makers will prevail over the engagement of broad participation; and, just as importantly, the existence of multiple and available choices will spur exit over loyalty. American Anglicanism has never appeared so vulnerable as now (Canada is just a few steps behind).
A warning, then, a warning to all world Anglicans! All you who pass by! Do not touch the American disease! Too many choices, too many fears, insecurities and enmities, too few loyalties. The Anglican Communion cannot turn into an enclave. That is not what Christian communion embodies. Yet, should it simply split apart, it will become a set of enclaves, spreading their little seeds of insularity.
Of course, I have been deliberately avoiding any theological analysis here. Are churches merely social organizations, to be described according to (debatable) transactional models? What of God’s purposes and the promises of Christ? What of the power of the Holy Spirit? What of the Way, the Truth, and the Life as absolutely given? My guess is that the more sinful the church, the more that church is reducible to the descriptions of the social scientists, the more “merely” it functions just as any other organization. That is my guess. But sin is forgivable, and grace is given. So, the theological analysis that does indeed need to be done, should includes this question: which ecclesiology are we now to grasp after, one oriented to our sin or one oriented to our redemption? Or is it even possible to distinguish the two any longer?
Episcopal Diocese of Colorado loses millions in "extraordinary litigation expenses" and investment losses
From BabyBlue via TitusOneNine:
"As a result of the extraordinary legal expenses associated with the property litigation involving Grace Church in Colorado Springs our reserves have been substantially reduced. Such litigation totalled $2,900,000. The combination of withdrawals for litigation expenditures and the stock market decline have caused the Diocesan unrestricted reserves to decline from $4,900,000 at January 1, 2006 to $750,000 currently. This decline has also lead to a significant decrease in the investment income to be received from these reserves in 2010."
From the Diocese of Colorado, Proposed Budget 2010
"As a result of the extraordinary legal expenses associated with the property litigation involving Grace Church in Colorado Springs our reserves have been substantially reduced. Such litigation totalled $2,900,000. The combination of withdrawals for litigation expenditures and the stock market decline have caused the Diocesan unrestricted reserves to decline from $4,900,000 at January 1, 2006 to $750,000 currently. This decline has also lead to a significant decrease in the investment income to be received from these reserves in 2010."
From the Diocese of Colorado, Proposed Budget 2010
Monday, September 21, 2009
OKLAHOMA: Anglican archbishop Robert Duncan visits Oklahoma City
Via VirtueOnline:
BY CARLA HINTON
http://newsok.com/anglican-archbishop-visits-city/article/3402102
September 19, 2009
The leader of a newly formed Anglican denomination said mainline Protestant churches are failing because they have gotten off track from the Gospel.
The Most Rev. Robert Duncan, archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America, said his new denomination won't join those who have faltered.
During a Sept. 13 visit to Oklahoma City, Duncan said he and other leaders are aiming to plant 1,000 churches in the U.S. and Canada.
Duncan, 61, presided over services at St. James Anglican Church, 204 SW 104. He was elected leader at the denomination's inaugural assembly in June at Bedford, Texas.
Now part of the new religious group, St. James Anglican leaders said they were pleased when Duncan decided to make a side trip to worship with their local congregation.
The Rev. Vern Caswell, 48, the church's senior pastor, said Duncan ordained him as an Anglican deacon in Pittsburg, Pa., specifically to lead the then-fledgling St. James church. The church split from the Episcopal Church USA in 2004 but wanted to retain membership in the global Anglican Communion.
"This congregation was sort of the guinea pig for all the things that would come up," Caswell said. "God has just moved with us, and He has blessed us every step of the way."
Duncan, who lives in Pittsburg, spoke to about 70 people attending a question-and-answer forum.
He told The Oklahoman that he would be meeting with other leaders of the new denomination at a summit in Plano, Texas. He said he and the leaders planned to develop church-planting strategies to ensure that the Anglican Church in North America successfully fulfills its challenge "to retake America for the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
He said about nine of 38 dioceses in the Anglican Communion have recognized the new denomination, particularly the communion's largest dioceses in Africa. He said the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has "squandered the stewardship of what he's been given" as the communion's leader, referring to the global Anglican community, which is now splintered.
Longtime church member Joy Weber said she wept during the recent service because she felt the Anglican leader's visit brought the small church full circle.
"For me, it was a Kleenex service," she said.
Weber said Duncan's visit was important to the local church. "I thought back to the first time we met at the Baptist church (Southern Hills Baptist, in a small house at the time) - they were so loving and wonderful. I thought about how far we have come."
END
BY CARLA HINTON
http://newsok.com/anglican-archbishop-visits-city/article/3402102
September 19, 2009
The leader of a newly formed Anglican denomination said mainline Protestant churches are failing because they have gotten off track from the Gospel.
The Most Rev. Robert Duncan, archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America, said his new denomination won't join those who have faltered.
During a Sept. 13 visit to Oklahoma City, Duncan said he and other leaders are aiming to plant 1,000 churches in the U.S. and Canada.
Duncan, 61, presided over services at St. James Anglican Church, 204 SW 104. He was elected leader at the denomination's inaugural assembly in June at Bedford, Texas.
Now part of the new religious group, St. James Anglican leaders said they were pleased when Duncan decided to make a side trip to worship with their local congregation.
The Rev. Vern Caswell, 48, the church's senior pastor, said Duncan ordained him as an Anglican deacon in Pittsburg, Pa., specifically to lead the then-fledgling St. James church. The church split from the Episcopal Church USA in 2004 but wanted to retain membership in the global Anglican Communion.
"This congregation was sort of the guinea pig for all the things that would come up," Caswell said. "God has just moved with us, and He has blessed us every step of the way."
Duncan, who lives in Pittsburg, spoke to about 70 people attending a question-and-answer forum.
He told The Oklahoman that he would be meeting with other leaders of the new denomination at a summit in Plano, Texas. He said he and the leaders planned to develop church-planting strategies to ensure that the Anglican Church in North America successfully fulfills its challenge "to retake America for the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
He said about nine of 38 dioceses in the Anglican Communion have recognized the new denomination, particularly the communion's largest dioceses in Africa. He said the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has "squandered the stewardship of what he's been given" as the communion's leader, referring to the global Anglican community, which is now splintered.
Longtime church member Joy Weber said she wept during the recent service because she felt the Anglican leader's visit brought the small church full circle.
"For me, it was a Kleenex service," she said.
Weber said Duncan's visit was important to the local church. "I thought back to the first time we met at the Baptist church (Southern Hills Baptist, in a small house at the time) - they were so loving and wonderful. I thought about how far we have come."
END
PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC: Decisive Legal Victory Favors All Saints Parish, Waccamaw
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
Sept. 18, 2009
Today, in a decisive legal victory, following more than seven years of legal wrangling, the South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled in favor of All Saints Parish Inc., Waccamaw, acknowledging the corporation and granting them the property instead of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina.
"We got everything," said a jubilant parishioner, "the corporation, property, we got it all. Thanks be to God. We will have a service of Thanksgiving on Sunday."
Anglican Mission in the Americas Bishop Chuck Murphy wrote VOL saying, "In addition to being a complete victory for all of us here at All Saints, Pawleys Island, it is a profoundly important legal decision repudiating the "authority" of the Dennis Canon. I believe that this will have enormous implications not only for the two Episcopal dioceses in South Carolina, but, I suspect, for other churches throughout the U.S.A."
Attorneys for the parish told VOL that the court ruled that the corporation of All Saints Parish, Inc. owned the real estate. They also ruled that members of the AMIA congregation are the rightful members of the All Saints Parish Inc., not the The Episcopal Church congregation. The decision by the South Carolina State Supreme State Court reversed both rulings of the Circuit Court. The first reversal concerned the 1745 Trust. The second ruling concerned the corporate control of the parish, said the Rt. Rev. Terrell Glenn.
"Through the application of neutral principles of law, it is clear to us that the true officers of All saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc., are the members of the majority vestry. This refers to the vestry representing the majority of those voting to amend the charter of All Saints," said Bishop Glenn.
The Rt. Rev. Terrell Glenn, rector of All Saints' told VOL, "We are ecstatic and grateful to God for his goodness and his love. The Dennis canon has no legal effect on the title of the property."
Dr. Buddy Lindsay, chancellor for All Saints, told VOL that the diocese has the right to file a motion for reconsideration, but they cannot appeal the decision. It is very unusual for the Supreme Court to reconsider, he said.
To read the court decision go here: http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/29724.htm
For commentary on this decision by attorney A.S. Haley click here: http://tinyurl.com/lp2r4x
END
www.virtueonline.org
Sept. 18, 2009
Today, in a decisive legal victory, following more than seven years of legal wrangling, the South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled in favor of All Saints Parish Inc., Waccamaw, acknowledging the corporation and granting them the property instead of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina.
"We got everything," said a jubilant parishioner, "the corporation, property, we got it all. Thanks be to God. We will have a service of Thanksgiving on Sunday."
Anglican Mission in the Americas Bishop Chuck Murphy wrote VOL saying, "In addition to being a complete victory for all of us here at All Saints, Pawleys Island, it is a profoundly important legal decision repudiating the "authority" of the Dennis Canon. I believe that this will have enormous implications not only for the two Episcopal dioceses in South Carolina, but, I suspect, for other churches throughout the U.S.A."
Attorneys for the parish told VOL that the court ruled that the corporation of All Saints Parish, Inc. owned the real estate. They also ruled that members of the AMIA congregation are the rightful members of the All Saints Parish Inc., not the The Episcopal Church congregation. The decision by the South Carolina State Supreme State Court reversed both rulings of the Circuit Court. The first reversal concerned the 1745 Trust. The second ruling concerned the corporate control of the parish, said the Rt. Rev. Terrell Glenn.
"Through the application of neutral principles of law, it is clear to us that the true officers of All saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc., are the members of the majority vestry. This refers to the vestry representing the majority of those voting to amend the charter of All Saints," said Bishop Glenn.
The Rt. Rev. Terrell Glenn, rector of All Saints' told VOL, "We are ecstatic and grateful to God for his goodness and his love. The Dennis canon has no legal effect on the title of the property."
Dr. Buddy Lindsay, chancellor for All Saints, told VOL that the diocese has the right to file a motion for reconsideration, but they cannot appeal the decision. It is very unusual for the Supreme Court to reconsider, he said.
To read the court decision go here: http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/29724.htm
For commentary on this decision by attorney A.S. Haley click here: http://tinyurl.com/lp2r4x
END
PITTSBURGH: Faux Episcopal Diocese Seeks Merger with Diocese of Northwestern PA
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
Sept. 18, 2009
The Potemkin Diocese of Pittsburgh, unable to sustain itself as a legitimate diocese, is seeking to reunite with the Episcopal Diocese of Northwestern Pennsylvania. In ecclesiastical terms it is called "juncturing."
According to a report from the diocese, this would be achieved under the provisions of Title I, canon 10, section 6 of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, 2006.
The Assisting Bishop of the faux Diocese of Pittsburgh is The Rt. Rev. Robert H. Johnson. The Rt. Rev. Sean W. Rowe is the Bishop of Northwestern Pennsylvania.
A "Task Force on Reunion" has been asked to prepare a report on the results of that study. Any recommendations are to be made to the 145th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, in the fall of 2010. The Task Force shall consider specifically the potential long-term impact of such reunion on the financial and administrative resources of the two dioceses, and shall invite the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Northwestern Pennsylvania to participate in the study.
In an "explanation" as to why this might be necessary, the Task Force wrote that in both regions there has been a serious decline in both population and economics and that what was feasible in the early 20th Century is no longer feasible today. Therefore, a reunion of the two dioceses should be considered.
The Bishop of the parent Diocese (Northwestern PA) would be the bishop and the Bishop of the junior diocese (Pittsburgh) would be Bishop Coadjutor of the reunited diocese.
General Convention would need to give its final approval and the facts forwarded to the Presiding Bishop once the reunion has been completed. At that time the faux Diocese of Pittsburgh would cease to exist.
The following resolution has been prepared: Resolved: that this 144th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church direct the Standing Committee (or Ecclesiastical Authority) of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to form a broadly based task force, including at least three clergy and three lay persons, to study the possibility of the reunion of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.
It looks like the "All is Well in Pittsburgh Strategy" might be tanking, wrote a VOL reader.
The document can be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/l7mm9u
END
www.virtueonline.org
Sept. 18, 2009
The Potemkin Diocese of Pittsburgh, unable to sustain itself as a legitimate diocese, is seeking to reunite with the Episcopal Diocese of Northwestern Pennsylvania. In ecclesiastical terms it is called "juncturing."
According to a report from the diocese, this would be achieved under the provisions of Title I, canon 10, section 6 of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, 2006.
The Assisting Bishop of the faux Diocese of Pittsburgh is The Rt. Rev. Robert H. Johnson. The Rt. Rev. Sean W. Rowe is the Bishop of Northwestern Pennsylvania.
A "Task Force on Reunion" has been asked to prepare a report on the results of that study. Any recommendations are to be made to the 145th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, in the fall of 2010. The Task Force shall consider specifically the potential long-term impact of such reunion on the financial and administrative resources of the two dioceses, and shall invite the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Northwestern Pennsylvania to participate in the study.
In an "explanation" as to why this might be necessary, the Task Force wrote that in both regions there has been a serious decline in both population and economics and that what was feasible in the early 20th Century is no longer feasible today. Therefore, a reunion of the two dioceses should be considered.
The Bishop of the parent Diocese (Northwestern PA) would be the bishop and the Bishop of the junior diocese (Pittsburgh) would be Bishop Coadjutor of the reunited diocese.
General Convention would need to give its final approval and the facts forwarded to the Presiding Bishop once the reunion has been completed. At that time the faux Diocese of Pittsburgh would cease to exist.
The following resolution has been prepared: Resolved: that this 144th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church direct the Standing Committee (or Ecclesiastical Authority) of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to form a broadly based task force, including at least three clergy and three lay persons, to study the possibility of the reunion of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.
It looks like the "All is Well in Pittsburgh Strategy" might be tanking, wrote a VOL reader.
The document can be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/l7mm9u
END
Saturday, September 19, 2009
pecusa's reign of terror over?
For the last six years pecusa has threatened and sued parishes and dioceses leaving her. Under Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold there was the possibility of settlement, but under the present P.B. settlements have been rejected. With the defeat of the Dennis Canon in South Carolina and the defeat of pecusa in the Diocese of Fort Worth it is possible that other courts will take notice and begin to rule more favorably toward parishes and dioceses leaving pecusa. I hope so. For six years pecusa has acted more like a corrupt criminal enterprise than a church. pecusa has sought to intimidate congregations and failing that to sue them and seize their property. With the rulings in SC and TX we will hopefully see the end to all this. We still await a ruling that will free the Anglican District of Virginia from pecusa's litigious grasp. After this, the third wave that David Virtue predicted can gather steam. The first wave was parishes in liberal dioceses and the second wave was dioceses. The third wave that has already begun is parishes in conservative dioceses that are still attached to pecusa. pecusa is adrift theologically and we can only hope that the remaining orthodox parishes and dioceses will finally cut loose from her and allow pecusa to float away diminished and dying into the oblivion of the open sea.
US Churches are free to secede, rules judge
From Religious Intelligence via TitusOneNine:
Thursday, 17th September 2009. 12:05pm
By: George Conger.
There is nothing in the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church that prevents a diocese from seceding from the national church, a Texas judge declared on Sept 16.
US Churches are free to secede, rules judge
On Wednesday Judge John Chupp of Texas’ 141st District Court handed the Episcopal Church a major setback in its campaign to seize the assets of breakaway dioceses, stating that of the two entities holding themselves out as the “Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth”---Bishop Jack Iker and his diocese affiliated with the Province of the Southern Cone and Bishop Edwin Gulick and his Episcopal Church-affiliated diocese---Bishop Iker’s diocese was the lawful holder of that name, corporate seal and property.
The court’s actions were not a total victory for Bishop Iker, as it did not dismiss as illegitimate the loyalist’s Feb 2009 convention called by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, nor quash their property suit. However, in his comments to the parties Judge Chupp rejected the Episcopal Church’s central legal premise that while people may leave the Episcopal Church, dioceses may not.
The 80 per cent of the delegates who voted to at the 2008 diocesan convention to quit the Episcopal Church for the Province of the Southern Cone “took the diocese with them,” Judge Chupp said.
With the backing of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, a loyalist faction within the diocese held a special convention on Feb 7, electing officers and inviting the Bishop Edwin Gulick of Kentucky to serve as interim bishop of Fort Worth. On April 14, the loyalists, styling themselves as the “Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth” brought suit against the secessionists seeking possession of the diocese’s assets.
On Aug 19 the secessionists filed a Rule 12 motion asking the court to require the attorneys for the loyalists to show that they had the legal authority to bring suit in the name of the “Episcopal Diocese of Forth Worth.”
“Those individuals” bringing the lawsuit “claim to hold offices in the Diocese to which they have never been legally elected,” Bishop Iker argued.
The loyalists responded on Sept 3, filing a motion for partial summary judgment arguing that as “Texas authority establishes that a constituent part of a hierarchical church is comprised of those remaining loyal to the hierarchical denomination” it was the true diocese. They then argued the court should resolve the Rule 12 motion by first deciding upon their request for summary judgment.
At the Sept 9 hearing Judge Chupp denied the loyalist’s plea to place their motion ahead of the secessionist’s Rule 12 motion. Arguments were presented to the court and the hearing was continued until Sept 16, with the judge asking each side to present briefs on the question whether a diocese had the legal authority to withdraw from the General Convention of the Episcopal Church.
At the Wednesday hearing, Judge Chupp declined to accept legal precedents offered by the Episcopal Church that held a parish could not withdraw from a diocese and keep its property, saying this argument was not germane to the question of diocesan secession. He also declined to follow the Fresno, California court ruling in favor of the national church in its suit with the breakaway diocese of San Joaquin.
Instead he charged the parties to “find a place” in the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church “where it says the diocese cannot leave.” Unable to point to such language, loyalist attorney Kathleen Wells told the court that just because the prohibition is not explicit it does not mean it is not there.
Judge Chupp was not persuaded and ruled that the loyalist attorneys had “not discharged their burden of proof that they were hired by individuals holding positions” of legal authority within the diocese and ordered they be “barred from appearing in this suit as attorneys for The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that is associated with Bishop Iker.”
In a statement issued after the hearing Bishop Iker said, “we are pleased that Judge Chupp has recognized the legitimacy of the vote of our Diocesan Convention in November 2008 to withdraw from the General Convention of the Episcopal Church and has ruled that we had the legal right to amend our Constitution in order to do so.”
Conservative activists lauded the ruling also. The Rev Phil Ashey of the American Anglican Council said the decision was a “victory of reason and common sense of the constitution and canons over against the over-reaching of Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori.”
Canon lawyer Mark McCall of the Anglican Communion Institute told The Church of England Newspaper, “The judge was absolutely correct when he concluded that there is nothing in the Episcopal Church constitution that prohibits a diocese from withdrawing from General Convention. And the law in the United States is clear that members of religious associations have the right to withdraw from membership.”
The “members” of the General Convention “are dioceses since they are the parties that accede to membership. The oft-stated slogan ‘only individuals can leave’ actually has it backwards. It is a diocese that joins; therefore it is a diocese that has a constitutional right to withdraw,” he noted.
However, the communications director of the loyalist diocese Katie Sherrod dismissed the secessionist’s claims of victory, saying they appear to have been “misinformed.”
The “judge did indeed rule that Jonathan Nelson and Kathleen Wells do not represent Bishop Iker and others associated with him,” and he also declined to dismiss the lawsuit, but “made no other rulings,” she said.
“He made some offhand comments in court. He asked some questions. But he made no other rulings. Every other assertion about any such rulings are simply not factual,” Ms Sherrod told CEN.
The parties return to court on Oct 15.
Thursday, 17th September 2009. 12:05pm
By: George Conger.
There is nothing in the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church that prevents a diocese from seceding from the national church, a Texas judge declared on Sept 16.
US Churches are free to secede, rules judge
On Wednesday Judge John Chupp of Texas’ 141st District Court handed the Episcopal Church a major setback in its campaign to seize the assets of breakaway dioceses, stating that of the two entities holding themselves out as the “Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth”---Bishop Jack Iker and his diocese affiliated with the Province of the Southern Cone and Bishop Edwin Gulick and his Episcopal Church-affiliated diocese---Bishop Iker’s diocese was the lawful holder of that name, corporate seal and property.
The court’s actions were not a total victory for Bishop Iker, as it did not dismiss as illegitimate the loyalist’s Feb 2009 convention called by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, nor quash their property suit. However, in his comments to the parties Judge Chupp rejected the Episcopal Church’s central legal premise that while people may leave the Episcopal Church, dioceses may not.
The 80 per cent of the delegates who voted to at the 2008 diocesan convention to quit the Episcopal Church for the Province of the Southern Cone “took the diocese with them,” Judge Chupp said.
With the backing of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, a loyalist faction within the diocese held a special convention on Feb 7, electing officers and inviting the Bishop Edwin Gulick of Kentucky to serve as interim bishop of Fort Worth. On April 14, the loyalists, styling themselves as the “Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth” brought suit against the secessionists seeking possession of the diocese’s assets.
On Aug 19 the secessionists filed a Rule 12 motion asking the court to require the attorneys for the loyalists to show that they had the legal authority to bring suit in the name of the “Episcopal Diocese of Forth Worth.”
“Those individuals” bringing the lawsuit “claim to hold offices in the Diocese to which they have never been legally elected,” Bishop Iker argued.
The loyalists responded on Sept 3, filing a motion for partial summary judgment arguing that as “Texas authority establishes that a constituent part of a hierarchical church is comprised of those remaining loyal to the hierarchical denomination” it was the true diocese. They then argued the court should resolve the Rule 12 motion by first deciding upon their request for summary judgment.
At the Sept 9 hearing Judge Chupp denied the loyalist’s plea to place their motion ahead of the secessionist’s Rule 12 motion. Arguments were presented to the court and the hearing was continued until Sept 16, with the judge asking each side to present briefs on the question whether a diocese had the legal authority to withdraw from the General Convention of the Episcopal Church.
At the Wednesday hearing, Judge Chupp declined to accept legal precedents offered by the Episcopal Church that held a parish could not withdraw from a diocese and keep its property, saying this argument was not germane to the question of diocesan secession. He also declined to follow the Fresno, California court ruling in favor of the national church in its suit with the breakaway diocese of San Joaquin.
Instead he charged the parties to “find a place” in the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church “where it says the diocese cannot leave.” Unable to point to such language, loyalist attorney Kathleen Wells told the court that just because the prohibition is not explicit it does not mean it is not there.
Judge Chupp was not persuaded and ruled that the loyalist attorneys had “not discharged their burden of proof that they were hired by individuals holding positions” of legal authority within the diocese and ordered they be “barred from appearing in this suit as attorneys for The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that is associated with Bishop Iker.”
In a statement issued after the hearing Bishop Iker said, “we are pleased that Judge Chupp has recognized the legitimacy of the vote of our Diocesan Convention in November 2008 to withdraw from the General Convention of the Episcopal Church and has ruled that we had the legal right to amend our Constitution in order to do so.”
Conservative activists lauded the ruling also. The Rev Phil Ashey of the American Anglican Council said the decision was a “victory of reason and common sense of the constitution and canons over against the over-reaching of Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori.”
Canon lawyer Mark McCall of the Anglican Communion Institute told The Church of England Newspaper, “The judge was absolutely correct when he concluded that there is nothing in the Episcopal Church constitution that prohibits a diocese from withdrawing from General Convention. And the law in the United States is clear that members of religious associations have the right to withdraw from membership.”
The “members” of the General Convention “are dioceses since they are the parties that accede to membership. The oft-stated slogan ‘only individuals can leave’ actually has it backwards. It is a diocese that joins; therefore it is a diocese that has a constitutional right to withdraw,” he noted.
However, the communications director of the loyalist diocese Katie Sherrod dismissed the secessionist’s claims of victory, saying they appear to have been “misinformed.”
The “judge did indeed rule that Jonathan Nelson and Kathleen Wells do not represent Bishop Iker and others associated with him,” and he also declined to dismiss the lawsuit, but “made no other rulings,” she said.
“He made some offhand comments in court. He asked some questions. But he made no other rulings. Every other assertion about any such rulings are simply not factual,” Ms Sherrod told CEN.
The parties return to court on Oct 15.
Dennis Canon Loses in South Carolina
From The Anglican Curmudgeon via Stand Firm:
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Supreme Court of South Carolina has just delivered a unanimous decision in the oldest still-pending court dispute involving the application of ECUSA's Dennis Canon to a parish's property: All Saints Parish Church Waccamaw v. the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina (No. 29724, September 18, 2009). (For some background on the origins of the case, see the discussion toward the bottom of this post.) The opinion presents a clear and thoroughly common-sense refutation of ECUSA's outlandish claims: that as a hierarchical Church, it has the power (1) to decide which congregation/vestry is the "true" congregation/vestry in a given parish; and (2) to override State law by imposing a trust on all parish property everywhere in its Dioceses without its being the owner of any of that property.
The opinion is so clear and well-written, in fact, that there is scarcely any need to translate the greater part of it for a lay person. So I shall present here, for the edification and benefit of those visitors to this blog who have been following with me the vicissitudes of ECUSA's Dennis Canon in the various State courts, a lightly annotated version. (Instead of the traditional, indented quotation format, I shall present the opinion below in normal format, and then put my comments in indented form [with purple text].) Let us begin with the Court's well-laid-out presentation of the basic facts:
CHIEF JUSTICE TOAL: This case presents two questions that arise out of a dispute over church property and corporate control: (1) whether the trial court correctly determined that a trust deed, executed in 1745 for the establishment of a Parish in the Waccamaw Neck region of South Carolina,[1] remains valid; and (2) whether the trial court correctly determined that the vestry representing a minority group of the congregation were the officers of the congregation’s corporate entity, All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.
FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Underlying this appeal are two lawsuits that were consolidated for trial in Georgetown County. The first lawsuit (“the 2000 Action”) was a declaratory judgment action filed by All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. against the Episcopal Church in the United States of America (“ECUSA”) and the South Carolina Diocese (“Diocese”). The 2000 Action was precipitated by the Diocese’s recording of a notice with the Georgetown County clerk of court by which it purported to put the public on notice that the congregation of All Saints Parish held its property in trust for the Diocese and ECUSA.
After the congregation fractured, the second lawsuit (“the 2005 Action”) was filed by a minority faction of the original congregation against its majority which had voted to sever ties with the ECUSA and the Diocese. The minority faction remained loyal to the denominational authorities and was represented by a vestry led by Guerry Green (“the minority vestry”). The majority group was represented by a vestry led by W. Russell Campbell (“the majority vestry”). In the 2005 Action, the minority vestry sought a declaration that they, and not the majority vestry, were the officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. The 2000 Action and the 2005 Action were consolidated and tried in March 2006. This appeal is from the trial court’s order.
Keep that in mind as we continue: there were two separate lawsuits which were consolidated for trial, but with two separate judgments involving different parties, and hence two different appeals being addressed in this one opinion. The Episcopal Church (USA), for example, is a party (defendant) only to the first suit, filed in 2000.
The facts relevant to this appeal date to the early eighteenth century. By the Church Act of 1706, the South Carolina Commons House of Assembly (“Commons House”) established the Church of England as the official religion of colonial South Carolina and created the first parishes in the colony. Parishes were regionally defined and served as ecclesiastical and political entities. All Saints Parish, however, was not formed at that time.
In 1734, George Pawley, a member of the Commons House, was appointed by legislative enactment to erect church buildings in the St. John’s and the Prince George Parishes. He was “authorized to accept and take any grant or conveyance of any lands within said parishes respectively, to them and their heirs, in trust, for the inhabitants of said parishes.” Act No. 567 at § 6, 3 S.C. Stat. 374, 375 (1734). In 1745, Percival and Ann Pawley transferred approximately 60 acres to George Pawley and William Poole. The language of this trust deed (“the 1745 Trust Deed”) provided that George Pawley and William Poole were deeded the land “forever in Trust For the Inhabitants On Waccamaw Neck for Use of A Chapel or Church for divine Worship of the Church of England established by Law…”. Consideration for this transfer was “the Sum of one hundred pounds current Money of South Carolina.”[2] The terms of the 1745 Trust Deed did not bestow any duties upon the trustees, and there is no evidence to suggest that the trustees exercised any duties relative to the 1745 Trust Deed.
This is also important to keep in mind: as the Court will explain in greater detail later, the land was put "in trust" for the "Inhabitants On Waccamaw Neck" only because at that time (1745) there was not yet an incorporated parish which could hold title to any real property. The Trustees named in the Deed were only nominal trustees, with no real duties as such.
On December 10, 1766, the inhabitants of the Waccamaw Neck formally petitioned the Commons House requesting the establishment of their own parish. In 1767, an Act of the Commons House carved out a piece of the Prince George Parish, thus creating a new Parish named All Saints in the Waccamaw Neck region. Subsequently, on January 2, 1767, the 1745 Trust Deed was recorded in Charleston.[3] By 1774, both George Pawley and William Poole had died. Neither the 1745 Trust Deed nor the trustee’s wills named a successor trustee. By all accounts, the property at issue has been actively used as a place of worship since at least 1767, if not before.
This is another crucial fact, as we shall see: the property has been in continuous use as a church since "at least 1767, if not before."
The relationship between South Carolina’s colonial parishes and the Diocese of London was severed during the Revolutionary War. Nonetheless, the South Carolina General Assembly re-established All Saints Parish in 1778. Even though the Church of England was formally disestablished as the official religion of South Carolina in 1790, the property at issue continued to be used as a place of worship.
"Disestablishment" of the English Church in South Carolina was the event that enabled the Diocese of South Carolina to come into being as an independent, autonomous collection of parishes in the newly formed State -- before there was every any such entity as the "Protestant Episcopal Church i9n the United States of America." See my posts here and here for more detail on how PECUSA began and came together.
In 1820, the South Carolina General Assembly passed an Act which officially incorporated the wardens and the vestry of All Saints Parish. The Act expressly enabled the congregation to “have, hold, take and receive” both real and personal property. The congregation’s incorporation was only effective for a period of fourteen years. In 1839, the South Carolina General Assembly renewed the incorporation for an additional fourteen years and, in 1852, the General Assembly did so indefinitely.
An 1880 Act of the South Carolina General Assembly established that title to any property belonging to inactive Episcopal corporations, churches, or dormant parishes was held in trust by the Trustees of the South Carolina Episcopal Diocese.
This is why I asked that you note earlier that the facts showed the property had continuously been used for church purposes since 1767. The 1880 Act therefore did not apply to All Saints Parish, because it had never become "inactive."
The record makes clear that in 1902, due to the 1880 Act, the All Saints congregation became concerned over the status of their incorporation and the status of title to church property. Evidence in the record also indicates that this concern was exacerbated by the destruction of certain property records in a “great storm.”
In May 1902, as a result of its concern, the congregation asked the Diocese to “cooperate with [them] in having the charter of th[e] Parish renewed.” The Diocese’s Chancellor responded positively and not only suggested that the congregation formally incorporate with the Secretary of State as a South Carolina eleemosynary corporation, but also indicated that the Diocese would execute a quit-claim deed transferring to the congregation any interest the Diocese may have had in the All Saints property.
Therefore, at the direction of the Diocese, the congregation re-incorporated in 1902 under the name “All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.” Shortly thereafter, in 1903, the Trustees of the Diocese signed a quit-claim deed (hereinafter the “1903 Quit-Claim Deed”) transferring any interest the Diocese may have had in the congregation’s property to All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. The Diocese did not retain any interest in the property, reversionary or otherwise. The 1903 Quit-Claim Deed was recorded in the Georgetown County public records on May 30, 1903.
Thus the Diocese of South Carolina, by recorded deed in the official records, confirmed that it claimed no interest in the All Saints property. This fact is fatal to its later claim based on the Dennis Canon, as we shall see below.
In 1987, the Diocese amended its constitution and canons so as to include the “Dennis Canon.” The Dennis Canon purports to declare a trust, in favor of the ECUSA and the Diocese, on all real and personal property held by any congregation.[4] No such property canons existed in 1902 when the Diocese directed the congregation to incorporate, or when it executed the 1903 Quit-Claim Deed in favor of the newly created All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.
The Court is sending strong signals here of how it will reach the result in this case. The Dennis Canon only "purports" to declare a trust; it does not in fact establish an effective trust under South Carolina law, because the person declaring the trust -- the national Church -- does not own the property being "declared" as subject to a trust in its favor. And the Court points to the fact that the 1902 deed came well before the 1979 (highly questionable) passage of the Canon. (Its enactment was a last-minute, knee-jerk reaction of New York Suffragan Bishop and erstwhile lawyer Walter Dennis to the then-recent free legal advice offered by Justice Blackmun in Jones v. Wolf, as I discuss in this post. The Episcopal Church (USA) may yet rue the day when it decided to act on that advice -- remember that legal advice tends to be worth what you pay for it.)
In August 2000, due to concern over the status of title to its property, the All Saints congregation conducted a formal title examination. The examiner concluded that the 1745 Trust Deed and the 1903 Quit-Claim Deed were the only recorded deeds pertaining to the congregation’s property.
Thus the professional title examiner, trained in South Carolina, could find no record of the Episcopal Church's (and the Diocese's) putative "trust" interest in the All Saints property. And now wonder -- how could he have found it? Nothing had been placed of record in the official title documents. Even ECUSA's own Episcopal News Service did not show any awareness of the Canon's existence until after this Pawley's Island lawsuit started. (A search of ENS archives turns up no mention of the words "Dennis Canon" until the story just linked -- even its account of the 1979 General Convention which supposedly adopted the Canon leaves out all mention of it.) If there was ever a "stealth action", unworthy of Christians, it was ECUSA's last-minute attempt to enact the Dennis Canon. Now watch how the Diocese tried to correct the situation:
Soon thereafter, in September 2000, the Diocese recorded a notice in Georgetown County purporting to declare that the congregation held its property, pursuant to the Dennis Canon, in trust for the benefit of the ECUSA and the Diocese (“the 2000 Notice”). Because of the 2000 Notice and the 1745 Trust Deed, the congregation was unable to acquire title insurance.
There is that word "purport" again. The Diocese, like ECUSA itself, was trying to declare a trust interest in the property by enacting a canon, without actually owning the property it was trying to place in trust. All it did with its notice, in the Court's view, was put a cloud on the parish's title so that it could no longer obtain title insurance. This resulted in the Parish bringing an action against both the Diocese and ECUSA to "quiet" its title -- that is, to obtain a judicial declaration that neither the Diocese nor the national Church owned any kind of interest in its property. Today's decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court, some ten years later, is the final declaration which clears All Saints' title for once and for all.
In October 2000, the congregation, in the name of its corporate entity, All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc., filed a declaratory judgment action against the ECUSA and the Diocese in which it sought an order declaring that the congregation held title to its property or, in the alternative, held its property in trust for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Waccamaw Neck pursuant to the 1745 Trust Deed. The Diocese and the ECUSA answered and counterclaimed asserting that the property was subject to their canons and the 2000 Notice.
By consent order, a guardian ad litem was appointed to represent the interests of John and Jane Doe, the unknown heirs of the original trustees to the 1745 Trust Deed, George Pawley and William Poole.
The parish was covering its bases here. The 1745 Trust Deed named initial trustees, but no successors. When the two trustees so named died, they did not name any persons in their wills to be the successor trustees. And by the year 2000 -- more than 225 years after their deaths -- it had become impossible to trace who George Pawley's and William Poole's current descendants were (as though the "trusteeship" descended by law through their families -- which it did not, as we shall see). So to cover for that contingency, "John and Jane Doe" were named as their unknown descendants (although one descendant of George Pawley, Evelyn Labruce, had joined the suit as a plaintiff), and a local attorney appointed as their "guardian ad litem", or representative appointed by agreement to represent the Trustees' interest, if any, in the lawsuit. That representative, as we next read, quickly took issue with the claim of ECUSA and the Diocese to be the beneficiaries of yet a different trust in the property:
The Does and the congregation filed joint motions for summary judgment. The motions were granted and, pursuant to the 1745 Trust Deed, the trial court found that the Does held legal title to the property at issue and that the inhabitants of the Waccamaw Neck held equitable title as beneficiaries to the 1745 Trust Deed. The matter was remanded to the probate court for further fact finding with respect to the identity of the parties to the 1745 Trust Deed.
So the initial outcome of the 2000 lawsuit was a declaration that the successors to the original trustees, whoever they now were, would still hold title to the parish property in trust for the "inhabitants of Waccamaw Neck", who were the beneficiaries of the trust. The trial court gave no recognition to the "Dennis Canon trust" -- which caused the Diocese and ECUSA to appeal its decision. The remanding of the case to the probate court was so that it could determine who were the appropriate successor trustees, some 225 years after the fact (good luck with that).
The ECUSA and Diocese appealed. The court of appeals found that there were genuine issues of material fact concerning whether the trust created by the 1745 Trust Deed failed when the Church of England ceased to be established as the official religion of South Carolina and whether the Statute of Uses operated to execute the trust. Accordingly, the court of appeals remanded the case to the circuit court. All Saints Parish, Waccamaw v. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, 358 S.C. 209, 595 S.E.2d 253 (Ct. App. 2004), cert denied, July 2005.
As appellate courts are wont to do, the South Carolina Court of Appeals saw things differently than did the trial court. It was of the view that when the Church of England's authority ceased to have any effect in this country following the revolution, the 1745 trust of the property established for the purpose of opening a "Chapel or Church for divine Worship of the Church of England established by Law" could no longer be given effect, and so failed. A failed trust meant there were no longer any trustees, so the court of appeals sent the case back to the trial court to determine who now owned the property. In the time it took for the appeal, however, the troubled waters of ECUSA were roiled even more with the confirmation of V. Gene Robinson's election to the see of New Hampshire -- an event to which the Court alludes only indirectly:
In August 2003, prompted by events that are not relevant here, the congregation appointed a committee to recommend whether it should leave the Diocese and the ECUSA. On December 9, 2003 the committee recommended that the corporate charter of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. be amended so as to delete references to the canons and rules of the Diocese and the ECUSA. Specifically, the committee recommended that “Article Fourth”[5] of the 1902 Certificate of Incorporation be amended to read:
"The purpose of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc., also known as All Saints Church, is to create an environment in which all people and especially the inhabitants of the Waccamaw Neck come to know Jesus Christ: to Love Him, to Worship Him, to Learn of Him, to Proclaim Him, and to Minister in His Name."
Furthermore, the committee recommended that the congregation additionally amend its charter so as to affirmatively sever its affiliation with the ECUSA and the Diocese.
On December 17, 2003, after learning of the proposed amendments, Edward L. Salmon, Jr., Bishop of the Diocese, sent a letter to the congregation’s wardens and each member of the vestry stating that the congregation’s status was reduced from that of a parish to a “mission.” In his letter, Bishop Salmon also declared that the members of the congregation’s vestry had abandoned their offices.[6]
On December 21, 2003, sixty members of the congregation signed a “Request for Special Congregational Meeting.” The purpose of this meeting was to discuss and vote on whether the congregation should take the committee’s recommendations and vote to amend its charter so as to change its corporate purpose and sever its affiliation with the ECUSA and the Diocese. Notice of the meeting was sent to the congregation’s members on December 23, 2003.
On January 8, 2004, five-hundred and seven of the congregation’s members attended the Special Congregational Meeting and more than a two-thirds majority voted to amend the congregation’s 1902 Certificate of Incorporation adopting the aforementioned amendment to “Article Fourth.” Additionally, more than a two-thirds majority voted to amend the charter so as to withdraw from the Diocese and the ECUSA, but remain part of the Anglican Communion by affiliating themselves with the Episcopal Church of Rwanda and its Anglican Mission in America.[7] Accordingly, the corporate secretary for All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. prepared and signed the Articles of Amendment to the 1902 Certificate of Incorporation. These Articles of Amendment were filed in the South Carolina Secretary of State’s office on January 15, 2004.
The Court's history of events within the parish here is excellent, and needs no elaboration. As the Court will later observe to emphasize the result it reaches, the vote to amend the Articles actually passed by an even greater majority: 464 out of 507, or greater than 90%.
On January 9, 2005, a small group of members who remained loyal to the Diocese and the ECUSA met with Bishop Salmon and purported to elect a new vestry for the congregation – the minority vestry. Subsequently, on January 16, 2004, the majority group of members re-elected the vestry removed by the Bishop – the majority vestry.
There is that word again, which signals that the Court does not agree that Bishop Salmon had any authority under South Carolina law to fire the vestry. This was the first attempt by anyone in ECUSA to apply an "ejector-seat" mechanism to those voting to disaffiliate. Since that time, some Dioceses have incorporated such a power into their canons, but to have any effect on lay positions, appropriate acknowledgments would ordinarily have to be put into the parish corporate articles, as well. Nevertheless, compare the Court's rejection of Bishop Salmon's summary removals with the California courts' upholding of the same action taken by Bishop Mathes in San Diego, as discussed in this post.
On January 20, 2005, the minority vestry filed the 2005 Action against the majority vestry alleging that they forfeited office by recommending that the congregation sever its affiliation with the ECUSA and the Diocese. The minority vestry sought a declaration that they were All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.’s true officers. Additionally, they sought the return of the congregation’s real and personal property. The Diocese and Bishop Salmon joined in the action. Subsequently, the trial court consolidated the 2000 Action and the 2005 Action.
The consolidated cases were tried and, after each of the parties presented its case, the trial court decided both underlying actions as a matter of law. With respect to the 2000 Action, the trial court held that, pursuant to the terms of the 1745 Trust Deed, legal title to the real property remained in the unknown Heirs of George Pawley and William Poole, while beneficial title was possessed by the “inhabitants of Waccamaw Neck.”[8]
Thus with respect to the earlier lawsuit over title, the trial court maintained, despite the appellate court's holding that the 1745 Trust had failed, that legal title to the property still remained in the hands of whoever were the current trustees, and it again kicked the case over to the probate court to answer that question. But as the Supreme Court's opinion goes on to explain, the trial court's resolution of the second (2005) lawsuit was what really changed the landscape:
As to the 2005 Action, the trial court held that members of the minority vestry were the true officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. In its original bench order, however, the trial court declined to eject the majority group from the real property because the identity of the parties to the trust created by the 1745 Trust Deed was yet to be determined by the probate court. Nonetheless, upon a motion for reconsideration, the trial court ordered the Secretary of State to cancel the Articles of Amendment filed by the majority group, ejected the majority vestry from the property it occupied which was not granted to the congregation by the 1745 Trust Deed, and restrained the majority vestry from acting as the officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
This Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the trial court and the parties raise the following issues for review:
I. Did the trial court err in holding that the trust created by the 1745 Trust Deed remains valid?
II. Did the trial court err in holding that members of minority vestry were the corporate officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.?
In this manner, the Court frames the actual legal questions it will decide in the two appeals. Next, it explains the legal principles it will follow in addressing those questions, in a section entitled "Standard of Review" which I shall omit here, as being of interest only to attorneys. Let us go right on to the Court's analysis, which begins with an excellently educational summary of the current state of church property law in the United States, under the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court:
LAW/ANALYSIS
In this case, we are called upon to adjudicate two disputes. The 2000 Action is a dispute between a congregation and its denomination over title to church property. The 2005 Action is a dispute among the congregation’s members over corporate control. Because church disputes are very often prompted by disagreements over religious doctrine and belief, the civil courts in this country have addressed them carefully, keeping the First Amendment in mind. The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning church dispute litigation make clear that there is no constitutionally prescribed rule for a civil court’s disposition of such matters. Nonetheless, there is a general constitutional command, based in the First Amendment, mandating that civil courts to “decide church…disputes without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine.” Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 710 (1976).
Within the context of this general constitutional command, the Supreme Court of the United States has expressly approved two methods for a civil court’s resolution of church disputes. These approaches have become known as the “deference approach” and the “neutral principles of law approach.” We hereby explicitly reaffirm that, when resolving church dispute cases, South Carolina courts are to apply the neutral principles of law approach as approved by the Supreme Court of the United States in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979), and expressed by this Court in Pearson v. Church of God, 325 S.C. 45, 478 S.E.2d 849 (1996). The following context is necessary for a clear understanding of this rule and its application to the facts presented by this case.
The importance of this holding for parishes in the State of South Carolina cannot be overemphasized, as I shall explain below. The Supreme Court has now made clear what was only implicit in its 1996 decision of Pearson v. Church of God: courts in the State are to apply "neutral principles of law" in resolving church property disputes. The Court goes on to explain what is bad about the "deference" approach which it followed before 1996:
The Supreme Court of the United States first approved the “deference approach” in 1871. See Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1871). Under this approach, a court must only determine whether a church is “congregational” or “hierarchical” in nature.[9] If the church is congregational, the court will resolve the dispute by deferring to a majority of the congregation. However, if the congregation at issue is part of a hierarchical organization, the court will defer to the decision of the ecclesiastical authorities.
Because the deference approach was, for a long time, the only approach explicitly approved as constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, this Court has issued a handful of opinions that are consistent with the deference approach. See Bramlett v. Young, 229 S.C. 519, 93 S.E.2d 873 (1956) (holding that a minority group of a local, hierarchical Presbyterian church’s members were entitled to ownership and control of church property because they were recognized as the true congregation by the hierarchical authorities); Adickes v. Adkins, 264 S.C. 394, 215 S.E.2d 442 (1975) (holding that where a majority of a local Presbyterian congregation voted to sever its connection with its hierarchical authorities, the minority faction which the hierarchical authorities recognized as the true congregation was entitled to control of the church properties); Seldon v. Singletary, 248 S.C. 148, 326 S.E.2d 147 (1985) (holding that a local church was part of a hierarchical denomination, thus, the minority group of members recognized by the hierarchical authorities were entitled to possession and control of church property). In each of these cases we applied the deference approach and analyzed the issues by determining whether the church at issue was congregational or hierarchical in nature and deferred accordingly. This short analysis disposed of those cases and, in so doing, these decisions complied with the First Amendment’s command that “civil courts…decide church property disputes without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine.”[10] Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 710 (1976) quoting Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449 (1969).
The deference approach, which the Supreme Court of the United States never explicitly held was the only constitutional method of adjudicating church disputes, is rigid in its application and does not give efficacy to the neutral, civil legal documents and principles with which religious congregations and denominations often organize their affairs. Thus, throughout the country, other approaches to the resolution of church disputes have slowly developed.
In 1979, the Supreme Court of the United States expressly approved the use of a second method of resolving church disputes. In Jones v. Wolf, the Supreme Court affirmed a Georgia court’s use of the neutral principles of law approach to resolve church disputes. 443 U.S. at 603 (holding that a state is constitutionally entitled to adopt the neutral principles of law approach as a means of adjudicating church disputes). This method “relies exclusively on objective, well-established concepts of trust and property law familiar to lawyers and judges. It thereby promises to free civil courts completely from entanglement in questions of religious doctrine, polity, and practice.” Id. at 603. Church disputes that are resolved under the neutral principles of law approach do not turn on the single question of whether a church is congregational or hierarchical. Rather, the neutral principles of law approach permits the application of property, corporate, and other forms of law to church disputes.
A clear recitation of the neutral principles of law approach as adopted by this Court was enunciated in Pearson v. Church of God. In Pearson, we articulated the rule that South Carolina civil courts must follow when adjudicating church dispute cases. We reaffirm and more fully explain this rule here. The Pearson rule provides:
(1) Courts may not engage in resolving disputes as to religious law, principle, doctrine, discipline, custom, or administration; (2) courts cannot avoid adjudicating rights growing out of civil law; (3) in resolving such civil law disputes, courts must accept as final and binding the decision of the highest religious judicatories as to religious law, principle, doctrine, discipline, custom, and administration.
325 S.C. at 53, 478 S.E.2d at 854.
The Pearson rule establishes that where a civil court can completely resolve a church dispute on neutral principles of law, the First Amendment commands it to do so.
Frankly, I do not see where it says that in the language in which the Court summarizes the holding in Pearson, but I am not going to quibble. Whatever it said or did not say in Pearson, the Court now makes it clear: South Carolina courts are to apply neutral principles in church property cases. And as we shall see below, this means that neutral principles of State law are to be followed even when a church claims it is "hierarchical", so long as it means that no decision of a "church judicatory" with respect to matters of "religious law, principle, doctrine, discipline, custom, and administration" will be set aside or contradicted.
Nonetheless, where a civil court is presented an issue which is a question of religious law or doctrine masquerading as a dispute over church property or corporate control, it must defer to the decisions of the proper church judicatories in so far as it concerns religious or doctrinal issues. See Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese, 426 U.S. at 709 (finding that the controversy before the Court “essentially involve[d] not a church property dispute, but a religious dispute the resolution of which…is for ecclesiastical and not civil tribunals.”).
In the Serbian Eastern Orthodox case, the underlying dispute was whether the Church had properly deposed one of its bishops. Property was involved only because the bishop, by virtue of his office, held the title to certain church property. Thus which person was entitled to be bishop of that Church's diocese -- the one deposed, or the one whom the Church designated to replace him -- controlled who owned that Diocese's property. The United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court requiring the Church to reinstate its deposed bishop, and held that such secular court interference in Church disciplinary matters violated the First Amendment. The South Carolina Supreme Court recognizes that principle, but is saying it is not at stake here.
It is with the Pearson rule in mind that we now turn to the two issues before us in this appeal. We remain mindful of the First Amendment and its protections of religious liberty. Nonetheless, adjudication of this matter does not require us to wade into the waters of religious law, doctrine, or polity. We find that the Diocese and ECUSA organized their affairs with All Saints Parish in a manner that makes the complete resolution of the questions presented achievable through the application of neutral principles of property, trust, and corporate law.
I. Property Ownership
Turning to the 2000 Action, the trial court held that the trust created by the 1745 Trust Deed remained valid and that legal title is held by the unknown heirs of George Pawley and William Poole while the beneficial title is held by the “Inhabitants of Waccamaw Neck.” We disagree.
Based upon an application of the relevant neutral principles of law, we hold that the trial court erred in determining that the trust created by the 1745 Trust Deed remains valid. Further, we hold that this trust was executed by the Statute of Uses and that title to the property is held by the congregational corporate entity – All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.
The Statute of Uses is a wonderfully arcane old law passed under Henry VIII in 1535 to facilitate his grab of monastery lands for the crown. "Use" was the old word for "trust" in English law -- the grant was "A grants Blackacre to B, for the use of C." What the Statute of Uses says, in effect, is that "If you put land in trust for a beneficiary, but do not give the trustee any real duties to carry out, this statute prevents the courts from making up duties for the trustee out of whole cloth. Instead, the courts will be required to treat the 'trust' as nonexistent, and to treat the beneficiary as holding title to the property outright, in fee simple absolute." That is called "executing [extinguishing] the use." Although adopted by many of the earliest States as part of the heritage of English law, the Statute generally was never adopted by later States, since situations for its application became rarer with the passage of time. South Carolina did adopt it, as one of the original Colonies, and it applies to these facts because -- remember? -- the 1745 Trust Deed gave the trustees nothing to do.
A. The Statute of Uses
It is well established that “where there is a conveyance to one for the use of another, and the trustee is charged with no duty which renders it necessary that the legal estate should remain in him to enable him properly to perform such duty, the Statute of Uses executes the use and carries the legal title to the [beneficial] use.” Faber v. Police, 10 S.C. 376, 389-90 (1877).[11] Further, in a trust where the trustees have no duties, “the legal and equitable titles are merged in the beneficiaries and the beneficial use is converted into legal ownership.” Johnson v. Thornton, 264 S.C. 252, 257, 214 S.E.2d 124, 127 (1975). Nonetheless, the Statute of Uses will not operate to execute a trust where there is no beneficiary capable of taking legal title. See Bowen v. Humphreys, 24 S.C. 452, 455 (1886) (holding that the Statute of Uses cannot execute a trust where there is no identifiable beneficiary capable of holding title).
Therefore, there are two questions that must be asked in order to determine if the trust created by the 1745 Trust Deed was executed by the Statute of Uses: (1) whether the trustees had any duties relative to their office, and (2) whether there is a beneficiary capable of taking title. We hold that the trustees of this trust did not have any duties relative to their office and that the congregation of All Saints Parish was the intended beneficiary and, upon its formation, was clearly capable of taking title.
Now the Court goes into the facts in more detail, to show why there was never any real "trust" involved with regard to the land of All Saints Parish.
1. Trustees’ Duties
We hold that the 1745 Trust Deed did not impose any duties upon the trustees, George Pawley and William Poole. Pawley and Poole were colonial appointees given the authority to accept conveyances of land for the purpose of establishing parishes. When named trustees to the 1745 Trust Deed, they were acting as appointees of the colony, not as trustees with traditional duties. This conclusion is supported by the relevant legal realities of that time. The court of appeals in All Saints correctly stated that “in colonial times, churches could not be recognized by the government until they owned property, and they could not own property until they had been officially recognized.” All Saints, 358 S.C. at 225, 595 S.E.2d at 262. “As such, a colonial practice arose in which a settlor placed property in trust for a congregation until such a time as the government recognized the church.” Id. (citing Town of Pawlett, 9 U.S. (Cranch) at 330 (holding “no parish church…could have legal existence until consecration and consecration was expressly inhibited unless a suitable endowment of land.”)). Pawley and Poole did not have any duties relative to the trust, but simply acted as custodians of the property at issue until All Saints Parish was officially established. This conclusion is supported by language of the 1745 Trust Deed which did not expressly impose any duties upon them, nor is there any evidence in the record which suggests that either of the trustees performed any acts relative to their office as trustee.
Further, Percival and Ann Pawley were not traditional settlers of a trust. Rather, they sold the property at a price far above nominal value. They were clearly sellers of property to colonially appointed commissioners for the establishment of a parish, purposes specified by the colonial government.
The next requirement for the Statute to apply is that there be an actual beneficiary who is capable of taking title in fee. This requires the Court to determine just who was meant by the phrase in the 1745 deed, the "Inhabitants of Waccanaw Neck". Watch how it brings history to bear to interpret those words:
2. Beneficiary Capable of Taking Title
Holding that the trustees to the 1745 Trust Deed had no duties, we now analyze whether there was a beneficiary capable of taking title. According to the terms of the 1745 Trust Deed, the beneficiaries were “the Inhabitants of Waccamaw Neck.” This term is ambiguous and parole evidence should be used to ascertain its meaning. See Shelley v Shelley, 244 S.C. 598, 606, 137 S.E.2d 851, 855 (1964)(holding that parole evidence is admissible so long as its admission is merely intended to explain and apply what the settlor has written).
Based on the following application of parole evidence, we hold that the term “Inhabitants of Waccamaw Neck” was used by the settlors of the trust as an expression referring to the yet-to-be-created All Saints Parish. Early South Carolina colonial statutes used the term “inhabitants” when referring to the colony’s parishes. For instance, The Church Act of 1706 contains multiple uses of the term “inhabitants” referring to parishes. See Act No. 256 at §§ 7, 10, 12, 13, 19, 21, 22, 29, 30, 35, 2 S.C. Stat. 284-89 (1706). Additionally, this understanding of the term is supported by the historical context in which the 1745 Trust Deed was executed. In 1745, the inhabitants of Waccamaw Neck were parishioners of Prince George’s Parish. They were clamoring for the establishment of their own Parish congregation and had already been worshipping on the land at issue for approximately eight years. It was within this historical context that the 1745 Trust Deed was executed in expectation that the subject property would be for the benefit of the yet-to-be formed All Saints Parish.
Additionally, according to the express terms of the original Church Act of 1706, a colonial Parish could hold title to land. The Act specifically empowered commissioners “to take up by grant from the Lords Proprietors, or purchase the same for them, or any other person, and have, taken and receive so much land as they think necessary for the several sites of the several churches.” Act No. 256 at § 8, 2 S.C. Stat. 284. Thus, when the Church Act of 1767 formed All Saints Parish, the Statute of Uses operated to execute the trust created by the 1745 Trust Deed and title vested in the intended beneficiary, the congregation of All Saints Parish.
Now the Court wraps up its conclusion that the Parish holds title to the property by pointing out that the defendant Diocese recognized and acknowledged that fact when it gave the Parish its quit-claim deed in 1902:
B. 1903 Quit-Claim Deed
Moreover, the 1903 Quit-Claim Deed makes clear that All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. holds title to its property. The All Saints Parish congregation was officially incorporated in 1820. In 1902, due to doubt over the status of the congregation’s incorporation, the Diocese directed it to re-incorporate as “All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.” Shortly thereafter, in order to settle any doubt as to the status of title to Parish property, the Diocese voluntarily executed the 1903 Quit-Claim deed. The 1903 Quit-Claim Deed makes clear that title to the property at issue is currently held by the congregation’s corporate entity – All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.
And with that buttressing of its analysis, the Court now proceeds to make short shrift of the Dennis Canon, as well as of the Diocese's counterpart, because neither complied with State law about how a trust is to be established (so much for arguments that the Dennis Canon is "self-executing"):
C. 2000 Notice and Dennis Canon
Furthermore, we hold that neither the 2000 Notice nor the Dennis Canon has any legal effect on title to the All Saints congregation’s property. A trust “may be created by either declaration of trust or by transfer of property….” Dreher v. Dreher, 370 S.C. 75, 80, 634 S.E.2d 646, 648 (2006). It is an axiomatic principle of law that a person or entity must hold title to property in order to declare that it is held in trust for the benefit of another or transfer legal title to one person for the benefit of another. The Diocese did not, at the time it recorded the 2000 Notice, have any interest in the congregation’s property. Therefore, the recordation of the 2000 Notice could not have created a trust over the property.
For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that title to the property at issue is held by All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc., the Dennis Canons had no legal effect on the title to the congregation’s property, and the 2000 Notice should be removed from the Georgetown County records.
And that, folks, is all that needs to be said about the Dennis Canon in South Carolina. Parishes there, so long as they have not adopted or made themselves subject to the Dennis Canon or the Diocesan equivalent in their own Articles, should hold a "Church Independence Day" to celebrate the fact that their properties are now free and clear of claims by ECUSA and the Diocese (which latter, if I understand the Diocese's and the Bishop's recent declarations aright, no longer wanted to make them, anyway). The key sentence here is: " The Diocese did not, at the time it recorded the 2000 Notice, have any interest in the congregation’s property." In other words, the passage of the Dennis Canon, if indeed it ever occurred in 1979, accomplished nothing in South Carolina, because it did not, either alone or in combination with Diocesan canons, comply with the requirements of South Carolina law to create a valid trust in real property. The Court now turns to the question of whether the Church could "eject" the dissident vestry members, again under applicable provisions of South Carolina law:
II. Corporate Control
Turning to the 2005 Action, we find that the trial court applied the deference approach, determined that the congregation was part of a hierarchical organization, and deferred to the Diocese’s ecclesiastical authority’s determination that members of the minority vestry were the true officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. We disagree.
While it is true that “[c]ourts may not engage in resolving disputes as to religious law, principle, doctrine, discipline, custom, or administration,” Pearson, 325 S.C. at 53, 478 S.E.2d at 854, the resolution of the 2005 Action does not require such judicial meddling. The 2005 case turns on a determination of whether the Articles of Amendment approved by the members of All Saints Waccamaw, Inc. on January 8, 2004 were adopted in compliance with the South Carolina Non-Profit Act. See S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1001, et. seq. We find that the Articles of Amendment were lawfully adopted and effectively severed the corporation’s legal ties to the ECUSA and the Diocese. Therefore, we find that the members of the majority vestry are the true officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.
Again, this is a key part of the Court's holding. What it says is that the fact that the Episcopal Church may be "hierarchical" does not give it the power to override State law provisions about how parish articles may be amended. If a parish is to be restricted as to how it may change its articles, those restructions must be spelled out in so many words in the Articles themselves. The Court goes on to explain how "majority rule" apples in force here:
Pursuant to the South Carolina Non-Profit Act, a religious corporation may amend its Articles of Incorporation to add or change a provision permitted in the articles or delete a provision not required in the articles. S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1001. Amendment to a corporation’s articles, to be adopted, must be approved by (1) the board of directors, (2) the members “by two-thirds of the votes cast or a majority of the voting power, whichever is less,” and (3) any person whose approval is required by the Articles of Incorporation. S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1003(a)(1-3). The passage of the Articles of Amendment approved by the congregation on January 8, 2004 complied with all three of these requirements.
First, the Articles of Amendment were approved by the board of directors. On December 8, 2003, while still in good standing with the Diocese, the majority vestry, acting as the corporation’s board of directors, approved the Articles of Amendment at issue here. Thus, the passage of the Articles of Amendment met the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1003(a)(1).
Second, the Articles of Amendment were approved by the members of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. by two-thirds of the votes cast. Five hundred and seven members of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. were present at the January 8, 2004 meeting which was called to discuss and vote upon the Articles of Amendment. Of the five hundred and seven members present, four hundred and sixty-four votes were cast in favor of amending the Articles of Incorporation. Therefore, more than nine-tenths of the votes cast were in favor of the amendments, clearly more than the two-thirds statutorily required. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the members present and voting were not in good standing at the time of the vote. Thus, the passage of the Articles of Amendment clearly met the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1003(a)(2).
And now comes the clincher:
Finally, nothing in the All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. by-laws or the Constitutions and Canons of the ECUSA or Diocese requires third-party approval for amendments to the congregation’s corporate charter, therefore the congregation’s adoption of the Articles of Amendment complied with the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1003(a)(3). The statutory provisions pertaining to a religious corporation’s amendment of its corporate charter were amended in 1994 so as to add the option of third-party approval. See 1994 S.C. Acts 384. There is no evidence in the record that, since that time, the Diocese has ever attempted to gain approval power over amendments to the All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. corporate charter.
The facts presented by this case demonstrate that the congregation, in compliance with relevant statutory provisions and applicable bylaws, passed the Articles of Amendment, thus removing any reference to the ECUSA and Diocese and explicitly severing any legal relationship with those organizations. Therefore, through the application of neutral principles of law, it is clear to us that the true officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. are the members of the majority vestry.
If the trial court in San Joaquin had followed the same reasoning, it could not have concluded that the amendments which took the Diocese out of the Church were void and ultra vires. For there were no written restrictions on its powers to amend its Constitution either.
The Court now wraps it up:
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court’s decision with respect to both the 2000 Action and the 2005 Action.
WALLER, BEATTY, JJ., Acting Justice James E. Moore and Acting Justice Perry M. Buckner, concur.
___________________________
[Endnotes]
[1] The Waccamaw Neck is a geographical area bounded by the Waccamaw River and Winyah Bay on the west and south, the Atlantic Ocean on the east, and the North Carolina line in the north.
[2] According to the “Average Earnings Index,” one hundred (100) British Pounds in 1745 was worth One Hundred Forty-One Thousand, Eight Hundred Twenty-Five (141,825) British Pounds or Two Hundred Seventy-Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight (277,778) U.S. Dollars in 2007.
[3] At the time, Charleston was the only place in South Carolina at which land instruments could be recorded.
[4] Presumably, the Dennis Canon was enacted in reaction to the Supreme Court of the United States’s opinion in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979). In Jones, the Supreme Court established that the First Amendment did not require a civil court to defer completely to ecclesiastical authorities when adjudicating church disputes.
[5] Prior to the amendment, “Article Fourth” read: “The purpose of the said proposed Corporation is to conduct Religious services, and prosecute religious works under the forms and according to the canons and rules of the protestant Episcopal Church, and as a component part of the Diocese of said Church in South Carolina.”
[6] In his letter, Bishop Salmon did not opine as to the status of the congregation’s members in so far as it concerned their ability to meet and vote on corporate action.
[7] The Anglican Communion is the worldwide body of Episcopal Dioceses. The Episcopal Church of Rwanda is the Rwandan equivalent of the United States’ ECUSA.
[8] The trial court made its ruling on the 2000 Action pursuant to Rule 39(b), SCRCP.
[9] “A congregational church is an independent organization, governed solely within itself…, while a hierarchical [or ecclesiastical] church may be defined as one organized as a body with other churches having similar faith and doctrine with a common ruling convocation or ecclesiastical head.” Seldon v. Singletary, 284 S.C. 148, 149, 326 S.E.2d 147, 148 (1985).
[10] This command applies to state courts by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.
[11] England enacted the Statute of Uses during the reign of Henry VIII. 27 Henry VIII ch. 10 (1535). It was adopted by the South Carolina Commons House of Assembly in 1712. Act No. 322, 2 S.C. 401 (1712) at 466.
[END OF SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT DECISION]
* * *
As I say, this is truly an historic decision for all Episcopal parishes in the Diocese of South Carolina and of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina. Watch now for the revisionists, if they think they have the power, to press for parishes to execute and record documents which will create the necessary trust interests under South Carolina law. (The effect of provisions in Parish Articles is a more complex question, which I will address in a subsequent post. Suffice it to say that the Diocese of South Carolina has some unusual provisions in its Constitution and Standing Resolutions which might muddy the waters for Parishes having any such provisions. See, for example, the comment here.) Should they be so reckless as to try such a move (and I think it is safe to say that there is no chance of that in the Diocese of South Carolina itself, under Bishop Lawrence), the result would probably be a mass exodus of parishes from the Church in that State, and a further weakening of ECUSA.
Do you see now why I sometimes wonder whether Bishop Walter Dennis was the equivalent of a Trojan Horse for the Episcopal Church (USA)?
Posted by A. S. Haley at 12:47 PM
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Supreme Court of South Carolina has just delivered a unanimous decision in the oldest still-pending court dispute involving the application of ECUSA's Dennis Canon to a parish's property: All Saints Parish Church Waccamaw v. the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina (No. 29724, September 18, 2009). (For some background on the origins of the case, see the discussion toward the bottom of this post.) The opinion presents a clear and thoroughly common-sense refutation of ECUSA's outlandish claims: that as a hierarchical Church, it has the power (1) to decide which congregation/vestry is the "true" congregation/vestry in a given parish; and (2) to override State law by imposing a trust on all parish property everywhere in its Dioceses without its being the owner of any of that property.
The opinion is so clear and well-written, in fact, that there is scarcely any need to translate the greater part of it for a lay person. So I shall present here, for the edification and benefit of those visitors to this blog who have been following with me the vicissitudes of ECUSA's Dennis Canon in the various State courts, a lightly annotated version. (Instead of the traditional, indented quotation format, I shall present the opinion below in normal format, and then put my comments in indented form [with purple text].) Let us begin with the Court's well-laid-out presentation of the basic facts:
CHIEF JUSTICE TOAL: This case presents two questions that arise out of a dispute over church property and corporate control: (1) whether the trial court correctly determined that a trust deed, executed in 1745 for the establishment of a Parish in the Waccamaw Neck region of South Carolina,[1] remains valid; and (2) whether the trial court correctly determined that the vestry representing a minority group of the congregation were the officers of the congregation’s corporate entity, All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.
FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Underlying this appeal are two lawsuits that were consolidated for trial in Georgetown County. The first lawsuit (“the 2000 Action”) was a declaratory judgment action filed by All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. against the Episcopal Church in the United States of America (“ECUSA”) and the South Carolina Diocese (“Diocese”). The 2000 Action was precipitated by the Diocese’s recording of a notice with the Georgetown County clerk of court by which it purported to put the public on notice that the congregation of All Saints Parish held its property in trust for the Diocese and ECUSA.
After the congregation fractured, the second lawsuit (“the 2005 Action”) was filed by a minority faction of the original congregation against its majority which had voted to sever ties with the ECUSA and the Diocese. The minority faction remained loyal to the denominational authorities and was represented by a vestry led by Guerry Green (“the minority vestry”). The majority group was represented by a vestry led by W. Russell Campbell (“the majority vestry”). In the 2005 Action, the minority vestry sought a declaration that they, and not the majority vestry, were the officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. The 2000 Action and the 2005 Action were consolidated and tried in March 2006. This appeal is from the trial court’s order.
Keep that in mind as we continue: there were two separate lawsuits which were consolidated for trial, but with two separate judgments involving different parties, and hence two different appeals being addressed in this one opinion. The Episcopal Church (USA), for example, is a party (defendant) only to the first suit, filed in 2000.
The facts relevant to this appeal date to the early eighteenth century. By the Church Act of 1706, the South Carolina Commons House of Assembly (“Commons House”) established the Church of England as the official religion of colonial South Carolina and created the first parishes in the colony. Parishes were regionally defined and served as ecclesiastical and political entities. All Saints Parish, however, was not formed at that time.
In 1734, George Pawley, a member of the Commons House, was appointed by legislative enactment to erect church buildings in the St. John’s and the Prince George Parishes. He was “authorized to accept and take any grant or conveyance of any lands within said parishes respectively, to them and their heirs, in trust, for the inhabitants of said parishes.” Act No. 567 at § 6, 3 S.C. Stat. 374, 375 (1734). In 1745, Percival and Ann Pawley transferred approximately 60 acres to George Pawley and William Poole. The language of this trust deed (“the 1745 Trust Deed”) provided that George Pawley and William Poole were deeded the land “forever in Trust For the Inhabitants On Waccamaw Neck for Use of A Chapel or Church for divine Worship of the Church of England established by Law…”. Consideration for this transfer was “the Sum of one hundred pounds current Money of South Carolina.”[2] The terms of the 1745 Trust Deed did not bestow any duties upon the trustees, and there is no evidence to suggest that the trustees exercised any duties relative to the 1745 Trust Deed.
This is also important to keep in mind: as the Court will explain in greater detail later, the land was put "in trust" for the "Inhabitants On Waccamaw Neck" only because at that time (1745) there was not yet an incorporated parish which could hold title to any real property. The Trustees named in the Deed were only nominal trustees, with no real duties as such.
On December 10, 1766, the inhabitants of the Waccamaw Neck formally petitioned the Commons House requesting the establishment of their own parish. In 1767, an Act of the Commons House carved out a piece of the Prince George Parish, thus creating a new Parish named All Saints in the Waccamaw Neck region. Subsequently, on January 2, 1767, the 1745 Trust Deed was recorded in Charleston.[3] By 1774, both George Pawley and William Poole had died. Neither the 1745 Trust Deed nor the trustee’s wills named a successor trustee. By all accounts, the property at issue has been actively used as a place of worship since at least 1767, if not before.
This is another crucial fact, as we shall see: the property has been in continuous use as a church since "at least 1767, if not before."
The relationship between South Carolina’s colonial parishes and the Diocese of London was severed during the Revolutionary War. Nonetheless, the South Carolina General Assembly re-established All Saints Parish in 1778. Even though the Church of England was formally disestablished as the official religion of South Carolina in 1790, the property at issue continued to be used as a place of worship.
"Disestablishment" of the English Church in South Carolina was the event that enabled the Diocese of South Carolina to come into being as an independent, autonomous collection of parishes in the newly formed State -- before there was every any such entity as the "Protestant Episcopal Church i9n the United States of America." See my posts here and here for more detail on how PECUSA began and came together.
In 1820, the South Carolina General Assembly passed an Act which officially incorporated the wardens and the vestry of All Saints Parish. The Act expressly enabled the congregation to “have, hold, take and receive” both real and personal property. The congregation’s incorporation was only effective for a period of fourteen years. In 1839, the South Carolina General Assembly renewed the incorporation for an additional fourteen years and, in 1852, the General Assembly did so indefinitely.
An 1880 Act of the South Carolina General Assembly established that title to any property belonging to inactive Episcopal corporations, churches, or dormant parishes was held in trust by the Trustees of the South Carolina Episcopal Diocese.
This is why I asked that you note earlier that the facts showed the property had continuously been used for church purposes since 1767. The 1880 Act therefore did not apply to All Saints Parish, because it had never become "inactive."
The record makes clear that in 1902, due to the 1880 Act, the All Saints congregation became concerned over the status of their incorporation and the status of title to church property. Evidence in the record also indicates that this concern was exacerbated by the destruction of certain property records in a “great storm.”
In May 1902, as a result of its concern, the congregation asked the Diocese to “cooperate with [them] in having the charter of th[e] Parish renewed.” The Diocese’s Chancellor responded positively and not only suggested that the congregation formally incorporate with the Secretary of State as a South Carolina eleemosynary corporation, but also indicated that the Diocese would execute a quit-claim deed transferring to the congregation any interest the Diocese may have had in the All Saints property.
Therefore, at the direction of the Diocese, the congregation re-incorporated in 1902 under the name “All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.” Shortly thereafter, in 1903, the Trustees of the Diocese signed a quit-claim deed (hereinafter the “1903 Quit-Claim Deed”) transferring any interest the Diocese may have had in the congregation’s property to All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. The Diocese did not retain any interest in the property, reversionary or otherwise. The 1903 Quit-Claim Deed was recorded in the Georgetown County public records on May 30, 1903.
Thus the Diocese of South Carolina, by recorded deed in the official records, confirmed that it claimed no interest in the All Saints property. This fact is fatal to its later claim based on the Dennis Canon, as we shall see below.
In 1987, the Diocese amended its constitution and canons so as to include the “Dennis Canon.” The Dennis Canon purports to declare a trust, in favor of the ECUSA and the Diocese, on all real and personal property held by any congregation.[4] No such property canons existed in 1902 when the Diocese directed the congregation to incorporate, or when it executed the 1903 Quit-Claim Deed in favor of the newly created All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.
The Court is sending strong signals here of how it will reach the result in this case. The Dennis Canon only "purports" to declare a trust; it does not in fact establish an effective trust under South Carolina law, because the person declaring the trust -- the national Church -- does not own the property being "declared" as subject to a trust in its favor. And the Court points to the fact that the 1902 deed came well before the 1979 (highly questionable) passage of the Canon. (Its enactment was a last-minute, knee-jerk reaction of New York Suffragan Bishop and erstwhile lawyer Walter Dennis to the then-recent free legal advice offered by Justice Blackmun in Jones v. Wolf, as I discuss in this post. The Episcopal Church (USA) may yet rue the day when it decided to act on that advice -- remember that legal advice tends to be worth what you pay for it.)
In August 2000, due to concern over the status of title to its property, the All Saints congregation conducted a formal title examination. The examiner concluded that the 1745 Trust Deed and the 1903 Quit-Claim Deed were the only recorded deeds pertaining to the congregation’s property.
Thus the professional title examiner, trained in South Carolina, could find no record of the Episcopal Church's (and the Diocese's) putative "trust" interest in the All Saints property. And now wonder -- how could he have found it? Nothing had been placed of record in the official title documents. Even ECUSA's own Episcopal News Service did not show any awareness of the Canon's existence until after this Pawley's Island lawsuit started. (A search of ENS archives turns up no mention of the words "Dennis Canon" until the story just linked -- even its account of the 1979 General Convention which supposedly adopted the Canon leaves out all mention of it.) If there was ever a "stealth action", unworthy of Christians, it was ECUSA's last-minute attempt to enact the Dennis Canon. Now watch how the Diocese tried to correct the situation:
Soon thereafter, in September 2000, the Diocese recorded a notice in Georgetown County purporting to declare that the congregation held its property, pursuant to the Dennis Canon, in trust for the benefit of the ECUSA and the Diocese (“the 2000 Notice”). Because of the 2000 Notice and the 1745 Trust Deed, the congregation was unable to acquire title insurance.
There is that word "purport" again. The Diocese, like ECUSA itself, was trying to declare a trust interest in the property by enacting a canon, without actually owning the property it was trying to place in trust. All it did with its notice, in the Court's view, was put a cloud on the parish's title so that it could no longer obtain title insurance. This resulted in the Parish bringing an action against both the Diocese and ECUSA to "quiet" its title -- that is, to obtain a judicial declaration that neither the Diocese nor the national Church owned any kind of interest in its property. Today's decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court, some ten years later, is the final declaration which clears All Saints' title for once and for all.
In October 2000, the congregation, in the name of its corporate entity, All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc., filed a declaratory judgment action against the ECUSA and the Diocese in which it sought an order declaring that the congregation held title to its property or, in the alternative, held its property in trust for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Waccamaw Neck pursuant to the 1745 Trust Deed. The Diocese and the ECUSA answered and counterclaimed asserting that the property was subject to their canons and the 2000 Notice.
By consent order, a guardian ad litem was appointed to represent the interests of John and Jane Doe, the unknown heirs of the original trustees to the 1745 Trust Deed, George Pawley and William Poole.
The parish was covering its bases here. The 1745 Trust Deed named initial trustees, but no successors. When the two trustees so named died, they did not name any persons in their wills to be the successor trustees. And by the year 2000 -- more than 225 years after their deaths -- it had become impossible to trace who George Pawley's and William Poole's current descendants were (as though the "trusteeship" descended by law through their families -- which it did not, as we shall see). So to cover for that contingency, "John and Jane Doe" were named as their unknown descendants (although one descendant of George Pawley, Evelyn Labruce, had joined the suit as a plaintiff), and a local attorney appointed as their "guardian ad litem", or representative appointed by agreement to represent the Trustees' interest, if any, in the lawsuit. That representative, as we next read, quickly took issue with the claim of ECUSA and the Diocese to be the beneficiaries of yet a different trust in the property:
The Does and the congregation filed joint motions for summary judgment. The motions were granted and, pursuant to the 1745 Trust Deed, the trial court found that the Does held legal title to the property at issue and that the inhabitants of the Waccamaw Neck held equitable title as beneficiaries to the 1745 Trust Deed. The matter was remanded to the probate court for further fact finding with respect to the identity of the parties to the 1745 Trust Deed.
So the initial outcome of the 2000 lawsuit was a declaration that the successors to the original trustees, whoever they now were, would still hold title to the parish property in trust for the "inhabitants of Waccamaw Neck", who were the beneficiaries of the trust. The trial court gave no recognition to the "Dennis Canon trust" -- which caused the Diocese and ECUSA to appeal its decision. The remanding of the case to the probate court was so that it could determine who were the appropriate successor trustees, some 225 years after the fact (good luck with that).
The ECUSA and Diocese appealed. The court of appeals found that there were genuine issues of material fact concerning whether the trust created by the 1745 Trust Deed failed when the Church of England ceased to be established as the official religion of South Carolina and whether the Statute of Uses operated to execute the trust. Accordingly, the court of appeals remanded the case to the circuit court. All Saints Parish, Waccamaw v. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, 358 S.C. 209, 595 S.E.2d 253 (Ct. App. 2004), cert denied, July 2005.
As appellate courts are wont to do, the South Carolina Court of Appeals saw things differently than did the trial court. It was of the view that when the Church of England's authority ceased to have any effect in this country following the revolution, the 1745 trust of the property established for the purpose of opening a "Chapel or Church for divine Worship of the Church of England established by Law" could no longer be given effect, and so failed. A failed trust meant there were no longer any trustees, so the court of appeals sent the case back to the trial court to determine who now owned the property. In the time it took for the appeal, however, the troubled waters of ECUSA were roiled even more with the confirmation of V. Gene Robinson's election to the see of New Hampshire -- an event to which the Court alludes only indirectly:
In August 2003, prompted by events that are not relevant here, the congregation appointed a committee to recommend whether it should leave the Diocese and the ECUSA. On December 9, 2003 the committee recommended that the corporate charter of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. be amended so as to delete references to the canons and rules of the Diocese and the ECUSA. Specifically, the committee recommended that “Article Fourth”[5] of the 1902 Certificate of Incorporation be amended to read:
"The purpose of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc., also known as All Saints Church, is to create an environment in which all people and especially the inhabitants of the Waccamaw Neck come to know Jesus Christ: to Love Him, to Worship Him, to Learn of Him, to Proclaim Him, and to Minister in His Name."
Furthermore, the committee recommended that the congregation additionally amend its charter so as to affirmatively sever its affiliation with the ECUSA and the Diocese.
On December 17, 2003, after learning of the proposed amendments, Edward L. Salmon, Jr., Bishop of the Diocese, sent a letter to the congregation’s wardens and each member of the vestry stating that the congregation’s status was reduced from that of a parish to a “mission.” In his letter, Bishop Salmon also declared that the members of the congregation’s vestry had abandoned their offices.[6]
On December 21, 2003, sixty members of the congregation signed a “Request for Special Congregational Meeting.” The purpose of this meeting was to discuss and vote on whether the congregation should take the committee’s recommendations and vote to amend its charter so as to change its corporate purpose and sever its affiliation with the ECUSA and the Diocese. Notice of the meeting was sent to the congregation’s members on December 23, 2003.
On January 8, 2004, five-hundred and seven of the congregation’s members attended the Special Congregational Meeting and more than a two-thirds majority voted to amend the congregation’s 1902 Certificate of Incorporation adopting the aforementioned amendment to “Article Fourth.” Additionally, more than a two-thirds majority voted to amend the charter so as to withdraw from the Diocese and the ECUSA, but remain part of the Anglican Communion by affiliating themselves with the Episcopal Church of Rwanda and its Anglican Mission in America.[7] Accordingly, the corporate secretary for All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. prepared and signed the Articles of Amendment to the 1902 Certificate of Incorporation. These Articles of Amendment were filed in the South Carolina Secretary of State’s office on January 15, 2004.
The Court's history of events within the parish here is excellent, and needs no elaboration. As the Court will later observe to emphasize the result it reaches, the vote to amend the Articles actually passed by an even greater majority: 464 out of 507, or greater than 90%.
On January 9, 2005, a small group of members who remained loyal to the Diocese and the ECUSA met with Bishop Salmon and purported to elect a new vestry for the congregation – the minority vestry. Subsequently, on January 16, 2004, the majority group of members re-elected the vestry removed by the Bishop – the majority vestry.
There is that word again, which signals that the Court does not agree that Bishop Salmon had any authority under South Carolina law to fire the vestry. This was the first attempt by anyone in ECUSA to apply an "ejector-seat" mechanism to those voting to disaffiliate. Since that time, some Dioceses have incorporated such a power into their canons, but to have any effect on lay positions, appropriate acknowledgments would ordinarily have to be put into the parish corporate articles, as well. Nevertheless, compare the Court's rejection of Bishop Salmon's summary removals with the California courts' upholding of the same action taken by Bishop Mathes in San Diego, as discussed in this post.
On January 20, 2005, the minority vestry filed the 2005 Action against the majority vestry alleging that they forfeited office by recommending that the congregation sever its affiliation with the ECUSA and the Diocese. The minority vestry sought a declaration that they were All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.’s true officers. Additionally, they sought the return of the congregation’s real and personal property. The Diocese and Bishop Salmon joined in the action. Subsequently, the trial court consolidated the 2000 Action and the 2005 Action.
The consolidated cases were tried and, after each of the parties presented its case, the trial court decided both underlying actions as a matter of law. With respect to the 2000 Action, the trial court held that, pursuant to the terms of the 1745 Trust Deed, legal title to the real property remained in the unknown Heirs of George Pawley and William Poole, while beneficial title was possessed by the “inhabitants of Waccamaw Neck.”[8]
Thus with respect to the earlier lawsuit over title, the trial court maintained, despite the appellate court's holding that the 1745 Trust had failed, that legal title to the property still remained in the hands of whoever were the current trustees, and it again kicked the case over to the probate court to answer that question. But as the Supreme Court's opinion goes on to explain, the trial court's resolution of the second (2005) lawsuit was what really changed the landscape:
As to the 2005 Action, the trial court held that members of the minority vestry were the true officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. In its original bench order, however, the trial court declined to eject the majority group from the real property because the identity of the parties to the trust created by the 1745 Trust Deed was yet to be determined by the probate court. Nonetheless, upon a motion for reconsideration, the trial court ordered the Secretary of State to cancel the Articles of Amendment filed by the majority group, ejected the majority vestry from the property it occupied which was not granted to the congregation by the 1745 Trust Deed, and restrained the majority vestry from acting as the officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
This Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the trial court and the parties raise the following issues for review:
I. Did the trial court err in holding that the trust created by the 1745 Trust Deed remains valid?
II. Did the trial court err in holding that members of minority vestry were the corporate officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.?
In this manner, the Court frames the actual legal questions it will decide in the two appeals. Next, it explains the legal principles it will follow in addressing those questions, in a section entitled "Standard of Review" which I shall omit here, as being of interest only to attorneys. Let us go right on to the Court's analysis, which begins with an excellently educational summary of the current state of church property law in the United States, under the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court:
LAW/ANALYSIS
In this case, we are called upon to adjudicate two disputes. The 2000 Action is a dispute between a congregation and its denomination over title to church property. The 2005 Action is a dispute among the congregation’s members over corporate control. Because church disputes are very often prompted by disagreements over religious doctrine and belief, the civil courts in this country have addressed them carefully, keeping the First Amendment in mind. The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning church dispute litigation make clear that there is no constitutionally prescribed rule for a civil court’s disposition of such matters. Nonetheless, there is a general constitutional command, based in the First Amendment, mandating that civil courts to “decide church…disputes without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine.” Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 710 (1976).
Within the context of this general constitutional command, the Supreme Court of the United States has expressly approved two methods for a civil court’s resolution of church disputes. These approaches have become known as the “deference approach” and the “neutral principles of law approach.” We hereby explicitly reaffirm that, when resolving church dispute cases, South Carolina courts are to apply the neutral principles of law approach as approved by the Supreme Court of the United States in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979), and expressed by this Court in Pearson v. Church of God, 325 S.C. 45, 478 S.E.2d 849 (1996). The following context is necessary for a clear understanding of this rule and its application to the facts presented by this case.
The importance of this holding for parishes in the State of South Carolina cannot be overemphasized, as I shall explain below. The Supreme Court has now made clear what was only implicit in its 1996 decision of Pearson v. Church of God: courts in the State are to apply "neutral principles of law" in resolving church property disputes. The Court goes on to explain what is bad about the "deference" approach which it followed before 1996:
The Supreme Court of the United States first approved the “deference approach” in 1871. See Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1871). Under this approach, a court must only determine whether a church is “congregational” or “hierarchical” in nature.[9] If the church is congregational, the court will resolve the dispute by deferring to a majority of the congregation. However, if the congregation at issue is part of a hierarchical organization, the court will defer to the decision of the ecclesiastical authorities.
Because the deference approach was, for a long time, the only approach explicitly approved as constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, this Court has issued a handful of opinions that are consistent with the deference approach. See Bramlett v. Young, 229 S.C. 519, 93 S.E.2d 873 (1956) (holding that a minority group of a local, hierarchical Presbyterian church’s members were entitled to ownership and control of church property because they were recognized as the true congregation by the hierarchical authorities); Adickes v. Adkins, 264 S.C. 394, 215 S.E.2d 442 (1975) (holding that where a majority of a local Presbyterian congregation voted to sever its connection with its hierarchical authorities, the minority faction which the hierarchical authorities recognized as the true congregation was entitled to control of the church properties); Seldon v. Singletary, 248 S.C. 148, 326 S.E.2d 147 (1985) (holding that a local church was part of a hierarchical denomination, thus, the minority group of members recognized by the hierarchical authorities were entitled to possession and control of church property). In each of these cases we applied the deference approach and analyzed the issues by determining whether the church at issue was congregational or hierarchical in nature and deferred accordingly. This short analysis disposed of those cases and, in so doing, these decisions complied with the First Amendment’s command that “civil courts…decide church property disputes without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine.”[10] Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 710 (1976) quoting Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449 (1969).
The deference approach, which the Supreme Court of the United States never explicitly held was the only constitutional method of adjudicating church disputes, is rigid in its application and does not give efficacy to the neutral, civil legal documents and principles with which religious congregations and denominations often organize their affairs. Thus, throughout the country, other approaches to the resolution of church disputes have slowly developed.
In 1979, the Supreme Court of the United States expressly approved the use of a second method of resolving church disputes. In Jones v. Wolf, the Supreme Court affirmed a Georgia court’s use of the neutral principles of law approach to resolve church disputes. 443 U.S. at 603 (holding that a state is constitutionally entitled to adopt the neutral principles of law approach as a means of adjudicating church disputes). This method “relies exclusively on objective, well-established concepts of trust and property law familiar to lawyers and judges. It thereby promises to free civil courts completely from entanglement in questions of religious doctrine, polity, and practice.” Id. at 603. Church disputes that are resolved under the neutral principles of law approach do not turn on the single question of whether a church is congregational or hierarchical. Rather, the neutral principles of law approach permits the application of property, corporate, and other forms of law to church disputes.
A clear recitation of the neutral principles of law approach as adopted by this Court was enunciated in Pearson v. Church of God. In Pearson, we articulated the rule that South Carolina civil courts must follow when adjudicating church dispute cases. We reaffirm and more fully explain this rule here. The Pearson rule provides:
(1) Courts may not engage in resolving disputes as to religious law, principle, doctrine, discipline, custom, or administration; (2) courts cannot avoid adjudicating rights growing out of civil law; (3) in resolving such civil law disputes, courts must accept as final and binding the decision of the highest religious judicatories as to religious law, principle, doctrine, discipline, custom, and administration.
325 S.C. at 53, 478 S.E.2d at 854.
The Pearson rule establishes that where a civil court can completely resolve a church dispute on neutral principles of law, the First Amendment commands it to do so.
Frankly, I do not see where it says that in the language in which the Court summarizes the holding in Pearson, but I am not going to quibble. Whatever it said or did not say in Pearson, the Court now makes it clear: South Carolina courts are to apply neutral principles in church property cases. And as we shall see below, this means that neutral principles of State law are to be followed even when a church claims it is "hierarchical", so long as it means that no decision of a "church judicatory" with respect to matters of "religious law, principle, doctrine, discipline, custom, and administration" will be set aside or contradicted.
Nonetheless, where a civil court is presented an issue which is a question of religious law or doctrine masquerading as a dispute over church property or corporate control, it must defer to the decisions of the proper church judicatories in so far as it concerns religious or doctrinal issues. See Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese, 426 U.S. at 709 (finding that the controversy before the Court “essentially involve[d] not a church property dispute, but a religious dispute the resolution of which…is for ecclesiastical and not civil tribunals.”).
In the Serbian Eastern Orthodox case, the underlying dispute was whether the Church had properly deposed one of its bishops. Property was involved only because the bishop, by virtue of his office, held the title to certain church property. Thus which person was entitled to be bishop of that Church's diocese -- the one deposed, or the one whom the Church designated to replace him -- controlled who owned that Diocese's property. The United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court requiring the Church to reinstate its deposed bishop, and held that such secular court interference in Church disciplinary matters violated the First Amendment. The South Carolina Supreme Court recognizes that principle, but is saying it is not at stake here.
It is with the Pearson rule in mind that we now turn to the two issues before us in this appeal. We remain mindful of the First Amendment and its protections of religious liberty. Nonetheless, adjudication of this matter does not require us to wade into the waters of religious law, doctrine, or polity. We find that the Diocese and ECUSA organized their affairs with All Saints Parish in a manner that makes the complete resolution of the questions presented achievable through the application of neutral principles of property, trust, and corporate law.
I. Property Ownership
Turning to the 2000 Action, the trial court held that the trust created by the 1745 Trust Deed remained valid and that legal title is held by the unknown heirs of George Pawley and William Poole while the beneficial title is held by the “Inhabitants of Waccamaw Neck.” We disagree.
Based upon an application of the relevant neutral principles of law, we hold that the trial court erred in determining that the trust created by the 1745 Trust Deed remains valid. Further, we hold that this trust was executed by the Statute of Uses and that title to the property is held by the congregational corporate entity – All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.
The Statute of Uses is a wonderfully arcane old law passed under Henry VIII in 1535 to facilitate his grab of monastery lands for the crown. "Use" was the old word for "trust" in English law -- the grant was "A grants Blackacre to B, for the use of C." What the Statute of Uses says, in effect, is that "If you put land in trust for a beneficiary, but do not give the trustee any real duties to carry out, this statute prevents the courts from making up duties for the trustee out of whole cloth. Instead, the courts will be required to treat the 'trust' as nonexistent, and to treat the beneficiary as holding title to the property outright, in fee simple absolute." That is called "executing [extinguishing] the use." Although adopted by many of the earliest States as part of the heritage of English law, the Statute generally was never adopted by later States, since situations for its application became rarer with the passage of time. South Carolina did adopt it, as one of the original Colonies, and it applies to these facts because -- remember? -- the 1745 Trust Deed gave the trustees nothing to do.
A. The Statute of Uses
It is well established that “where there is a conveyance to one for the use of another, and the trustee is charged with no duty which renders it necessary that the legal estate should remain in him to enable him properly to perform such duty, the Statute of Uses executes the use and carries the legal title to the [beneficial] use.” Faber v. Police, 10 S.C. 376, 389-90 (1877).[11] Further, in a trust where the trustees have no duties, “the legal and equitable titles are merged in the beneficiaries and the beneficial use is converted into legal ownership.” Johnson v. Thornton, 264 S.C. 252, 257, 214 S.E.2d 124, 127 (1975). Nonetheless, the Statute of Uses will not operate to execute a trust where there is no beneficiary capable of taking legal title. See Bowen v. Humphreys, 24 S.C. 452, 455 (1886) (holding that the Statute of Uses cannot execute a trust where there is no identifiable beneficiary capable of holding title).
Therefore, there are two questions that must be asked in order to determine if the trust created by the 1745 Trust Deed was executed by the Statute of Uses: (1) whether the trustees had any duties relative to their office, and (2) whether there is a beneficiary capable of taking title. We hold that the trustees of this trust did not have any duties relative to their office and that the congregation of All Saints Parish was the intended beneficiary and, upon its formation, was clearly capable of taking title.
Now the Court goes into the facts in more detail, to show why there was never any real "trust" involved with regard to the land of All Saints Parish.
1. Trustees’ Duties
We hold that the 1745 Trust Deed did not impose any duties upon the trustees, George Pawley and William Poole. Pawley and Poole were colonial appointees given the authority to accept conveyances of land for the purpose of establishing parishes. When named trustees to the 1745 Trust Deed, they were acting as appointees of the colony, not as trustees with traditional duties. This conclusion is supported by the relevant legal realities of that time. The court of appeals in All Saints correctly stated that “in colonial times, churches could not be recognized by the government until they owned property, and they could not own property until they had been officially recognized.” All Saints, 358 S.C. at 225, 595 S.E.2d at 262. “As such, a colonial practice arose in which a settlor placed property in trust for a congregation until such a time as the government recognized the church.” Id. (citing Town of Pawlett, 9 U.S. (Cranch) at 330 (holding “no parish church…could have legal existence until consecration and consecration was expressly inhibited unless a suitable endowment of land.”)). Pawley and Poole did not have any duties relative to the trust, but simply acted as custodians of the property at issue until All Saints Parish was officially established. This conclusion is supported by language of the 1745 Trust Deed which did not expressly impose any duties upon them, nor is there any evidence in the record which suggests that either of the trustees performed any acts relative to their office as trustee.
Further, Percival and Ann Pawley were not traditional settlers of a trust. Rather, they sold the property at a price far above nominal value. They were clearly sellers of property to colonially appointed commissioners for the establishment of a parish, purposes specified by the colonial government.
The next requirement for the Statute to apply is that there be an actual beneficiary who is capable of taking title in fee. This requires the Court to determine just who was meant by the phrase in the 1745 deed, the "Inhabitants of Waccanaw Neck". Watch how it brings history to bear to interpret those words:
2. Beneficiary Capable of Taking Title
Holding that the trustees to the 1745 Trust Deed had no duties, we now analyze whether there was a beneficiary capable of taking title. According to the terms of the 1745 Trust Deed, the beneficiaries were “the Inhabitants of Waccamaw Neck.” This term is ambiguous and parole evidence should be used to ascertain its meaning. See Shelley v Shelley, 244 S.C. 598, 606, 137 S.E.2d 851, 855 (1964)(holding that parole evidence is admissible so long as its admission is merely intended to explain and apply what the settlor has written).
Based on the following application of parole evidence, we hold that the term “Inhabitants of Waccamaw Neck” was used by the settlors of the trust as an expression referring to the yet-to-be-created All Saints Parish. Early South Carolina colonial statutes used the term “inhabitants” when referring to the colony’s parishes. For instance, The Church Act of 1706 contains multiple uses of the term “inhabitants” referring to parishes. See Act No. 256 at §§ 7, 10, 12, 13, 19, 21, 22, 29, 30, 35, 2 S.C. Stat. 284-89 (1706). Additionally, this understanding of the term is supported by the historical context in which the 1745 Trust Deed was executed. In 1745, the inhabitants of Waccamaw Neck were parishioners of Prince George’s Parish. They were clamoring for the establishment of their own Parish congregation and had already been worshipping on the land at issue for approximately eight years. It was within this historical context that the 1745 Trust Deed was executed in expectation that the subject property would be for the benefit of the yet-to-be formed All Saints Parish.
Additionally, according to the express terms of the original Church Act of 1706, a colonial Parish could hold title to land. The Act specifically empowered commissioners “to take up by grant from the Lords Proprietors, or purchase the same for them, or any other person, and have, taken and receive so much land as they think necessary for the several sites of the several churches.” Act No. 256 at § 8, 2 S.C. Stat. 284. Thus, when the Church Act of 1767 formed All Saints Parish, the Statute of Uses operated to execute the trust created by the 1745 Trust Deed and title vested in the intended beneficiary, the congregation of All Saints Parish.
Now the Court wraps up its conclusion that the Parish holds title to the property by pointing out that the defendant Diocese recognized and acknowledged that fact when it gave the Parish its quit-claim deed in 1902:
B. 1903 Quit-Claim Deed
Moreover, the 1903 Quit-Claim Deed makes clear that All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. holds title to its property. The All Saints Parish congregation was officially incorporated in 1820. In 1902, due to doubt over the status of the congregation’s incorporation, the Diocese directed it to re-incorporate as “All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.” Shortly thereafter, in order to settle any doubt as to the status of title to Parish property, the Diocese voluntarily executed the 1903 Quit-Claim deed. The 1903 Quit-Claim Deed makes clear that title to the property at issue is currently held by the congregation’s corporate entity – All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.
And with that buttressing of its analysis, the Court now proceeds to make short shrift of the Dennis Canon, as well as of the Diocese's counterpart, because neither complied with State law about how a trust is to be established (so much for arguments that the Dennis Canon is "self-executing"):
C. 2000 Notice and Dennis Canon
Furthermore, we hold that neither the 2000 Notice nor the Dennis Canon has any legal effect on title to the All Saints congregation’s property. A trust “may be created by either declaration of trust or by transfer of property….” Dreher v. Dreher, 370 S.C. 75, 80, 634 S.E.2d 646, 648 (2006). It is an axiomatic principle of law that a person or entity must hold title to property in order to declare that it is held in trust for the benefit of another or transfer legal title to one person for the benefit of another. The Diocese did not, at the time it recorded the 2000 Notice, have any interest in the congregation’s property. Therefore, the recordation of the 2000 Notice could not have created a trust over the property.
For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that title to the property at issue is held by All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc., the Dennis Canons had no legal effect on the title to the congregation’s property, and the 2000 Notice should be removed from the Georgetown County records.
And that, folks, is all that needs to be said about the Dennis Canon in South Carolina. Parishes there, so long as they have not adopted or made themselves subject to the Dennis Canon or the Diocesan equivalent in their own Articles, should hold a "Church Independence Day" to celebrate the fact that their properties are now free and clear of claims by ECUSA and the Diocese (which latter, if I understand the Diocese's and the Bishop's recent declarations aright, no longer wanted to make them, anyway). The key sentence here is: " The Diocese did not, at the time it recorded the 2000 Notice, have any interest in the congregation’s property." In other words, the passage of the Dennis Canon, if indeed it ever occurred in 1979, accomplished nothing in South Carolina, because it did not, either alone or in combination with Diocesan canons, comply with the requirements of South Carolina law to create a valid trust in real property. The Court now turns to the question of whether the Church could "eject" the dissident vestry members, again under applicable provisions of South Carolina law:
II. Corporate Control
Turning to the 2005 Action, we find that the trial court applied the deference approach, determined that the congregation was part of a hierarchical organization, and deferred to the Diocese’s ecclesiastical authority’s determination that members of the minority vestry were the true officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. We disagree.
While it is true that “[c]ourts may not engage in resolving disputes as to religious law, principle, doctrine, discipline, custom, or administration,” Pearson, 325 S.C. at 53, 478 S.E.2d at 854, the resolution of the 2005 Action does not require such judicial meddling. The 2005 case turns on a determination of whether the Articles of Amendment approved by the members of All Saints Waccamaw, Inc. on January 8, 2004 were adopted in compliance with the South Carolina Non-Profit Act. See S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1001, et. seq. We find that the Articles of Amendment were lawfully adopted and effectively severed the corporation’s legal ties to the ECUSA and the Diocese. Therefore, we find that the members of the majority vestry are the true officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.
Again, this is a key part of the Court's holding. What it says is that the fact that the Episcopal Church may be "hierarchical" does not give it the power to override State law provisions about how parish articles may be amended. If a parish is to be restricted as to how it may change its articles, those restructions must be spelled out in so many words in the Articles themselves. The Court goes on to explain how "majority rule" apples in force here:
Pursuant to the South Carolina Non-Profit Act, a religious corporation may amend its Articles of Incorporation to add or change a provision permitted in the articles or delete a provision not required in the articles. S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1001. Amendment to a corporation’s articles, to be adopted, must be approved by (1) the board of directors, (2) the members “by two-thirds of the votes cast or a majority of the voting power, whichever is less,” and (3) any person whose approval is required by the Articles of Incorporation. S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1003(a)(1-3). The passage of the Articles of Amendment approved by the congregation on January 8, 2004 complied with all three of these requirements.
First, the Articles of Amendment were approved by the board of directors. On December 8, 2003, while still in good standing with the Diocese, the majority vestry, acting as the corporation’s board of directors, approved the Articles of Amendment at issue here. Thus, the passage of the Articles of Amendment met the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1003(a)(1).
Second, the Articles of Amendment were approved by the members of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. by two-thirds of the votes cast. Five hundred and seven members of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. were present at the January 8, 2004 meeting which was called to discuss and vote upon the Articles of Amendment. Of the five hundred and seven members present, four hundred and sixty-four votes were cast in favor of amending the Articles of Incorporation. Therefore, more than nine-tenths of the votes cast were in favor of the amendments, clearly more than the two-thirds statutorily required. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the members present and voting were not in good standing at the time of the vote. Thus, the passage of the Articles of Amendment clearly met the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1003(a)(2).
And now comes the clincher:
Finally, nothing in the All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. by-laws or the Constitutions and Canons of the ECUSA or Diocese requires third-party approval for amendments to the congregation’s corporate charter, therefore the congregation’s adoption of the Articles of Amendment complied with the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-1003(a)(3). The statutory provisions pertaining to a religious corporation’s amendment of its corporate charter were amended in 1994 so as to add the option of third-party approval. See 1994 S.C. Acts 384. There is no evidence in the record that, since that time, the Diocese has ever attempted to gain approval power over amendments to the All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. corporate charter.
The facts presented by this case demonstrate that the congregation, in compliance with relevant statutory provisions and applicable bylaws, passed the Articles of Amendment, thus removing any reference to the ECUSA and Diocese and explicitly severing any legal relationship with those organizations. Therefore, through the application of neutral principles of law, it is clear to us that the true officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. are the members of the majority vestry.
If the trial court in San Joaquin had followed the same reasoning, it could not have concluded that the amendments which took the Diocese out of the Church were void and ultra vires. For there were no written restrictions on its powers to amend its Constitution either.
The Court now wraps it up:
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court’s decision with respect to both the 2000 Action and the 2005 Action.
WALLER, BEATTY, JJ., Acting Justice James E. Moore and Acting Justice Perry M. Buckner, concur.
___________________________
[Endnotes]
[1] The Waccamaw Neck is a geographical area bounded by the Waccamaw River and Winyah Bay on the west and south, the Atlantic Ocean on the east, and the North Carolina line in the north.
[2] According to the “Average Earnings Index,” one hundred (100) British Pounds in 1745 was worth One Hundred Forty-One Thousand, Eight Hundred Twenty-Five (141,825) British Pounds or Two Hundred Seventy-Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight (277,778) U.S. Dollars in 2007.
[3] At the time, Charleston was the only place in South Carolina at which land instruments could be recorded.
[4] Presumably, the Dennis Canon was enacted in reaction to the Supreme Court of the United States’s opinion in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979). In Jones, the Supreme Court established that the First Amendment did not require a civil court to defer completely to ecclesiastical authorities when adjudicating church disputes.
[5] Prior to the amendment, “Article Fourth” read: “The purpose of the said proposed Corporation is to conduct Religious services, and prosecute religious works under the forms and according to the canons and rules of the protestant Episcopal Church, and as a component part of the Diocese of said Church in South Carolina.”
[6] In his letter, Bishop Salmon did not opine as to the status of the congregation’s members in so far as it concerned their ability to meet and vote on corporate action.
[7] The Anglican Communion is the worldwide body of Episcopal Dioceses. The Episcopal Church of Rwanda is the Rwandan equivalent of the United States’ ECUSA.
[8] The trial court made its ruling on the 2000 Action pursuant to Rule 39(b), SCRCP.
[9] “A congregational church is an independent organization, governed solely within itself…, while a hierarchical [or ecclesiastical] church may be defined as one organized as a body with other churches having similar faith and doctrine with a common ruling convocation or ecclesiastical head.” Seldon v. Singletary, 284 S.C. 148, 149, 326 S.E.2d 147, 148 (1985).
[10] This command applies to state courts by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.
[11] England enacted the Statute of Uses during the reign of Henry VIII. 27 Henry VIII ch. 10 (1535). It was adopted by the South Carolina Commons House of Assembly in 1712. Act No. 322, 2 S.C. 401 (1712) at 466.
[END OF SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT DECISION]
* * *
As I say, this is truly an historic decision for all Episcopal parishes in the Diocese of South Carolina and of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina. Watch now for the revisionists, if they think they have the power, to press for parishes to execute and record documents which will create the necessary trust interests under South Carolina law. (The effect of provisions in Parish Articles is a more complex question, which I will address in a subsequent post. Suffice it to say that the Diocese of South Carolina has some unusual provisions in its Constitution and Standing Resolutions which might muddy the waters for Parishes having any such provisions. See, for example, the comment here.) Should they be so reckless as to try such a move (and I think it is safe to say that there is no chance of that in the Diocese of South Carolina itself, under Bishop Lawrence), the result would probably be a mass exodus of parishes from the Church in that State, and a further weakening of ECUSA.
Do you see now why I sometimes wonder whether Bishop Walter Dennis was the equivalent of a Trojan Horse for the Episcopal Church (USA)?
Posted by A. S. Haley at 12:47 PM
South Carolina Supreme Court Rules in Favor of AMiA Parish
From BabyBlue Online:
Source: AMiA (Via Email)
September 18, 2009
Bishop Chuck Murphy of The Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA) made the following comments to the American Anglican Council regarding today's ruling by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. They are being released with Bishop Murphy's permission:
"In addition to being a complete victory for all of us here at All Saints, Pawleys Island, it is a profoundly important legal decision repudiating the ‘authority' of the Dennis Canon. I believe that this will have enormous implications not only for the two Episcopal dioceses in South Carolina, but, I suspect, for other churches throughout the U.S.A."
Source: AMiA (Via Email)
September 18, 2009
Bishop Chuck Murphy of The Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA) made the following comments to the American Anglican Council regarding today's ruling by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. They are being released with Bishop Murphy's permission:
"In addition to being a complete victory for all of us here at All Saints, Pawleys Island, it is a profoundly important legal decision repudiating the ‘authority' of the Dennis Canon. I believe that this will have enormous implications not only for the two Episcopal dioceses in South Carolina, but, I suspect, for other churches throughout the U.S.A."
Litigation against Disaffiliating Dioceses: Is it Authorized and What does Fiduciary Duty Require?
From the Anglican Communion Institute:
Written by: Mike Watson
Thursday, September 17th, 2009
full footnoted text available from ACI (.pdf)
This paper examines whether the Presiding Bishop is authorized to initiate and conduct recent property litigation and finds no source for such authority in the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Arguments based on a presumed equivalence of the roles of the Presiding Bishop and Executive Council to those of a corporate CEO and board of directors are found not to be valid. The paper also examines claims that pursuit of litigation is necessitated by fiduciary duty. It concludes that no convincing case has been made that this is so. First, no person is under a fiduciary duty to undertake something that has not been authorized. Putting aside the issue of authorization, several factors relevant to a proper fiduciary duty analysis suggest refraining from litigation such as has been commenced against disaffiliating dioceses. In this connection, relevant fiduciary duties are not limited to those that may be owed to TEC as an organization, but also include duties owed to its member dioceses. Claims that a member diocese cannot disaffiliate and retain ownership of its property implicate the latter set of duties. The paper presents a case that the duties to dioceses include duties to those that have withdrawn because the claims against them are based on alleged consequences of their having been dioceses of TEC rather than the actions of an unaffiliated third party.
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and others have maintained that pursuit by The Episcopal Church of property litigation is required by fiduciary duty. For example, in October 2007 the Presiding Bishop gave deposition testimony in the Virginia litigation against several congregations, saying, “I have a responsibility both in a fiduciary sense and an ecclesiastical sense to protect the assets of the Episcopal Church and to protect the integrity of the Episcopal Church” and also that “I believe I have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the assets of the Episcopal Church for the mission of the Episcopal Church.” In the same testimony, asked about her refusal to suspend litigation in response to the requests of the Anglican Communion Primates in the Dar es Salaam communiqué, she responded, “I cannot suspend what I have a fiduciary duty to protect.” In connection with the San Joaquin litigation, Bishop Jerry Lamb said the litigation was required by “a canonical, fiduciary and moral duty to protect the assets and property of the church for the church’s mission.”
A recurring element in statements attempting to justify litigation against dioceses and parishes is the assertion that TEC needs the assets for “mission.” Apparently it is assumed that the Church’s mission cannot be conducted unlinked from a national organizational structure. The linkage of litigation to mission has even worked its way into the Episcopal Church’s financial reporting and budget categories. The litigation line item in the financial statements and budgets bore the caption “Property protection for mission” beginning in March 2007 and continuing until September 2007 when the words “legal costs” were appended after concern was expressed by audit committee members that the caption did not clearly indicate the nature of the expense. A more recent association of property lawsuits with the Episcopal Church’s mission was made in a post-General Convention 2009 letter from the Presiding Bishop to the House of Bishops, attributing her position on property disputes to the requirements of “our participation in God’s mission as leaders and stewards of The Episcopal Church . . . .”
In the same letter to the House of Bishops, the Presiding Bishop elaborated on conditions for property settlements that possibly indicate she is facing pressure from at least some quarters for a less rigid stance. It is not at all clear at this point, however, that the fine tuning expressed in the letter points to any new flexibility that will make a practical difference.
It is at least a starting point that the Presiding Bishop acknowledges that she has duties that are of a fiduciary character. Nonetheless, the basis for the conclusion that those duties require the pursuit by TEC of the legal battles currently being waged is less than clear. A purpose of this paper is to explore some of the considerations relevant to determining whether the Presiding Bishop’s conclusion is correct. In doing this, it is necessary first to consider whether the Presiding Bishop is even the appropriate person to exercise the responsibility claimed. These objectives will be undertaken primarily in the context of the pending litigation against four withdrawn dioceses and related individuals and affiliated diocesan organizations.
Because ultimately the laws of many different states are (or may in the future be) at issue, because the objective is to discuss principles rather than attempt to express definitive conclusions applicable to particular pending cases, and for reasons of economy, reference will frequently be made (primarily in the notes) to legal sources of broad applicability, such as Restatements of the Law published by the American Law Institute and to statutory provisions and related commentary promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the Committees on Corporate Laws and Nonprofit Organizations of the Section of Business Law, American Bar Association, rather than to state-specific authorities.
The Question of Authority
One thing to note at the outset is that fiduciary duties do not require an individual within an organization to do something that the individual is not authorized to do. To the contrary, one of the duties of a person in the Presiding Bishop’s position is to take action only within the scope of her actual authority. Thus it is not enough for the Presiding Bishop to think that TEC has a meritorious claim, that it would be advantageous to TEC’s mission strategy to prevail in the litigation and that the benefits of the effort outweigh the costs and possible liability. If those are her views, she should advocate them as appropriate, but to instruct attorneys to file lawsuits on behalf of TEC should have required more.
Apparently, the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church acquiesced in the position that the Presiding Bishop is the person with authority to initiate and conduct litigation against dioceses. The draft budget for the 2010-2012 triennium adopted by the Executive Council in January 2009 stated:
The [Office of the Presiding Bishop] has responsibility for . . . the preservation of the legacy of The Episcopal Church in instances where bishops have sought to remove dioceses from the church.
The activity of “preservation of the legacy” is meant to embrace litigation, because the quoted language relates to a portion of a budget presentation for the “Presiding Bishop’s Office” that includes a category now called “Title IV & Legal Assistance to Dioceses” (changed from the caption “Property Protection for Mission” noted earlier and subsequent variants). This budget category is further described as follows:
These expenses are related to property litigation and disciplinary situations, as well as legal assistance to dioceses. Fundamentally, this activity concerns the preservation and ongoing stewardship of our heritage and resources, both financial and structural.
Some of Bishop Jefferts Schori’s statements indicate she believes not only does she have a fiduciary duty to bring the property litigation on behalf of TEC, but also that the duty is hers and hers alone. Her deposition testimony in the Virginia litigation referred to above was to the effect that the duty to bring litigation is that of the Presiding Bishop and not that of General Convention or the Executive Council. Although the deposition testimony related specifically to litigation against congregations rather than dioceses, no reason seems evident why the Presiding Bishop would consider that she has authority to act on her own in one case but not the other.
But what is the source of the Presiding Bishop’s claimed authority to bring this litigation? TEC’s Constitution, which is the location of “the basic Articles for the government of this Church,” provides in Article I, Section 3 for the office of the Presiding Bishop but does not specify any role of the Presiding Bishop in governance other than that implicit in the title (i.e., to preside at meetings of the House of Bishops). Article I, Section 3 says that other duties shall be prescribed by canon, but does not provide for the canons to confer upon the Presiding Bishop other authority. Apart from Article I, Section 3, there are only three references to the Presiding Bishop in the Constitution. One says that the Presiding Bishop, if authorized by the House of Bishops, may request a bishop to act temporarily in an unorganized territory. Another places the Suffragan Bishop for the Armed Forces under the direction of the Presiding Bishop. The last provides for the Presiding Bishop to receive certifications from the bishops authorized to vote in the House of Bishops when they approve the consecration of a bishop to act in foreign lands.
Since there is nothing in the “basic articles for the government of this Church” that gives the Presiding Bishop the authority to bring litigation against dioceses, what then of the responsibilities of the Presiding Bishop assigned by the canons? If the canons had language broad enough to cover litigation authority against dioceses, it would be necessary to consider whether it would impact governance too fundamentally to be effective without constitutional warrant. As it is, no canonical provision comes close to anything that could be construed as authorizing the Presiding Bishop to issue warnings to dioceses against disaffiliation and then to initiate litigation when that eventuality ensues. To see this, consider the two potentially relevant canons in Title I, Section 2 pertaining to the Presiding Bishop and Section 4 pertaining to the Executive Council and the Presiding Bishop’s assigned duties relating to that body.
The introductory language of Canon I.2.4(a) provides that the Presiding Bishop “shall be the Chief Pastor and Primate of the Church.” There isn’t a serious argument that designating a bishop as chief pastor (an action taken in 1967) is sufficient to confer authority to pursue legal claims against dioceses led by other bishops. The language “and Primate” was added in 1982, with the legislative history indicating that this change was titular in nature with no intention to expand authority or confer archiepiscopal jurisdiction. Canon I.2.4(a) then continues with a series of numbered clauses, only one of which need be discussed. Clause (1) provides that the Presiding Bishop shall
[b]e charged with responsibility for leadership in initiating and developing the policy and strategy in the Church and speaking for the Church as to the policies, strategies and programs authorized by the General Convention.
The language relating to leadership in initiating and developing policy and strategy was added in 1967 at the same time as “chief pastor.” At the time, the language was explicit that the policy and strategy function was something to be done in the capacity of chief pastor. At some time between 1991 and 1997 the words providing this explicit connection were changed but there is no indication that the change was intended to be substantive. Moreover, examining the two parts of this clause makes clear that the Presiding Bishop’s role is leadership in initiating and developing policy and strategy, in contrast to the responsibility that resides in the General Convention for authorizing policy and strategy. In recent commentary prepared by Robert C. Royce, Esq. at the request of the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies on various roles and responsibilities, the duties of the Presiding Bishop under clause (1) of Canon I.2.4(a) are said to be of a prophetic nature, with a contrast drawn to the duties of Executive Council, which are said to be programmatic in nature. In making this distinction, Mr. Royce draws on a 1997 report of the Standing Commission on Structure emphasizing the communicative aspects of the role of the Presiding Bishop versus the implementation and management role assigned to the Executive Council. No suggestion emerges as to responsibility that would include authorizing litigation.
Bishop Stacy F. Sauls attempts to locate authority for the Presiding Bishop to conduct litigation by identifying the Presiding Bishop as the chief executive officer of TEC, but that identification is incorrect. Presumably he bases his assertion on the canon that provides that the Presiding Bishop is chief executive officer of TEC’s Executive Council. This leads to examination of the second potentially relevant canon referred to above. Canon I.4.3(a) provides that the Presiding Bishop shall be ex officio the Chair and President of the Executive Council and that the Chair and President shall be the chief executive officer of the Executive Council. Further, “as such the Chair and President shall have ultimate responsibility for the oversight of the work of the Executive Council in the implementation of the ministry and mission of the Church as may be committed to the Executive Council by the General Convention.” Does the conclusion that the Presiding Bishop does not have authority to initiate or conduct litigation against dioceses change when her role on the Executive Council is taken into account? Since the Presiding Bishop’s duties and responsibilities under Canon I.4.3(a) cannot extend to matters outside the scope of those assigned to the Executive Council, it is necessary to consider further the duties of the Executive Council.
The Executive Council is not a constitutionally established body. There is only one reference to the Executive Council in the Constitution, namely, providing for the Council to approve the text of the constitution of any new diocese. The first sentence of Canon I.4.1(a) establishes the Executive Council and assigns its single duty: “There shall be an Executive Council of the General Convention . . . whose duty it shall be to carry out the program and policies adopted by the General Convention.” The second sentence of Canon I.4.1(a) elaborates by providing that the Executive Council “shall have charge of the coordination, development, and implementation of the ministry and mission of the Church.” Canon I.4.2(e) provides that the “powers” of the Executive Council are the ones conferred on it by Canon and such further powers as may be designated by the General Convention, and adds that the Executive Council “between sessions of the General Convention may initiate and develop such new work as it may deem necessary.”
Since TEC’s litigation strategy is argued to be in furtherance of “mission,” could the cited language in Canon I.4.1(a) be viewed as conferring on the Executive Council the authority to initiate and conduct litigation? That “mission” cannot reasonably be so construed is reinforced by reference to what was considered to be included in “the Church’s Mission” by Bishop Lloyd, the primary architect of the 1919 canonical changes that established the Executive Council (then called the National Council), namely, missions, religious education and social service. As reflected in Section 1 of the original Canon 60 adopted in 1919, the responsibility assigned to the “Presiding Bishop and Council” was the administration and carrying on of “Missionary, Educational, and Social work.” From the outset, the responsibilities of the Executive Council were related to missionary, educational and social work and budgetary and financial matters ancillary to the carrying on of that work, not legal relationships with dioceses or other governance matters.
What of the ability of the Executive Council to initiate and develop “new work” between sessions of the General Convention as provided in Canon I.4.2(e)? The implicit antecedent for “new work” in Canon 60 as adopted in 1919 was the “Missionary, Educational, and Social work of the Church” for which the Executive Council was assigned responsibility in the sentence immediately preceding the reference to new work. Although the language “Missionary, Educational, and Social work” has changed in the current canonical expression of the Executive Council’s duty, it remains the case the “new work” language does not appear as an independent statement of an additional duty. It is a part of a paragraph granting “powers” to be used in aid of already prescribed duties. “New work” therefore can cover additional tasks encompassed by assigned areas of responsibility, but not new responsibilities. Further, a test of necessity must be met for new work to be initiated and developed. It follows that the new work clause is not a grant of authority for the Executive Council to undertake whatever it deems appropriate between meetings of the General Convention. Indeed, a reading that would encompass so broad a grant of authority has been rejected by General Convention, in the form of proposed canonical language that would have incorporated the concept that the Executive Council could “act for” the General Convention. An analysis similar to that applicable to the new work clause would apply to “other work” referred to in Canon I.4.6(f) relating to the budget.
Moreover, an argument that the canonical language is broad enough to give the Executive Council the authority to initiate litigation against dioceses would face a constitutional impediment. As noted above, the Executive Council is not a constitutionally established body. Since the Constitution is the locus of principles for basic governance, canons or interpretations of canons conferring on Executive Council comprehensive authority to act for General Convention would represent such a fundamental change in governance so as to belong, if anywhere, in the Constitution.
Inquiry into the Executive Council’s authority such as that briefly just undertaken is interesting but not really necessary for evaluation of the asserted source of authority, because both the Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council have taken the position that the responsibility for authorizing litigation lies with the Presiding Bishop and not with the Executive Council. The Presiding Bishop goes further by claiming authority not even deriving from that of the General Convention. Before leaving the subject of the Executive Council, however, it is worth mentioning a diversionary argument sometimes made: that the Executive Council functions as a corporate board of directors. Those making this association include Bishop Sauls, who in the same discussion mentioned above about the Presiding Bishop being the CEO of TEC, stated that the Executive Council “is by canon the Church’s board of directors.” The correct response to Bishop Sauls and others is that TEC is not a corporation and there no canon stating that the Executive Council is the Church’s board of directors or conferring on it authority equivalent to that of a corporate board. This is important because the analogy to a corporate board seems to be deployed in an effort to avoid the need to locate sources of more extensive authority for the Executive Council in the Constitution and canons, an exercise bound not to encounter much success.
In a corporation, the structure of governance is based on a statutory framework that typically confers on the board the authority to manage or direct the management of the business and affairs of the corporation (or authority expressed in words to similar effect). In exercising this general authority conferred by statute, the directors of a corporation do not act as the agents of shareholders or members or anyone else. Instead, the board has direct responsibility for management and gives direction to the organization’s agents. If the Executive Council were the board of directors of a corporation, it would not be necessary to locate specific sources of authority for its management activities, but only to check for limitations on that authority. But since TEC is not a corporation, management authority does not flow directly to a board simply as a result of the way the corporate law operates, but must instead be specified in the governing instruments.
TEC is not a corporation but an unincorporated voluntary association. (The identity of TEC as a voluntary unincorporated association and how that characteristic fits into a broader analysis of TEC’s polity is discussed in more detail in Mark McCall’s paper “Is the Episcopal Church Hierarchical?” ) For an unincorporated association, there is no statutory framework conferring on a board of directors or other body the power and authority to manage the association’s affairs. Instead, when the managerial roles are not performed by the associating parties themselves (in TEC’s case the member dioceses), the primary relationship defining those managerial rules is that between principal and agent. The scope of duties and authority of those acting on behalf of the association is determined by the law of agency, as supplemented by the association’s internal rules. Agency is the relationship that arises when one person (a “principal”) authorizes another person (an “agent”) to act on the principal’s behalf and subject to the principal’s control. In the case of TEC, the persons who act in a managerial capacity and therefore act as agents include members of the Executive Council, the Presiding Bishop, TEC’s various other officers and the members of its other committees and boards. From a legal perspective, they function as agents of the members of the unincorporated association (the dioceses), or to the extent the unincorporated association is recognized as an entity itself, agents of the association. Although it would be possible for TEC to restructure itself so that the role of the Executive Council approximates that of a corporate board, to do so would require changes to TEC’s Constitution and Canons or conversion to another form of entity, neither of which has been done. As TEC is now structured, the board of directors analogy does not provide a way around the necessity to identify specific sources for the authority of the Executive Council.
It might be argued that there does exist one corporate entity, the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, the board of directors of which consists of the same persons as constitute the Executive Council, and therefore that the DFMS could exercise broad corporate powers not available to the Executive Council as such. However, the litigation is said to be brought on behalf of TEC. The DFMS, which like the Executive Council is not a body that was organized pursuant to a requirement of the TEC’s constitution, is not at all the same as TEC. Although the DFMS may have the authority to hold and manage assets that would otherwise be held by TEC, there is no constitutional or canonical provision giving the DFMS the authority to seek to establish ownership claims to diocesan assets. (Moreover, as noted above, the Presiding Bishop claims to exercise litigation authority in her own right, not by way of authority derived from that of the Executive Council or the DFMS.) The board of directors of DFMS should be concerned to see that monies being spent on any litigation activities are properly authorized on behalf of TEC, but that DFMS is itself a corporation does not change the analysis for TEC.
A question related to authorization concerns the “capacity” of an unincorporated association to sue on behalf of its members. The common law rule is that an unincorporated association does not have the capacity to sue or be sued, so that the parties to any litigation would have to include all the individual members of the association. In many jurisdictions, the common law rule has been varied by statute. For example the Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act, adopted in about a dozen states, provides that a nonprofit unincorporated association may initiate, defend and otherwise participate in litigation and other proceedings in its own name. Other states specify particular procedures necessary for an unincorporated association to bring suit in its own name. For example, in Pennsylvania, there is a rule of procedure requiring suits by an association to be prosecuted in the name of one or more members appointed as trustees ad litem. Thus in the current Pittsburgh litigation, TEC’s pleadings have been filed on behalf of the Right Reverend John C. Buchanan, said to be acting as Trustee ad litem. Bishop Buchanan does not, however, appear to fulfill the requirement of the rule that a trustee ad litem be a member of the association. The term “member” in the legal sense often differs from common usage, and simply because an association calls a person a member does not make the person a member for relevant legal purposes.
If there has somehow occurred a proper authorization on behalf of TEC for the filing of the lawsuits against dioceses, there seems to be, at a minimum, the lack of an adequate disclosure or explanation as to how this has occurred. It might be objected that the absence of authority in either the Presiding Bishop or the Executive Council would leave TEC without practical means to vindicate the rights it claims. In addition to raising the question whether it would really be so difficult to take action on such a significant action at General Convention, perhaps even at a special meeting, such an objection begs the question of whether TEC has rights to vindicate. If it doesn’t have the right to stop a diocese from disaffiliating, then it doesn’t need someone authorized to make that effort. The prior Presiding Bishop took that position that the interpretation and application of the national church’s property canons was a matter primarily for the dioceses. Under that position, there would be no need for a source of the authority now claimed by the present incumbent. (There is no impediment to TEC’s ability to constitute new dioceses to replace the disaffiliated ones in the territories involved; it is the property claims that occasion the litigation.)
A final question relates to whether any action taken at the 2009 General Convention somehow serves to correct the lack of earlier authorization. The applicable legal concept is that of “ratification,” which is an affirmation of a prior action so that it is treated as having been taken with actual authority. But it appears that General Convention took no action to ratify the litigation decisions and it seems unlikely that the action taken by General Convention to approve a budget containing one $3 million line item for future litigation expenses out of a $121 million triennium budget (approximately 2.5% of the total) could plausibly be regarded as tantamount to ratification, especially since, as appears to be the case, the two houses in approving the budget did not have before them substantive information about the background of and rationale for the litigation. In fact, a resolution calling for disclosure of information on litigation expenses was rejected by the House of Deputies. The case for an implicit ratification would be especially difficult to make in light of the state of the public record that includes the Presiding Bishop’s statement that the responsibility for litigation decisions was hers and not that of General Convention. The Presiding Bishop’s August 1, 2009 letter to the House of Bishops reveals that there was some (apparently inconclusive) discussion about property issues in one of the two Houses of General Convention “over two-plus afternoons.” Although the failure of General Convention to act on its own initiative to require a proper account to be given of the litigation decisions can hardly be excused, it is difficult to argue that General Convention’s inaction should be regarded as a ratification affording cover to anyone acting without authority.
Fiduciary Duties
Without attempting to catalogue the variations in facts and applicable legal rules in the several disputes, it nonetheless seems possible to make some general observations about how fiduciary duties might apply to a decision to authorize litigation against the dioceses.
What are the fiduciary duties being spoken of? They constitute, at a minimum, the duty of loyalty and the duty of care. There are variations among states and organizational contexts in the specifics of how these duties are formulated, but generally, the duty of loyalty is a duty to act loyally for the benefit of the person to whom the duty is owed and with the reasonable belief that the action is in the best interests of that person. Similarly, a common formulation of the duty of care is the duty to act with the care, competence and diligence that a person in a like position would reasonably believe appropriate under similar circumstances. These duties arise by virtue of assuming or occupying certain positions of trust and confidence.
More will be said about the substance of these duties later, but it is worth making brief note here of some terminological difference in how terms are used in different legal contexts. In the Restatement of Agency and many agency cases, “fiduciary” duties are considered limited to the duty of loyalty. The duty of care and related duties such as the duty to act only within the scope of actual authority as discussed previously and the duty to provide information are still duties that are owed, just characterized differently. Other agency cases and most cases arising in the context of corporations and other organizations classify both the duty of loyalty and the duty of care as fiduciary in nature. There may also sometimes be ambiguity as to whether particular facts implicate the duty of loyalty or the duty of care. For example, if a person fails to act loyally in the best interests of another person but the failure does not seem to be attributable to the first person’s self interest, some authorities may classify the breach of duty as a breach of the duty of care. Generally, these differences in classification are not significant for this discussion and will not be dwelt upon.
As a preliminary to further discussion of fiduciary duties in the context of the litigation, it is useful to identify the primary claim being asserted on behalf of TEC in opposition to the dioceses and to say some things about the merits of the claim. Essentially, the claim is that a diocese is a “subordinate unit” that may not unilaterally separate or disaffiliate from TEC. The inability to separate is presented as an incapacity, not simply a failure to follow the right procedure. TEC does not at this point in the litigation against dioceses appear to be invoking directly Canon I.7.4 (the Dennis canon). Presumably this is because the Dennis canon purports to apply to property held by or for the benefit of parishes and missions but not to property owned by the diocese or other diocesan instrumentalities in their own right. TEC wishes at this stage, by asserting control over the dioceses as “subordinates,” to establish indirect control over diocesan property and congregations within the dioceses. Separate claims based on the Dennis canon with respect to property of parishes and missions can be asserted later if TEC decides.
How sound does this claim appear to be? It is relevant to ask because it may make a difference in the outcome of a decision properly informed by an awareness of fiduciary duties whether Presiding Bishop Schori is right when she wrote recently to the members of the House of Bishops that “Clarity continues to emerge in the legal realm.” and that “in every case which has concluded, The Episcopal Church has prevailed.” Or could it be the case instead that while the Episcopal Church has prevailed in a number of cases in a small number of states it has not done so in all cases, that the current status of the two pending high profile cases favors TEC’s position in one but favors its opposition in the other (with most at stake monetarily and in numbers of parishes in the latter), that no case that TEC has initiated against a diocese has ever been concluded, and that law review commentary does not in general support TEC’s positions.
The argument that dioceses cannot disaffiliate. There is no provision in TEC’s Constitution or Canons that states that a diocese may not withdraw from the Episcopal Church. Moreover, it is well established as a general proposition that a member of an unincorporated association may resign or withdraw from membership. A recent affirmation of this principle with particular clarity appears in the Revised Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act (RUUNAA), published by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. RUUNAA, although of recent vintage (2008) and presently in effect in only one state (Nevada), has been approved by the American Bar Association. Section 20 of RUUNAA provides that a member of an unincorporated non-profit association may resign in accordance with the organization’s “governing principles” and that in the absence of applicable governing principles, a member may resign at any time. A comment to Section 20 states that “[p]reventing a member from voluntarily withdrawing from a UNA [unincorporated nonprofit association] would be unconstitutional and void on public policy grounds.” So not only do the RUUNAA drafters incorporate into their statute a section permitting withdrawal, they say it would be unconstitutional and against public policy to provide otherwise. By way of further illustration, section 18310(a)(1) of the California Corporations Code states that unless otherwise provided by an unincorporated association’s governing principles, membership in the unincorporated association may be terminated by resignation of the member.
A similar principle applies to nonprofit membership corporations. Section 6.20(a) of the Model Nonprofit Corporation Act provides that “[a] member of a membership corporation may resign at any time.” The accompanying official comment states:
A nonprofit organization generally cannot force a person to belong to it, except in limited instances where membership is required by law, such as certain homeowners associations or bar associations in states that have an integrated bar.
Note that the comment covers not only nonprofit corporations, but also nonprofit organizations generally.
That members of an unincorporated nonprofit association may withdraw is consistent with the common law of contracts applicable to associations as well as statutory law applicable to other organizations such as partnerships. Withdrawal does not, of course, relieve a member from any unpaid dues, assessments or other binding obligations incurred before resignation.
The apparent intent of those in charge of the legal efforts set in motion by the Presiding Bishop is to overcome the normally applicable principles of freedom of contract and association by maintaining that dioceses are not normal associating parties but are “subordinate units” (or, sometimes, “subordinate entities” or “creatures” ). Interestingly, neither “subordinate unit,” “subordinate entity,” “creature” nor even “subordinate” ever appears in TEC’s Constitution or Canons. The assumption behind the “subordinate unit” label and related terminology seems to be that the dioceses do not have separate legal personalities apart from TEC, and are thus merely local chapters or districts of a unitary organization. But that argument is inconsistent not only with the history demonstrating that General Convention was created by dioceses and not vice versa, but also with the language of the Constitution and Canons and with TEC’s own acknowledgment that it is an unincorporated association. The very act of associating implies separate legal personalities and the mutuality that accompanies agreement on the terms of association.
Nor does subordinate unit status follow from “accession clauses” that provide that a diocese accedes to the Constitution and canons of TEC. Mark McCall discusses the effect of accession in “Is the Episcopal Church Hierarchical?”, demonstrating that there is no support for the idea that the presence of an accession clause implies a prohibition on withdrawal. McCall’s conclusion is reinforced by the principles articulated in RUUNAA as discussed above—a default rule that withdrawal is permitted and commentary to the effect that a prohibition on withdrawal would be unconstitutional and contravene public policy. To argue that an exception to these principles must be made based on accession to the association’s rules makes no sense, because the very existence of the association is premised on agreement to be bound by its rules. The very same unincorporated nonprofit associations the members of which must be allowed to withdraw on constitutional and public policy grounds typically have governing documents containing an express agreement to be bound. McCall shows, based on historical usage contemporaneous with the adoption of TEC’s constitution, that “the term ‘accession’ signifies the independence and autonomy that the dioceses retain with respect to the General Convention.” But even without according to the term that particular historical significance, the residual content of “acceding” to a document equates to agreement to its terms, an agreement which the rule mandating a right of withdrawal already presumes.
In short, TEC’s “accession clause” argument against the ability to withdraw consists of a category mistake in contract fundamentals—treating the question of whether an agreement to associate is binding as the same as whether a party may withdraw.
The automatic vacancy argument. Faced with the difficulties in arguing against complete incapacity to withdraw, the complaints filed on behalf of TEC in the Pittsburgh and Fort Worth litigation make an even stranger assertion. They maintain that individuals in leadership positions who supported or took action in furtherance of the withdrawal “violated their obligations under the Church’s Declaration of Conformity and/or Canon I.17(8).” As a result, it is alleged, they ceased to be “eligible” to hold any office in The Episcopal Church, the Diocese, or any of their other “subordinate units,” and as a consequence “their offices became vacant.” Concerned that withdrawal could not be blocked directly, TEC’s lawyers postulate a mechanism to create automatic vacancies in the offices whose incumbents would need to take action to move forward with withdrawal.
The first problem with this approach is that it purports to apply to offices not only within TEC as such, but also within dioceses, other diocesan entities and even congregations. At least as to positions other than clerical positions to which TEC’s disciplinary canons apply, it would create conflicts with provisions covering removal from office under the other entities’ governing instruments and applicable state law. Second, the automatic vacancy approach attempts to turn standards of conduct into mere qualification requirements (implying an objective standard such as qualification requirements typically entail) and then substitute an automatic removal mechanism for the normal procedures for adjudication of whether standards of conduct have been violated. The automatic vacancy mechanism asserted is, as to violations of the Declaration of Conformity, inconsistent with TEC’s own canons which would require presentment and trial under Title IV. The alleged mechanism for creating automatic vacancies based on violation of Canon I.17.8 not only has no basis in existing canons, but would go even further than a once-proposed canonical amendment withdrawn by its proposers in the face of opposition. Specifically, a January 2008 proposal for discipline of laity for noncompliance with canon I.17.8, put forward by the Title IV Task Force II on Disciplinary Policies and Procedures, was later withdrawn by the Task Force in view of “extensive objections as being overreaching and unnecessary.” Not even the withdrawn Task Force proposal would have operated automatically as the Presiding Bishop’s litigators would have it, but would have required action by the Ecclesiastical Authority, with the advice and consent of the Standing Committee, following an opportunity for the accused to be heard by the Ecclesiastical Authority on the grounds for removal.
There are ample methods available for a non-profit organization to place control in the hands of some other organization on a locked-in basis. A typical method would be to provide in the organization’s governing instruments for discretionary appointment and removal of all or some of the governing body by the superior organization. Dioceses in TEC could, but do not, have such provisions.
The Dennis canon. Although the litigation against dioceses to date appears not to invoke directly the Dennis canon, potential claims based on the Dennis canon lie in the background. It may therefore be useful to remark briefly on TEC’s arguments that are based on the Dennis canon.
No grounds appear evident under which TEC, under a neutral state law analysis, could prevail on a claim to be the beneficiary of a trust created by the Dennis canon. The Restatement of Trusts lists five methods of creating a trust. None of the methods described resembles what the Dennis canon purports to do. In order to prevail, therefore, TEC needs to be successful in invoking special exceptions from the normal rules.
The conclusion that the TEC position cannot prevail under normal state law rules is not changed by the fact that accession clauses were in place prior to enactment of the Dennis canon. The argument is made that the prior existence of an accession clause means that parties are bound by the Dennis canon once it becomes part of the canons. But state law requisites for creation of a trust are not satisfied by prior agreement to an accession clause, because creation of a trust requires a proper manifestation by the settlor of an intent to do a specific thing — create a trust relationship. An open-ended accession clause doesn’t do that. The same result follows from the contract law principles that govern the legal effect of TEC’s Constitution and canons. Construing an accession clause to mean that the Constitution and canons may be amended so as to change not only the rules governing the organization’s internal affairs, but also to affect materially the property rights of congregations in the member dioceses without their agreement, would contravene basic contract law requirements including among others the requirement for definiteness of the promises made.
In addition, as noted in the Restatement of Trusts, if the property said to be subject to a trust is an interest in land, “statutes of frauds in nearly all states require that the creation of an enforceable trust be manifested and proved by written instrument.” The written instrument would, at a minimum, need to (a) be signed by someone authorized to act on behalf of the congregation owning the property, (b) manifest the intention to create a trust and (c) reasonably identify the trust property. In some states, statutes of frauds also apply to trusts covering only personal property. New York, for example, requires significant formalities for the creation of all “lifetime trusts” (a term that excludes trusts created by will and some other categories not relevant here). Although noncompliance with the statute of frauds should stand as an impediment to enforceability of a trust created by the Dennis canon in most jurisdictions, it is important to recognize that the problem is more fundamental than lack of a written instrument. It is the absence of a proper manifestation by the congregation of the intent to create a trust.
Can the Dennis canon form the basis for creation of a trust after the Dennis canon became part of TEC’s canons? Clearly the possibility of something along these lines is what was in view in the passage in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 606 (1979), referring to various actions that could be taken by the parties before a dispute erupts to provide for retention of ownership by the faction loyal to a hierarchically superior body. Included among the possible actions listed was an amendment to the constitution of the general church to recite an express trust. However, the creation of such a trust would, under the Supreme Court’s language and consistent with the neutral principles of law approach the Court was in the process of enunciating, require that the creation of a trust be undertaken by agreement of both parties and that that the incorporation of the new provision of the church constitution into the agreement of the parties be done in a way that meets the formal requisites for creation of a trust under state law (i.e., in the words of the dicta in Jones, be “embodied in some legally cognizable form”).
TEC’s reading of the Jones language would turn a holding intended to endorse neutral principles into one requiring an exception, so sweeping that it would apply whenever it really mattered, which is itself inconsistent with neutral principles. Notwithstanding that the Jones court speaks of the advantages of relying “exclusively on objective, well-established concepts of trust and property law familiar to lawyers and judges,” TEC’s reading requires coming to a conclusion opposite to that required by well-established legal concepts.
Hierarchical deference. Since the positions advanced in the name of TEC in the litigation set in motion by the Presiding Bishop do not fare well under normal state law rules, what about the degree of success in obtaining special treatment?
The broadest, most all encompassing form of special treatment is the hierarchical deference approach having its origins in the 1871 U.S. Supreme Court case Watson v. Jones. It is important to appreciate that Watson v. Jones was not decided based on First Amendment principles, having arisen before the First Amendment became applicable to the states, but under a federal common law approach no longer applicable. The hierarchical deference approach is in decline as measured by the number of states in which courts adhere to it. Its most notable recent rejection was in the California Supreme Court case involving St. James, Newport Beach, which, although decided favorably to TEC and the Los Angeles diocese (pending possible review by the U.S. Supreme Court), rejected the hierarchical deference approach adopted by the intermediate appellate court below and advanced by TEC.
The other forms of special treatment involve courts purporting to apply neutral principles instead of hierarchical deference, but winding up creating, in practical effect, special exceptions for hierarchical religious denominations. This phenomenon has been observed in the literature for some time, one example being a 1990 article in the American University Law Review by Professor Patty Gerstenblith which contains this summary:
These courts, while employing the language of neutral principles and examining church documents and state statutes, are nonetheless applying a concept that is entirely unique to church-related cases. This usage does not accord with legal principles from any other recognized branch of the law. Instead, the courts base their opinions on presumptions of implied intent and implied consent without any inquiry into the actual intent of the presumed settlor. As indicated earlier, this doctrine of implied trust does not fit within the definitions found in other areas of trust law.
Notable examples of this phenomenon in cases involving the Episcopal Church include Bishop and Diocese of Colorado v. Mote, 716 P.2d 85, 90 (Colo. 1986) cert. denied, 479 U.S. 826 (1986) and Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity-St. Michael’s Parish, Inc. v. The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Connecticut, 620 A.2d 1280 (Conn. 1993). This approach was recently dubbed “neutral principles in name only” in an amicus curiae brief of the Presbyterian Lay Committee in support of the petition to the United States Supreme Court filed by St. James, Newport Beach for a writ of certiorari in the recent California case.
If the Supreme Court grants certiorari in the California case, it seems that there should be a reasonably good prospect that hierarchical deference will be disallowed and that neutral principles will emerge as the only permitted approach to these cases. As observed by Professor Kent Greenawalt, hierarchical deference “contains an anomaly that is so evidently impossible to justify, it will almost certainly not survive.” Even absent Supreme Court action, it seems likely that the trend in the case law against overt hierarchical deference will continue. The question then is what happens with neutral principles in name only.
If the Supreme Court grants certiorari in the California case, there would seem to be a high likelihood that the Court will not let stand uncorrected the misreading of the language in Jones v. Wolf that was used to provide the legal underpinnings for the Dennis canon and other denominational trust clauses. The misreading is simply too patent and has contributed to too much confusion to be allowed to stand. Apart from that, it seems reasonable to hope, if not expect, that with increased scrutiny in higher profile cases with more developed briefing and argument, neutral principles in name only will come to be seen for what it is in the cases against congregations, and not be extended to TEC’s cases against dioceses.
The point of the foregoing discussion of the litigation claims asserted in the name of TEC is not to provide a definitive or comprehensive evaluation, but to attempt to demonstrate that the arguments are not without serious infirmities. With that observation in the forefront, how fiduciary duties might apply can be considered with greater clarity.
A duty for TEC to litigate? The question originally posed is whether the Presiding Bishop has a fiduciary responsibility to initiate litigation against the departing dioceses. As suggested earlier, that can’t be the case if she doesn’t have proper authorization within TEC to take that action. Instead of satisfying a fiduciary responsibility, initiating and conducting litigation without proper authorization amounts to an independent breach of duty. Moreover, the absence of authorization likely eliminates any ability the person taking the action might otherwise have to rely on the protection afforded by the business judgment rule referred to below.
Putting aside the absence of proper authorization, it can still be asked, assuming a properly authorized body considered the issue, whether fiduciary duty would compel a decision in favor of bringing litigation. To an extent this question is academic even on that assumption, because not only does it appear the Presiding Bishop is not authorized to take action, there is apparently no other body within TEC, other than General Convention itself, that could provide the authorization.
Nonetheless, since the decision to litigate has already been claimed to have been measured against the standard of fiduciary duty and the results announced, it seems in order to take another measurement, and it is here that the vulnerabilities in TEC’s case and various other negatives appear especially relevant. The decision not to pursue a claim is a prototypical example of a case in which the “business judgment rule” ordinarily applies. Under one common formulation of the business judgment rule, if the responsible governing body making the decision is informed and acts with due care and makes a decision in good faith in the honest belief that the decision is in the best interests of the organization, the substantive decision will be sustained if it can be attributed to a rational purpose. Absent self-dealing or some other breach of the duty of loyalty, the decision makers are presumed to satisfy the applicable legal requirements and the burden of overcoming that presumption is ordinarily borne by the person challenging the decision. The business judgment rule was developed primarily in the context of business corporations. (Although analogies to corporations were found above to be defective in determining sources of authority within an unincorporated association, corporate analogies are often more useful in considering duties.) The business judgment rule also applies in the case of other business organizations and, notwithstanding what might be suggested by its name, to nonprofit organizations as well as for-profit entities.
Under the business judgment rule, it would be reasonable for a decision making body to consider factors which weigh against bringing litigation as well as factors weighing in favor. Some of the factors might include the following:
* The relative strength and weakness of the claim and of the defenses that can be expected to be asserted.
* That property TEC seeks to “retain” has not been paid for, financed or maintained by the DFMS or other TEC instrumentalities.
* That the Anglican Primates and others within the Anglican Communion have requested that the litigation cease.
* That TEC is completely free to constitute replacement dioceses.
* That some positions now being asserted by those responsible for bringing the litigation are materially different from those taken previously, including by the Presiding Bishop’s immediate predecessor.
* That the claims against departing dioceses may be viewed by some as adverse to the interests of, and could be disputed by, not only those dioceses but by others not seeking to disaffiliate.
* That there has been no determination by a properly authorized body that the claims against departing dioceses have merit and should be pursued through litigation.
* Whether authorized funding is available to carry on the litigation, and the budgetary impact on other activities.
* Whether improper motives may be at work (e.g., using national church deep pockets to intimidate others considering or that might consider disaffiliation).
Or a duty not to litigate? Applying traditional governance standards, it is difficult to see a persuasive case that fiduciary duty leaves no choice but for TEC to litigate aggressively against withdrawing dioceses. A more interesting question is whether the consideration that has been given within TEC to the relevant factors would be sufficient (assuming that the problem regarding the Presiding Bishop’s apparent lack of authority could be surmounted) even to justify the decision to litigate if not require it.
Fiduciary duties owing to dioceses. In addition to the other factors that properly should be considered in a decision whether to pursue litigation, a set of considerations arises having to do with the nature of the relationship between TEC and those against whom it is asserting the claims. Those being sued are not persons in arm’s length relationships with TEC or other unrelated parties, but dioceses of the Church. They may have become former TEC dioceses by the time the litigation was initiated, but the claims asserted are predicated directly on their status as dioceses within TEC.
The question to which examination of the nature of the relationship leads, of course, is whether fiduciary duties are implicated – duties of the kind that in the oft-quoted words of Judge Cardozo make “forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm’s length . . . forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties.” And if the conclusion is reached that those having managerial roles within TEC are bound to act under a higher standard than would be appropriate with third parties, has that higher standard been met?
Because the Presiding Bishop maintains that it is not possible for dioceses to disaffiliate from TEC, the complaints filed on TEC’s behalf purport to be not against present or former TEC dioceses, but against former bishops (alleged to have been deposed), diocesan entities said to be different from the continuing “TEC” diocese, and other affiliated entities and officials. Under TEC’s theory, therefore, it is not suing its own present or former dioceses. But TEC’s characterizations and the alignment of parties it puts forward are dependent on the success of the very theories that underlie its substantive claims. The claims asserted are to the effect that a diocese is prohibited, by virtue of having been part of TEC, from disaffiliating, even if the action taken is in compliance with the diocese’s own governing instruments. The nature of the claims is such that the fiduciary duty issue should not be avoidable by timing of the lawsuit filings.
Those acting in a managerial capacity within TEC have duties of loyalty and care. From whence do these duties arise and to whom are they owed? Under the traditional common law approach, in which an unincorporated association such as TEC is not considered a separate entity but merely the aggregate of its members, the source of such duties is the common law of agency. Under that approach each member of the association would be a coprincipal to whom fiduciary duties are owed.
In jurisdictions where the association is regarded as a separate entity for this purpose, the duties of loyalty and care are owed to the association itself, but in the typical case are also owed to the association’s members. A comment to the Restatement of Agency deals with the situation in which the principal is an organization recognized as a separate entity:
. . . When a principal is an organizational entity, an agent has a fiduciary duty to the entity. Law distinctive to that form of entity may also subject the agent to fiduciary duties to constituents of the entity, such as shareholders in a corporation.
In the case of RUUNAA, the law distinctive to the form of entity provides exactly that. Section 23(a) states that “[a] manager owes to the unincorporated nonprofit association and to its members the fiduciary duties of loyalty and care.” RUUNAA is by no means unique in providing that fiduciary duties are owed to members or other constituents of an organization, but follows a recurring pattern among common organizational types. Section 409 of the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (2006) provides that fiduciary duties of managers of limited liability companies are owed to members as well as the company and Section 404 of the Uniform Partnership Act (1997) and Section 408 of the Uniform Limited Partnership Act (2001) provides that fiduciary duties of a general partner are owed to the other partners as well as to the partnership. Various corporate laws provide that fiduciary duties of directors and officers are owed to shareholders as well as to the corporation. A significant body of case law deals with distinguishing derivative actions, which are properly brought by shareholders or other constituents on behalf of the organization itself, and direct, non-derivative claims brought by a shareholder or other constituent for an injury separate and distinct from any suffered by constituents generally, or for wrongs involving breach of a constituent’s individual contractual rights. The Model Nonprofit Corporation Act contemplates that the duty to act in a manner reasonably believed to be “in the best interests of the corporation” requires that the corporation be viewed not only as a surrogate for the enterprise but as a frame of reference encompassing the body of members, speaks of the duty to deal fairly with the corporation and its members and contemplates that a director or officer may be liable to the corporation or its members. Given the RUUNAA precedent and the analogous treatment in the case of other types of entity, it seems unlikely that courts in jurisdictions where no statutory provision directly addresses the issue will establish rules holding that managers of an unincorporated association have no fiduciary duty to members.
Nature of the fiduciary duties owed. What are the implications of the foregoing analysis for the scope of fiduciary duties owed to member dioceses? If the coprincipal analysis is applicable, then first, an agent for the coprincipals should refrain from acting to further the interests of any member where the interests of all members are not aligned. If interests of the coprincipals diverge the agent’s position will become compromised if the agent acts to serve the interests of one coprincipal to the detriment of another.
Second, under the fiduciary duty of loyalty as articulated in the Restatement of Agency, the following duties of an agent to a principal should, among others, apply to each coprincipal: An agent is required to act loyally for the principal’s benefit in all matters connected with the agency relationship and may not deal with the principal as an adverse party in a transaction connected with the agency relationship. The agency relationship imposes a particular duty on an agent not to use property of the principal for anyone else’s purposes. The fiduciary principle supplements instructions that a principal gives expressly, making it unnecessary for the principal to graft explicit qualifications and prohibitions onto instructions given to the agent. An agent is not free to exploit gaps in the instructions given by taking action that fails to serve the interests of each principal.
It may be objected that requiring someone with managerial responsibility in an organization with 100+ members to observe a duty to treat each member as a coprincipal creates standards difficult or impossible to meet. One answer might be that it is easy enough for an unincorporated association to convert to another form in which the “aggregate theory” would not apply and that for just such reasons it has become relatively less common for large nonprofit organizations to remain structured as unincorporated associations. As was observed in the commentary to the Uniform Unincorporated Association Act (1996),
. . . it may be surprising that some large nonprofit organizations are or until recently were unincorporated; for example, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Association of American Law Schools (1900-1972), and American Bar Association (1878-1992). That these three are lawyer organizations may provide further evidence of the vitality of the rule of the shoemaker’s children.
But it doesn’t seem necessary to rely for an answer to the objection on the rule of the shoemaker’s children or differently articulated regrets about TEC not having converted to a more modern organizational form. For example, a reasonable approach would suggest the ability of coprincipals to give instructions to or to terminate the organization’s agents would be circumscribed by the terms of association, just as agency relationships are affected in this way when legislation makes the organization itself a principal. Another example, in the context of member withdrawal, might be that no criticism would be directed toward an agent whose duties included collecting member dues if the agent made efforts to collect past due amounts from the withdrawn member, even if the withdrawn member didn’t want to pay them. The core duties of loyalty and care remain, however, and at some point issues may arise that are nonroutine and subject to dispute by a member on non-frivolous grounds, and that may also diverge from what is clearly within the scope of the organization’s internal affairs. In such a case the agent is not free simply to take the organization’s side and needs instead to view duties owed to members with the seriousness they deserve.
What should be the result in a jurisdiction in which a statute such as RUUNAA or a judicial adaptation of the common law rule provides for entity rather than aggregate treatment of the unincorporated association? RUUNAA and other statutes provide that the agent still owes fiduciary duties to the members, but it may not be clear that the scope of the duties owed to members would necessarily be the same as the duties owed to coprincipals under an agency analysis. One can certainly surmise that they might be the same. But a court might instead decide that because of large number of coprincipals to whom duties would be owed under a coprincipal analysis, the substance of fiduciary duties owed to members can be given adequate scope by drawing on precedent from organizational law without necessarily adhering in every detail to what a strict agency analysis would require.
The difference in possible approaches naturally leads to speculation about what might be the minimum content of fiduciary duties agents owe to members of an unincorporated association in the situation now being considered. It seems reasonable to suggest that, although the duty might be found to be higher, it should involve at least the following:
* Because those acting in a managerial capacity within TEC owe fiduciary duties to its member dioceses, it follows that decisions to litigate against the dioceses should not be made on the same basis as litigation against a party to which no such duties are owed.
* Claims made against former dioceses, in fact or in substance, are not exempt from this standard if the nature of the claims asserted are not extraneous to the relationship but derive directly from the status of having been a diocese within TEC.
* Claims against dioceses asserted in order to attempt to gain control of property, directly or indirectly, or that have the effect of restricting freedom of contract or rights of association, should not be made on the basis of lawyers’ theories as to what might be a viable claim. The claims should be indisputable, or close to it. If some dioceses want to pursue claims against other dioceses nonetheless, they should decide for themselves to do so, not have it decided for them by agents who owe fiduciary duties to all dioceses.
* Such claims should not be made based on assertions of what a diocese is “deemed” to have agreed to. If a diocese is alleged to have agreed or consented to something, the agreement or consent needs to be explicit and informed.
* Before asserting claims against dioceses, a careful and disinterested evaluation of the merits of the claims should be obtained, with the benefit of independent advice, including state-specific advice where appropriate.
Of course we do not know for sure that there have not been efforts to make evaluations along the lines just suggested. It would seem, however, that if more persuasive reasoning were available, it would be advantageous for the Presiding Bishop to put that reasoning forward, instead of just conclusory pronouncements. In addition, there is reason to believe that there is at least some high level concern within TEC about the process of decision making about litigation. In draft minutes of the September 15, 2008 of the audit committee of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society available on TEC’s website, one member of the audit committee, a bishop, expressed concern about the appearance of a potential conflict of interest in the process (although adding that he was not questioning the integrity of the individuals involved). Another member of the audit committee drew a connection between the issue raised by the bishop and the ability to satisfy fiduciary responsibilities. These concerns are now on the record, but the question appears to remain how if at all they have been addressed. And in any event, a more transparent process whereby persons with managerial responsibility within TEC would expose their reasoning behind the litigation against dioceses would be welcome.
Mike Watson is a lawyer retired from law firm practice in Houston, Texas. He is a member and former parish chancellor of St. Martin’s Episcopal Church in Houston. The views expressed here are his own and to the extent views on legal matters may be expressed or implied, they are not to be taken as legal advice or otherwise relied upon.
Written by: Mike Watson
Thursday, September 17th, 2009
full footnoted text available from ACI (.pdf)
This paper examines whether the Presiding Bishop is authorized to initiate and conduct recent property litigation and finds no source for such authority in the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Arguments based on a presumed equivalence of the roles of the Presiding Bishop and Executive Council to those of a corporate CEO and board of directors are found not to be valid. The paper also examines claims that pursuit of litigation is necessitated by fiduciary duty. It concludes that no convincing case has been made that this is so. First, no person is under a fiduciary duty to undertake something that has not been authorized. Putting aside the issue of authorization, several factors relevant to a proper fiduciary duty analysis suggest refraining from litigation such as has been commenced against disaffiliating dioceses. In this connection, relevant fiduciary duties are not limited to those that may be owed to TEC as an organization, but also include duties owed to its member dioceses. Claims that a member diocese cannot disaffiliate and retain ownership of its property implicate the latter set of duties. The paper presents a case that the duties to dioceses include duties to those that have withdrawn because the claims against them are based on alleged consequences of their having been dioceses of TEC rather than the actions of an unaffiliated third party.
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and others have maintained that pursuit by The Episcopal Church of property litigation is required by fiduciary duty. For example, in October 2007 the Presiding Bishop gave deposition testimony in the Virginia litigation against several congregations, saying, “I have a responsibility both in a fiduciary sense and an ecclesiastical sense to protect the assets of the Episcopal Church and to protect the integrity of the Episcopal Church” and also that “I believe I have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the assets of the Episcopal Church for the mission of the Episcopal Church.” In the same testimony, asked about her refusal to suspend litigation in response to the requests of the Anglican Communion Primates in the Dar es Salaam communiqué, she responded, “I cannot suspend what I have a fiduciary duty to protect.” In connection with the San Joaquin litigation, Bishop Jerry Lamb said the litigation was required by “a canonical, fiduciary and moral duty to protect the assets and property of the church for the church’s mission.”
A recurring element in statements attempting to justify litigation against dioceses and parishes is the assertion that TEC needs the assets for “mission.” Apparently it is assumed that the Church’s mission cannot be conducted unlinked from a national organizational structure. The linkage of litigation to mission has even worked its way into the Episcopal Church’s financial reporting and budget categories. The litigation line item in the financial statements and budgets bore the caption “Property protection for mission” beginning in March 2007 and continuing until September 2007 when the words “legal costs” were appended after concern was expressed by audit committee members that the caption did not clearly indicate the nature of the expense. A more recent association of property lawsuits with the Episcopal Church’s mission was made in a post-General Convention 2009 letter from the Presiding Bishop to the House of Bishops, attributing her position on property disputes to the requirements of “our participation in God’s mission as leaders and stewards of The Episcopal Church . . . .”
In the same letter to the House of Bishops, the Presiding Bishop elaborated on conditions for property settlements that possibly indicate she is facing pressure from at least some quarters for a less rigid stance. It is not at all clear at this point, however, that the fine tuning expressed in the letter points to any new flexibility that will make a practical difference.
It is at least a starting point that the Presiding Bishop acknowledges that she has duties that are of a fiduciary character. Nonetheless, the basis for the conclusion that those duties require the pursuit by TEC of the legal battles currently being waged is less than clear. A purpose of this paper is to explore some of the considerations relevant to determining whether the Presiding Bishop’s conclusion is correct. In doing this, it is necessary first to consider whether the Presiding Bishop is even the appropriate person to exercise the responsibility claimed. These objectives will be undertaken primarily in the context of the pending litigation against four withdrawn dioceses and related individuals and affiliated diocesan organizations.
Because ultimately the laws of many different states are (or may in the future be) at issue, because the objective is to discuss principles rather than attempt to express definitive conclusions applicable to particular pending cases, and for reasons of economy, reference will frequently be made (primarily in the notes) to legal sources of broad applicability, such as Restatements of the Law published by the American Law Institute and to statutory provisions and related commentary promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the Committees on Corporate Laws and Nonprofit Organizations of the Section of Business Law, American Bar Association, rather than to state-specific authorities.
The Question of Authority
One thing to note at the outset is that fiduciary duties do not require an individual within an organization to do something that the individual is not authorized to do. To the contrary, one of the duties of a person in the Presiding Bishop’s position is to take action only within the scope of her actual authority. Thus it is not enough for the Presiding Bishop to think that TEC has a meritorious claim, that it would be advantageous to TEC’s mission strategy to prevail in the litigation and that the benefits of the effort outweigh the costs and possible liability. If those are her views, she should advocate them as appropriate, but to instruct attorneys to file lawsuits on behalf of TEC should have required more.
Apparently, the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church acquiesced in the position that the Presiding Bishop is the person with authority to initiate and conduct litigation against dioceses. The draft budget for the 2010-2012 triennium adopted by the Executive Council in January 2009 stated:
The [Office of the Presiding Bishop] has responsibility for . . . the preservation of the legacy of The Episcopal Church in instances where bishops have sought to remove dioceses from the church.
The activity of “preservation of the legacy” is meant to embrace litigation, because the quoted language relates to a portion of a budget presentation for the “Presiding Bishop’s Office” that includes a category now called “Title IV & Legal Assistance to Dioceses” (changed from the caption “Property Protection for Mission” noted earlier and subsequent variants). This budget category is further described as follows:
These expenses are related to property litigation and disciplinary situations, as well as legal assistance to dioceses. Fundamentally, this activity concerns the preservation and ongoing stewardship of our heritage and resources, both financial and structural.
Some of Bishop Jefferts Schori’s statements indicate she believes not only does she have a fiduciary duty to bring the property litigation on behalf of TEC, but also that the duty is hers and hers alone. Her deposition testimony in the Virginia litigation referred to above was to the effect that the duty to bring litigation is that of the Presiding Bishop and not that of General Convention or the Executive Council. Although the deposition testimony related specifically to litigation against congregations rather than dioceses, no reason seems evident why the Presiding Bishop would consider that she has authority to act on her own in one case but not the other.
But what is the source of the Presiding Bishop’s claimed authority to bring this litigation? TEC’s Constitution, which is the location of “the basic Articles for the government of this Church,” provides in Article I, Section 3 for the office of the Presiding Bishop but does not specify any role of the Presiding Bishop in governance other than that implicit in the title (i.e., to preside at meetings of the House of Bishops). Article I, Section 3 says that other duties shall be prescribed by canon, but does not provide for the canons to confer upon the Presiding Bishop other authority. Apart from Article I, Section 3, there are only three references to the Presiding Bishop in the Constitution. One says that the Presiding Bishop, if authorized by the House of Bishops, may request a bishop to act temporarily in an unorganized territory. Another places the Suffragan Bishop for the Armed Forces under the direction of the Presiding Bishop. The last provides for the Presiding Bishop to receive certifications from the bishops authorized to vote in the House of Bishops when they approve the consecration of a bishop to act in foreign lands.
Since there is nothing in the “basic articles for the government of this Church” that gives the Presiding Bishop the authority to bring litigation against dioceses, what then of the responsibilities of the Presiding Bishop assigned by the canons? If the canons had language broad enough to cover litigation authority against dioceses, it would be necessary to consider whether it would impact governance too fundamentally to be effective without constitutional warrant. As it is, no canonical provision comes close to anything that could be construed as authorizing the Presiding Bishop to issue warnings to dioceses against disaffiliation and then to initiate litigation when that eventuality ensues. To see this, consider the two potentially relevant canons in Title I, Section 2 pertaining to the Presiding Bishop and Section 4 pertaining to the Executive Council and the Presiding Bishop’s assigned duties relating to that body.
The introductory language of Canon I.2.4(a) provides that the Presiding Bishop “shall be the Chief Pastor and Primate of the Church.” There isn’t a serious argument that designating a bishop as chief pastor (an action taken in 1967) is sufficient to confer authority to pursue legal claims against dioceses led by other bishops. The language “and Primate” was added in 1982, with the legislative history indicating that this change was titular in nature with no intention to expand authority or confer archiepiscopal jurisdiction. Canon I.2.4(a) then continues with a series of numbered clauses, only one of which need be discussed. Clause (1) provides that the Presiding Bishop shall
[b]e charged with responsibility for leadership in initiating and developing the policy and strategy in the Church and speaking for the Church as to the policies, strategies and programs authorized by the General Convention.
The language relating to leadership in initiating and developing policy and strategy was added in 1967 at the same time as “chief pastor.” At the time, the language was explicit that the policy and strategy function was something to be done in the capacity of chief pastor. At some time between 1991 and 1997 the words providing this explicit connection were changed but there is no indication that the change was intended to be substantive. Moreover, examining the two parts of this clause makes clear that the Presiding Bishop’s role is leadership in initiating and developing policy and strategy, in contrast to the responsibility that resides in the General Convention for authorizing policy and strategy. In recent commentary prepared by Robert C. Royce, Esq. at the request of the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies on various roles and responsibilities, the duties of the Presiding Bishop under clause (1) of Canon I.2.4(a) are said to be of a prophetic nature, with a contrast drawn to the duties of Executive Council, which are said to be programmatic in nature. In making this distinction, Mr. Royce draws on a 1997 report of the Standing Commission on Structure emphasizing the communicative aspects of the role of the Presiding Bishop versus the implementation and management role assigned to the Executive Council. No suggestion emerges as to responsibility that would include authorizing litigation.
Bishop Stacy F. Sauls attempts to locate authority for the Presiding Bishop to conduct litigation by identifying the Presiding Bishop as the chief executive officer of TEC, but that identification is incorrect. Presumably he bases his assertion on the canon that provides that the Presiding Bishop is chief executive officer of TEC’s Executive Council. This leads to examination of the second potentially relevant canon referred to above. Canon I.4.3(a) provides that the Presiding Bishop shall be ex officio the Chair and President of the Executive Council and that the Chair and President shall be the chief executive officer of the Executive Council. Further, “as such the Chair and President shall have ultimate responsibility for the oversight of the work of the Executive Council in the implementation of the ministry and mission of the Church as may be committed to the Executive Council by the General Convention.” Does the conclusion that the Presiding Bishop does not have authority to initiate or conduct litigation against dioceses change when her role on the Executive Council is taken into account? Since the Presiding Bishop’s duties and responsibilities under Canon I.4.3(a) cannot extend to matters outside the scope of those assigned to the Executive Council, it is necessary to consider further the duties of the Executive Council.
The Executive Council is not a constitutionally established body. There is only one reference to the Executive Council in the Constitution, namely, providing for the Council to approve the text of the constitution of any new diocese. The first sentence of Canon I.4.1(a) establishes the Executive Council and assigns its single duty: “There shall be an Executive Council of the General Convention . . . whose duty it shall be to carry out the program and policies adopted by the General Convention.” The second sentence of Canon I.4.1(a) elaborates by providing that the Executive Council “shall have charge of the coordination, development, and implementation of the ministry and mission of the Church.” Canon I.4.2(e) provides that the “powers” of the Executive Council are the ones conferred on it by Canon and such further powers as may be designated by the General Convention, and adds that the Executive Council “between sessions of the General Convention may initiate and develop such new work as it may deem necessary.”
Since TEC’s litigation strategy is argued to be in furtherance of “mission,” could the cited language in Canon I.4.1(a) be viewed as conferring on the Executive Council the authority to initiate and conduct litigation? That “mission” cannot reasonably be so construed is reinforced by reference to what was considered to be included in “the Church’s Mission” by Bishop Lloyd, the primary architect of the 1919 canonical changes that established the Executive Council (then called the National Council), namely, missions, religious education and social service. As reflected in Section 1 of the original Canon 60 adopted in 1919, the responsibility assigned to the “Presiding Bishop and Council” was the administration and carrying on of “Missionary, Educational, and Social work.” From the outset, the responsibilities of the Executive Council were related to missionary, educational and social work and budgetary and financial matters ancillary to the carrying on of that work, not legal relationships with dioceses or other governance matters.
What of the ability of the Executive Council to initiate and develop “new work” between sessions of the General Convention as provided in Canon I.4.2(e)? The implicit antecedent for “new work” in Canon 60 as adopted in 1919 was the “Missionary, Educational, and Social work of the Church” for which the Executive Council was assigned responsibility in the sentence immediately preceding the reference to new work. Although the language “Missionary, Educational, and Social work” has changed in the current canonical expression of the Executive Council’s duty, it remains the case the “new work” language does not appear as an independent statement of an additional duty. It is a part of a paragraph granting “powers” to be used in aid of already prescribed duties. “New work” therefore can cover additional tasks encompassed by assigned areas of responsibility, but not new responsibilities. Further, a test of necessity must be met for new work to be initiated and developed. It follows that the new work clause is not a grant of authority for the Executive Council to undertake whatever it deems appropriate between meetings of the General Convention. Indeed, a reading that would encompass so broad a grant of authority has been rejected by General Convention, in the form of proposed canonical language that would have incorporated the concept that the Executive Council could “act for” the General Convention. An analysis similar to that applicable to the new work clause would apply to “other work” referred to in Canon I.4.6(f) relating to the budget.
Moreover, an argument that the canonical language is broad enough to give the Executive Council the authority to initiate litigation against dioceses would face a constitutional impediment. As noted above, the Executive Council is not a constitutionally established body. Since the Constitution is the locus of principles for basic governance, canons or interpretations of canons conferring on Executive Council comprehensive authority to act for General Convention would represent such a fundamental change in governance so as to belong, if anywhere, in the Constitution.
Inquiry into the Executive Council’s authority such as that briefly just undertaken is interesting but not really necessary for evaluation of the asserted source of authority, because both the Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council have taken the position that the responsibility for authorizing litigation lies with the Presiding Bishop and not with the Executive Council. The Presiding Bishop goes further by claiming authority not even deriving from that of the General Convention. Before leaving the subject of the Executive Council, however, it is worth mentioning a diversionary argument sometimes made: that the Executive Council functions as a corporate board of directors. Those making this association include Bishop Sauls, who in the same discussion mentioned above about the Presiding Bishop being the CEO of TEC, stated that the Executive Council “is by canon the Church’s board of directors.” The correct response to Bishop Sauls and others is that TEC is not a corporation and there no canon stating that the Executive Council is the Church’s board of directors or conferring on it authority equivalent to that of a corporate board. This is important because the analogy to a corporate board seems to be deployed in an effort to avoid the need to locate sources of more extensive authority for the Executive Council in the Constitution and canons, an exercise bound not to encounter much success.
In a corporation, the structure of governance is based on a statutory framework that typically confers on the board the authority to manage or direct the management of the business and affairs of the corporation (or authority expressed in words to similar effect). In exercising this general authority conferred by statute, the directors of a corporation do not act as the agents of shareholders or members or anyone else. Instead, the board has direct responsibility for management and gives direction to the organization’s agents. If the Executive Council were the board of directors of a corporation, it would not be necessary to locate specific sources of authority for its management activities, but only to check for limitations on that authority. But since TEC is not a corporation, management authority does not flow directly to a board simply as a result of the way the corporate law operates, but must instead be specified in the governing instruments.
TEC is not a corporation but an unincorporated voluntary association. (The identity of TEC as a voluntary unincorporated association and how that characteristic fits into a broader analysis of TEC’s polity is discussed in more detail in Mark McCall’s paper “Is the Episcopal Church Hierarchical?” ) For an unincorporated association, there is no statutory framework conferring on a board of directors or other body the power and authority to manage the association’s affairs. Instead, when the managerial roles are not performed by the associating parties themselves (in TEC’s case the member dioceses), the primary relationship defining those managerial rules is that between principal and agent. The scope of duties and authority of those acting on behalf of the association is determined by the law of agency, as supplemented by the association’s internal rules. Agency is the relationship that arises when one person (a “principal”) authorizes another person (an “agent”) to act on the principal’s behalf and subject to the principal’s control. In the case of TEC, the persons who act in a managerial capacity and therefore act as agents include members of the Executive Council, the Presiding Bishop, TEC’s various other officers and the members of its other committees and boards. From a legal perspective, they function as agents of the members of the unincorporated association (the dioceses), or to the extent the unincorporated association is recognized as an entity itself, agents of the association. Although it would be possible for TEC to restructure itself so that the role of the Executive Council approximates that of a corporate board, to do so would require changes to TEC’s Constitution and Canons or conversion to another form of entity, neither of which has been done. As TEC is now structured, the board of directors analogy does not provide a way around the necessity to identify specific sources for the authority of the Executive Council.
It might be argued that there does exist one corporate entity, the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, the board of directors of which consists of the same persons as constitute the Executive Council, and therefore that the DFMS could exercise broad corporate powers not available to the Executive Council as such. However, the litigation is said to be brought on behalf of TEC. The DFMS, which like the Executive Council is not a body that was organized pursuant to a requirement of the TEC’s constitution, is not at all the same as TEC. Although the DFMS may have the authority to hold and manage assets that would otherwise be held by TEC, there is no constitutional or canonical provision giving the DFMS the authority to seek to establish ownership claims to diocesan assets. (Moreover, as noted above, the Presiding Bishop claims to exercise litigation authority in her own right, not by way of authority derived from that of the Executive Council or the DFMS.) The board of directors of DFMS should be concerned to see that monies being spent on any litigation activities are properly authorized on behalf of TEC, but that DFMS is itself a corporation does not change the analysis for TEC.
A question related to authorization concerns the “capacity” of an unincorporated association to sue on behalf of its members. The common law rule is that an unincorporated association does not have the capacity to sue or be sued, so that the parties to any litigation would have to include all the individual members of the association. In many jurisdictions, the common law rule has been varied by statute. For example the Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act, adopted in about a dozen states, provides that a nonprofit unincorporated association may initiate, defend and otherwise participate in litigation and other proceedings in its own name. Other states specify particular procedures necessary for an unincorporated association to bring suit in its own name. For example, in Pennsylvania, there is a rule of procedure requiring suits by an association to be prosecuted in the name of one or more members appointed as trustees ad litem. Thus in the current Pittsburgh litigation, TEC’s pleadings have been filed on behalf of the Right Reverend John C. Buchanan, said to be acting as Trustee ad litem. Bishop Buchanan does not, however, appear to fulfill the requirement of the rule that a trustee ad litem be a member of the association. The term “member” in the legal sense often differs from common usage, and simply because an association calls a person a member does not make the person a member for relevant legal purposes.
If there has somehow occurred a proper authorization on behalf of TEC for the filing of the lawsuits against dioceses, there seems to be, at a minimum, the lack of an adequate disclosure or explanation as to how this has occurred. It might be objected that the absence of authority in either the Presiding Bishop or the Executive Council would leave TEC without practical means to vindicate the rights it claims. In addition to raising the question whether it would really be so difficult to take action on such a significant action at General Convention, perhaps even at a special meeting, such an objection begs the question of whether TEC has rights to vindicate. If it doesn’t have the right to stop a diocese from disaffiliating, then it doesn’t need someone authorized to make that effort. The prior Presiding Bishop took that position that the interpretation and application of the national church’s property canons was a matter primarily for the dioceses. Under that position, there would be no need for a source of the authority now claimed by the present incumbent. (There is no impediment to TEC’s ability to constitute new dioceses to replace the disaffiliated ones in the territories involved; it is the property claims that occasion the litigation.)
A final question relates to whether any action taken at the 2009 General Convention somehow serves to correct the lack of earlier authorization. The applicable legal concept is that of “ratification,” which is an affirmation of a prior action so that it is treated as having been taken with actual authority. But it appears that General Convention took no action to ratify the litigation decisions and it seems unlikely that the action taken by General Convention to approve a budget containing one $3 million line item for future litigation expenses out of a $121 million triennium budget (approximately 2.5% of the total) could plausibly be regarded as tantamount to ratification, especially since, as appears to be the case, the two houses in approving the budget did not have before them substantive information about the background of and rationale for the litigation. In fact, a resolution calling for disclosure of information on litigation expenses was rejected by the House of Deputies. The case for an implicit ratification would be especially difficult to make in light of the state of the public record that includes the Presiding Bishop’s statement that the responsibility for litigation decisions was hers and not that of General Convention. The Presiding Bishop’s August 1, 2009 letter to the House of Bishops reveals that there was some (apparently inconclusive) discussion about property issues in one of the two Houses of General Convention “over two-plus afternoons.” Although the failure of General Convention to act on its own initiative to require a proper account to be given of the litigation decisions can hardly be excused, it is difficult to argue that General Convention’s inaction should be regarded as a ratification affording cover to anyone acting without authority.
Fiduciary Duties
Without attempting to catalogue the variations in facts and applicable legal rules in the several disputes, it nonetheless seems possible to make some general observations about how fiduciary duties might apply to a decision to authorize litigation against the dioceses.
What are the fiduciary duties being spoken of? They constitute, at a minimum, the duty of loyalty and the duty of care. There are variations among states and organizational contexts in the specifics of how these duties are formulated, but generally, the duty of loyalty is a duty to act loyally for the benefit of the person to whom the duty is owed and with the reasonable belief that the action is in the best interests of that person. Similarly, a common formulation of the duty of care is the duty to act with the care, competence and diligence that a person in a like position would reasonably believe appropriate under similar circumstances. These duties arise by virtue of assuming or occupying certain positions of trust and confidence.
More will be said about the substance of these duties later, but it is worth making brief note here of some terminological difference in how terms are used in different legal contexts. In the Restatement of Agency and many agency cases, “fiduciary” duties are considered limited to the duty of loyalty. The duty of care and related duties such as the duty to act only within the scope of actual authority as discussed previously and the duty to provide information are still duties that are owed, just characterized differently. Other agency cases and most cases arising in the context of corporations and other organizations classify both the duty of loyalty and the duty of care as fiduciary in nature. There may also sometimes be ambiguity as to whether particular facts implicate the duty of loyalty or the duty of care. For example, if a person fails to act loyally in the best interests of another person but the failure does not seem to be attributable to the first person’s self interest, some authorities may classify the breach of duty as a breach of the duty of care. Generally, these differences in classification are not significant for this discussion and will not be dwelt upon.
As a preliminary to further discussion of fiduciary duties in the context of the litigation, it is useful to identify the primary claim being asserted on behalf of TEC in opposition to the dioceses and to say some things about the merits of the claim. Essentially, the claim is that a diocese is a “subordinate unit” that may not unilaterally separate or disaffiliate from TEC. The inability to separate is presented as an incapacity, not simply a failure to follow the right procedure. TEC does not at this point in the litigation against dioceses appear to be invoking directly Canon I.7.4 (the Dennis canon). Presumably this is because the Dennis canon purports to apply to property held by or for the benefit of parishes and missions but not to property owned by the diocese or other diocesan instrumentalities in their own right. TEC wishes at this stage, by asserting control over the dioceses as “subordinates,” to establish indirect control over diocesan property and congregations within the dioceses. Separate claims based on the Dennis canon with respect to property of parishes and missions can be asserted later if TEC decides.
How sound does this claim appear to be? It is relevant to ask because it may make a difference in the outcome of a decision properly informed by an awareness of fiduciary duties whether Presiding Bishop Schori is right when she wrote recently to the members of the House of Bishops that “Clarity continues to emerge in the legal realm.” and that “in every case which has concluded, The Episcopal Church has prevailed.” Or could it be the case instead that while the Episcopal Church has prevailed in a number of cases in a small number of states it has not done so in all cases, that the current status of the two pending high profile cases favors TEC’s position in one but favors its opposition in the other (with most at stake monetarily and in numbers of parishes in the latter), that no case that TEC has initiated against a diocese has ever been concluded, and that law review commentary does not in general support TEC’s positions.
The argument that dioceses cannot disaffiliate. There is no provision in TEC’s Constitution or Canons that states that a diocese may not withdraw from the Episcopal Church. Moreover, it is well established as a general proposition that a member of an unincorporated association may resign or withdraw from membership. A recent affirmation of this principle with particular clarity appears in the Revised Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act (RUUNAA), published by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. RUUNAA, although of recent vintage (2008) and presently in effect in only one state (Nevada), has been approved by the American Bar Association. Section 20 of RUUNAA provides that a member of an unincorporated non-profit association may resign in accordance with the organization’s “governing principles” and that in the absence of applicable governing principles, a member may resign at any time. A comment to Section 20 states that “[p]reventing a member from voluntarily withdrawing from a UNA [unincorporated nonprofit association] would be unconstitutional and void on public policy grounds.” So not only do the RUUNAA drafters incorporate into their statute a section permitting withdrawal, they say it would be unconstitutional and against public policy to provide otherwise. By way of further illustration, section 18310(a)(1) of the California Corporations Code states that unless otherwise provided by an unincorporated association’s governing principles, membership in the unincorporated association may be terminated by resignation of the member.
A similar principle applies to nonprofit membership corporations. Section 6.20(a) of the Model Nonprofit Corporation Act provides that “[a] member of a membership corporation may resign at any time.” The accompanying official comment states:
A nonprofit organization generally cannot force a person to belong to it, except in limited instances where membership is required by law, such as certain homeowners associations or bar associations in states that have an integrated bar.
Note that the comment covers not only nonprofit corporations, but also nonprofit organizations generally.
That members of an unincorporated nonprofit association may withdraw is consistent with the common law of contracts applicable to associations as well as statutory law applicable to other organizations such as partnerships. Withdrawal does not, of course, relieve a member from any unpaid dues, assessments or other binding obligations incurred before resignation.
The apparent intent of those in charge of the legal efforts set in motion by the Presiding Bishop is to overcome the normally applicable principles of freedom of contract and association by maintaining that dioceses are not normal associating parties but are “subordinate units” (or, sometimes, “subordinate entities” or “creatures” ). Interestingly, neither “subordinate unit,” “subordinate entity,” “creature” nor even “subordinate” ever appears in TEC’s Constitution or Canons. The assumption behind the “subordinate unit” label and related terminology seems to be that the dioceses do not have separate legal personalities apart from TEC, and are thus merely local chapters or districts of a unitary organization. But that argument is inconsistent not only with the history demonstrating that General Convention was created by dioceses and not vice versa, but also with the language of the Constitution and Canons and with TEC’s own acknowledgment that it is an unincorporated association. The very act of associating implies separate legal personalities and the mutuality that accompanies agreement on the terms of association.
Nor does subordinate unit status follow from “accession clauses” that provide that a diocese accedes to the Constitution and canons of TEC. Mark McCall discusses the effect of accession in “Is the Episcopal Church Hierarchical?”, demonstrating that there is no support for the idea that the presence of an accession clause implies a prohibition on withdrawal. McCall’s conclusion is reinforced by the principles articulated in RUUNAA as discussed above—a default rule that withdrawal is permitted and commentary to the effect that a prohibition on withdrawal would be unconstitutional and contravene public policy. To argue that an exception to these principles must be made based on accession to the association’s rules makes no sense, because the very existence of the association is premised on agreement to be bound by its rules. The very same unincorporated nonprofit associations the members of which must be allowed to withdraw on constitutional and public policy grounds typically have governing documents containing an express agreement to be bound. McCall shows, based on historical usage contemporaneous with the adoption of TEC’s constitution, that “the term ‘accession’ signifies the independence and autonomy that the dioceses retain with respect to the General Convention.” But even without according to the term that particular historical significance, the residual content of “acceding” to a document equates to agreement to its terms, an agreement which the rule mandating a right of withdrawal already presumes.
In short, TEC’s “accession clause” argument against the ability to withdraw consists of a category mistake in contract fundamentals—treating the question of whether an agreement to associate is binding as the same as whether a party may withdraw.
The automatic vacancy argument. Faced with the difficulties in arguing against complete incapacity to withdraw, the complaints filed on behalf of TEC in the Pittsburgh and Fort Worth litigation make an even stranger assertion. They maintain that individuals in leadership positions who supported or took action in furtherance of the withdrawal “violated their obligations under the Church’s Declaration of Conformity and/or Canon I.17(8).” As a result, it is alleged, they ceased to be “eligible” to hold any office in The Episcopal Church, the Diocese, or any of their other “subordinate units,” and as a consequence “their offices became vacant.” Concerned that withdrawal could not be blocked directly, TEC’s lawyers postulate a mechanism to create automatic vacancies in the offices whose incumbents would need to take action to move forward with withdrawal.
The first problem with this approach is that it purports to apply to offices not only within TEC as such, but also within dioceses, other diocesan entities and even congregations. At least as to positions other than clerical positions to which TEC’s disciplinary canons apply, it would create conflicts with provisions covering removal from office under the other entities’ governing instruments and applicable state law. Second, the automatic vacancy approach attempts to turn standards of conduct into mere qualification requirements (implying an objective standard such as qualification requirements typically entail) and then substitute an automatic removal mechanism for the normal procedures for adjudication of whether standards of conduct have been violated. The automatic vacancy mechanism asserted is, as to violations of the Declaration of Conformity, inconsistent with TEC’s own canons which would require presentment and trial under Title IV. The alleged mechanism for creating automatic vacancies based on violation of Canon I.17.8 not only has no basis in existing canons, but would go even further than a once-proposed canonical amendment withdrawn by its proposers in the face of opposition. Specifically, a January 2008 proposal for discipline of laity for noncompliance with canon I.17.8, put forward by the Title IV Task Force II on Disciplinary Policies and Procedures, was later withdrawn by the Task Force in view of “extensive objections as being overreaching and unnecessary.” Not even the withdrawn Task Force proposal would have operated automatically as the Presiding Bishop’s litigators would have it, but would have required action by the Ecclesiastical Authority, with the advice and consent of the Standing Committee, following an opportunity for the accused to be heard by the Ecclesiastical Authority on the grounds for removal.
There are ample methods available for a non-profit organization to place control in the hands of some other organization on a locked-in basis. A typical method would be to provide in the organization’s governing instruments for discretionary appointment and removal of all or some of the governing body by the superior organization. Dioceses in TEC could, but do not, have such provisions.
The Dennis canon. Although the litigation against dioceses to date appears not to invoke directly the Dennis canon, potential claims based on the Dennis canon lie in the background. It may therefore be useful to remark briefly on TEC’s arguments that are based on the Dennis canon.
No grounds appear evident under which TEC, under a neutral state law analysis, could prevail on a claim to be the beneficiary of a trust created by the Dennis canon. The Restatement of Trusts lists five methods of creating a trust. None of the methods described resembles what the Dennis canon purports to do. In order to prevail, therefore, TEC needs to be successful in invoking special exceptions from the normal rules.
The conclusion that the TEC position cannot prevail under normal state law rules is not changed by the fact that accession clauses were in place prior to enactment of the Dennis canon. The argument is made that the prior existence of an accession clause means that parties are bound by the Dennis canon once it becomes part of the canons. But state law requisites for creation of a trust are not satisfied by prior agreement to an accession clause, because creation of a trust requires a proper manifestation by the settlor of an intent to do a specific thing — create a trust relationship. An open-ended accession clause doesn’t do that. The same result follows from the contract law principles that govern the legal effect of TEC’s Constitution and canons. Construing an accession clause to mean that the Constitution and canons may be amended so as to change not only the rules governing the organization’s internal affairs, but also to affect materially the property rights of congregations in the member dioceses without their agreement, would contravene basic contract law requirements including among others the requirement for definiteness of the promises made.
In addition, as noted in the Restatement of Trusts, if the property said to be subject to a trust is an interest in land, “statutes of frauds in nearly all states require that the creation of an enforceable trust be manifested and proved by written instrument.” The written instrument would, at a minimum, need to (a) be signed by someone authorized to act on behalf of the congregation owning the property, (b) manifest the intention to create a trust and (c) reasonably identify the trust property. In some states, statutes of frauds also apply to trusts covering only personal property. New York, for example, requires significant formalities for the creation of all “lifetime trusts” (a term that excludes trusts created by will and some other categories not relevant here). Although noncompliance with the statute of frauds should stand as an impediment to enforceability of a trust created by the Dennis canon in most jurisdictions, it is important to recognize that the problem is more fundamental than lack of a written instrument. It is the absence of a proper manifestation by the congregation of the intent to create a trust.
Can the Dennis canon form the basis for creation of a trust after the Dennis canon became part of TEC’s canons? Clearly the possibility of something along these lines is what was in view in the passage in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 606 (1979), referring to various actions that could be taken by the parties before a dispute erupts to provide for retention of ownership by the faction loyal to a hierarchically superior body. Included among the possible actions listed was an amendment to the constitution of the general church to recite an express trust. However, the creation of such a trust would, under the Supreme Court’s language and consistent with the neutral principles of law approach the Court was in the process of enunciating, require that the creation of a trust be undertaken by agreement of both parties and that that the incorporation of the new provision of the church constitution into the agreement of the parties be done in a way that meets the formal requisites for creation of a trust under state law (i.e., in the words of the dicta in Jones, be “embodied in some legally cognizable form”).
TEC’s reading of the Jones language would turn a holding intended to endorse neutral principles into one requiring an exception, so sweeping that it would apply whenever it really mattered, which is itself inconsistent with neutral principles. Notwithstanding that the Jones court speaks of the advantages of relying “exclusively on objective, well-established concepts of trust and property law familiar to lawyers and judges,” TEC’s reading requires coming to a conclusion opposite to that required by well-established legal concepts.
Hierarchical deference. Since the positions advanced in the name of TEC in the litigation set in motion by the Presiding Bishop do not fare well under normal state law rules, what about the degree of success in obtaining special treatment?
The broadest, most all encompassing form of special treatment is the hierarchical deference approach having its origins in the 1871 U.S. Supreme Court case Watson v. Jones. It is important to appreciate that Watson v. Jones was not decided based on First Amendment principles, having arisen before the First Amendment became applicable to the states, but under a federal common law approach no longer applicable. The hierarchical deference approach is in decline as measured by the number of states in which courts adhere to it. Its most notable recent rejection was in the California Supreme Court case involving St. James, Newport Beach, which, although decided favorably to TEC and the Los Angeles diocese (pending possible review by the U.S. Supreme Court), rejected the hierarchical deference approach adopted by the intermediate appellate court below and advanced by TEC.
The other forms of special treatment involve courts purporting to apply neutral principles instead of hierarchical deference, but winding up creating, in practical effect, special exceptions for hierarchical religious denominations. This phenomenon has been observed in the literature for some time, one example being a 1990 article in the American University Law Review by Professor Patty Gerstenblith which contains this summary:
These courts, while employing the language of neutral principles and examining church documents and state statutes, are nonetheless applying a concept that is entirely unique to church-related cases. This usage does not accord with legal principles from any other recognized branch of the law. Instead, the courts base their opinions on presumptions of implied intent and implied consent without any inquiry into the actual intent of the presumed settlor. As indicated earlier, this doctrine of implied trust does not fit within the definitions found in other areas of trust law.
Notable examples of this phenomenon in cases involving the Episcopal Church include Bishop and Diocese of Colorado v. Mote, 716 P.2d 85, 90 (Colo. 1986) cert. denied, 479 U.S. 826 (1986) and Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity-St. Michael’s Parish, Inc. v. The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Connecticut, 620 A.2d 1280 (Conn. 1993). This approach was recently dubbed “neutral principles in name only” in an amicus curiae brief of the Presbyterian Lay Committee in support of the petition to the United States Supreme Court filed by St. James, Newport Beach for a writ of certiorari in the recent California case.
If the Supreme Court grants certiorari in the California case, it seems that there should be a reasonably good prospect that hierarchical deference will be disallowed and that neutral principles will emerge as the only permitted approach to these cases. As observed by Professor Kent Greenawalt, hierarchical deference “contains an anomaly that is so evidently impossible to justify, it will almost certainly not survive.” Even absent Supreme Court action, it seems likely that the trend in the case law against overt hierarchical deference will continue. The question then is what happens with neutral principles in name only.
If the Supreme Court grants certiorari in the California case, there would seem to be a high likelihood that the Court will not let stand uncorrected the misreading of the language in Jones v. Wolf that was used to provide the legal underpinnings for the Dennis canon and other denominational trust clauses. The misreading is simply too patent and has contributed to too much confusion to be allowed to stand. Apart from that, it seems reasonable to hope, if not expect, that with increased scrutiny in higher profile cases with more developed briefing and argument, neutral principles in name only will come to be seen for what it is in the cases against congregations, and not be extended to TEC’s cases against dioceses.
The point of the foregoing discussion of the litigation claims asserted in the name of TEC is not to provide a definitive or comprehensive evaluation, but to attempt to demonstrate that the arguments are not without serious infirmities. With that observation in the forefront, how fiduciary duties might apply can be considered with greater clarity.
A duty for TEC to litigate? The question originally posed is whether the Presiding Bishop has a fiduciary responsibility to initiate litigation against the departing dioceses. As suggested earlier, that can’t be the case if she doesn’t have proper authorization within TEC to take that action. Instead of satisfying a fiduciary responsibility, initiating and conducting litigation without proper authorization amounts to an independent breach of duty. Moreover, the absence of authorization likely eliminates any ability the person taking the action might otherwise have to rely on the protection afforded by the business judgment rule referred to below.
Putting aside the absence of proper authorization, it can still be asked, assuming a properly authorized body considered the issue, whether fiduciary duty would compel a decision in favor of bringing litigation. To an extent this question is academic even on that assumption, because not only does it appear the Presiding Bishop is not authorized to take action, there is apparently no other body within TEC, other than General Convention itself, that could provide the authorization.
Nonetheless, since the decision to litigate has already been claimed to have been measured against the standard of fiduciary duty and the results announced, it seems in order to take another measurement, and it is here that the vulnerabilities in TEC’s case and various other negatives appear especially relevant. The decision not to pursue a claim is a prototypical example of a case in which the “business judgment rule” ordinarily applies. Under one common formulation of the business judgment rule, if the responsible governing body making the decision is informed and acts with due care and makes a decision in good faith in the honest belief that the decision is in the best interests of the organization, the substantive decision will be sustained if it can be attributed to a rational purpose. Absent self-dealing or some other breach of the duty of loyalty, the decision makers are presumed to satisfy the applicable legal requirements and the burden of overcoming that presumption is ordinarily borne by the person challenging the decision. The business judgment rule was developed primarily in the context of business corporations. (Although analogies to corporations were found above to be defective in determining sources of authority within an unincorporated association, corporate analogies are often more useful in considering duties.) The business judgment rule also applies in the case of other business organizations and, notwithstanding what might be suggested by its name, to nonprofit organizations as well as for-profit entities.
Under the business judgment rule, it would be reasonable for a decision making body to consider factors which weigh against bringing litigation as well as factors weighing in favor. Some of the factors might include the following:
* The relative strength and weakness of the claim and of the defenses that can be expected to be asserted.
* That property TEC seeks to “retain” has not been paid for, financed or maintained by the DFMS or other TEC instrumentalities.
* That the Anglican Primates and others within the Anglican Communion have requested that the litigation cease.
* That TEC is completely free to constitute replacement dioceses.
* That some positions now being asserted by those responsible for bringing the litigation are materially different from those taken previously, including by the Presiding Bishop’s immediate predecessor.
* That the claims against departing dioceses may be viewed by some as adverse to the interests of, and could be disputed by, not only those dioceses but by others not seeking to disaffiliate.
* That there has been no determination by a properly authorized body that the claims against departing dioceses have merit and should be pursued through litigation.
* Whether authorized funding is available to carry on the litigation, and the budgetary impact on other activities.
* Whether improper motives may be at work (e.g., using national church deep pockets to intimidate others considering or that might consider disaffiliation).
Or a duty not to litigate? Applying traditional governance standards, it is difficult to see a persuasive case that fiduciary duty leaves no choice but for TEC to litigate aggressively against withdrawing dioceses. A more interesting question is whether the consideration that has been given within TEC to the relevant factors would be sufficient (assuming that the problem regarding the Presiding Bishop’s apparent lack of authority could be surmounted) even to justify the decision to litigate if not require it.
Fiduciary duties owing to dioceses. In addition to the other factors that properly should be considered in a decision whether to pursue litigation, a set of considerations arises having to do with the nature of the relationship between TEC and those against whom it is asserting the claims. Those being sued are not persons in arm’s length relationships with TEC or other unrelated parties, but dioceses of the Church. They may have become former TEC dioceses by the time the litigation was initiated, but the claims asserted are predicated directly on their status as dioceses within TEC.
The question to which examination of the nature of the relationship leads, of course, is whether fiduciary duties are implicated – duties of the kind that in the oft-quoted words of Judge Cardozo make “forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm’s length . . . forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties.” And if the conclusion is reached that those having managerial roles within TEC are bound to act under a higher standard than would be appropriate with third parties, has that higher standard been met?
Because the Presiding Bishop maintains that it is not possible for dioceses to disaffiliate from TEC, the complaints filed on TEC’s behalf purport to be not against present or former TEC dioceses, but against former bishops (alleged to have been deposed), diocesan entities said to be different from the continuing “TEC” diocese, and other affiliated entities and officials. Under TEC’s theory, therefore, it is not suing its own present or former dioceses. But TEC’s characterizations and the alignment of parties it puts forward are dependent on the success of the very theories that underlie its substantive claims. The claims asserted are to the effect that a diocese is prohibited, by virtue of having been part of TEC, from disaffiliating, even if the action taken is in compliance with the diocese’s own governing instruments. The nature of the claims is such that the fiduciary duty issue should not be avoidable by timing of the lawsuit filings.
Those acting in a managerial capacity within TEC have duties of loyalty and care. From whence do these duties arise and to whom are they owed? Under the traditional common law approach, in which an unincorporated association such as TEC is not considered a separate entity but merely the aggregate of its members, the source of such duties is the common law of agency. Under that approach each member of the association would be a coprincipal to whom fiduciary duties are owed.
In jurisdictions where the association is regarded as a separate entity for this purpose, the duties of loyalty and care are owed to the association itself, but in the typical case are also owed to the association’s members. A comment to the Restatement of Agency deals with the situation in which the principal is an organization recognized as a separate entity:
. . . When a principal is an organizational entity, an agent has a fiduciary duty to the entity. Law distinctive to that form of entity may also subject the agent to fiduciary duties to constituents of the entity, such as shareholders in a corporation.
In the case of RUUNAA, the law distinctive to the form of entity provides exactly that. Section 23(a) states that “[a] manager owes to the unincorporated nonprofit association and to its members the fiduciary duties of loyalty and care.” RUUNAA is by no means unique in providing that fiduciary duties are owed to members or other constituents of an organization, but follows a recurring pattern among common organizational types. Section 409 of the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (2006) provides that fiduciary duties of managers of limited liability companies are owed to members as well as the company and Section 404 of the Uniform Partnership Act (1997) and Section 408 of the Uniform Limited Partnership Act (2001) provides that fiduciary duties of a general partner are owed to the other partners as well as to the partnership. Various corporate laws provide that fiduciary duties of directors and officers are owed to shareholders as well as to the corporation. A significant body of case law deals with distinguishing derivative actions, which are properly brought by shareholders or other constituents on behalf of the organization itself, and direct, non-derivative claims brought by a shareholder or other constituent for an injury separate and distinct from any suffered by constituents generally, or for wrongs involving breach of a constituent’s individual contractual rights. The Model Nonprofit Corporation Act contemplates that the duty to act in a manner reasonably believed to be “in the best interests of the corporation” requires that the corporation be viewed not only as a surrogate for the enterprise but as a frame of reference encompassing the body of members, speaks of the duty to deal fairly with the corporation and its members and contemplates that a director or officer may be liable to the corporation or its members. Given the RUUNAA precedent and the analogous treatment in the case of other types of entity, it seems unlikely that courts in jurisdictions where no statutory provision directly addresses the issue will establish rules holding that managers of an unincorporated association have no fiduciary duty to members.
Nature of the fiduciary duties owed. What are the implications of the foregoing analysis for the scope of fiduciary duties owed to member dioceses? If the coprincipal analysis is applicable, then first, an agent for the coprincipals should refrain from acting to further the interests of any member where the interests of all members are not aligned. If interests of the coprincipals diverge the agent’s position will become compromised if the agent acts to serve the interests of one coprincipal to the detriment of another.
Second, under the fiduciary duty of loyalty as articulated in the Restatement of Agency, the following duties of an agent to a principal should, among others, apply to each coprincipal: An agent is required to act loyally for the principal’s benefit in all matters connected with the agency relationship and may not deal with the principal as an adverse party in a transaction connected with the agency relationship. The agency relationship imposes a particular duty on an agent not to use property of the principal for anyone else’s purposes. The fiduciary principle supplements instructions that a principal gives expressly, making it unnecessary for the principal to graft explicit qualifications and prohibitions onto instructions given to the agent. An agent is not free to exploit gaps in the instructions given by taking action that fails to serve the interests of each principal.
It may be objected that requiring someone with managerial responsibility in an organization with 100+ members to observe a duty to treat each member as a coprincipal creates standards difficult or impossible to meet. One answer might be that it is easy enough for an unincorporated association to convert to another form in which the “aggregate theory” would not apply and that for just such reasons it has become relatively less common for large nonprofit organizations to remain structured as unincorporated associations. As was observed in the commentary to the Uniform Unincorporated Association Act (1996),
. . . it may be surprising that some large nonprofit organizations are or until recently were unincorporated; for example, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Association of American Law Schools (1900-1972), and American Bar Association (1878-1992). That these three are lawyer organizations may provide further evidence of the vitality of the rule of the shoemaker’s children.
But it doesn’t seem necessary to rely for an answer to the objection on the rule of the shoemaker’s children or differently articulated regrets about TEC not having converted to a more modern organizational form. For example, a reasonable approach would suggest the ability of coprincipals to give instructions to or to terminate the organization’s agents would be circumscribed by the terms of association, just as agency relationships are affected in this way when legislation makes the organization itself a principal. Another example, in the context of member withdrawal, might be that no criticism would be directed toward an agent whose duties included collecting member dues if the agent made efforts to collect past due amounts from the withdrawn member, even if the withdrawn member didn’t want to pay them. The core duties of loyalty and care remain, however, and at some point issues may arise that are nonroutine and subject to dispute by a member on non-frivolous grounds, and that may also diverge from what is clearly within the scope of the organization’s internal affairs. In such a case the agent is not free simply to take the organization’s side and needs instead to view duties owed to members with the seriousness they deserve.
What should be the result in a jurisdiction in which a statute such as RUUNAA or a judicial adaptation of the common law rule provides for entity rather than aggregate treatment of the unincorporated association? RUUNAA and other statutes provide that the agent still owes fiduciary duties to the members, but it may not be clear that the scope of the duties owed to members would necessarily be the same as the duties owed to coprincipals under an agency analysis. One can certainly surmise that they might be the same. But a court might instead decide that because of large number of coprincipals to whom duties would be owed under a coprincipal analysis, the substance of fiduciary duties owed to members can be given adequate scope by drawing on precedent from organizational law without necessarily adhering in every detail to what a strict agency analysis would require.
The difference in possible approaches naturally leads to speculation about what might be the minimum content of fiduciary duties agents owe to members of an unincorporated association in the situation now being considered. It seems reasonable to suggest that, although the duty might be found to be higher, it should involve at least the following:
* Because those acting in a managerial capacity within TEC owe fiduciary duties to its member dioceses, it follows that decisions to litigate against the dioceses should not be made on the same basis as litigation against a party to which no such duties are owed.
* Claims made against former dioceses, in fact or in substance, are not exempt from this standard if the nature of the claims asserted are not extraneous to the relationship but derive directly from the status of having been a diocese within TEC.
* Claims against dioceses asserted in order to attempt to gain control of property, directly or indirectly, or that have the effect of restricting freedom of contract or rights of association, should not be made on the basis of lawyers’ theories as to what might be a viable claim. The claims should be indisputable, or close to it. If some dioceses want to pursue claims against other dioceses nonetheless, they should decide for themselves to do so, not have it decided for them by agents who owe fiduciary duties to all dioceses.
* Such claims should not be made based on assertions of what a diocese is “deemed” to have agreed to. If a diocese is alleged to have agreed or consented to something, the agreement or consent needs to be explicit and informed.
* Before asserting claims against dioceses, a careful and disinterested evaluation of the merits of the claims should be obtained, with the benefit of independent advice, including state-specific advice where appropriate.
Of course we do not know for sure that there have not been efforts to make evaluations along the lines just suggested. It would seem, however, that if more persuasive reasoning were available, it would be advantageous for the Presiding Bishop to put that reasoning forward, instead of just conclusory pronouncements. In addition, there is reason to believe that there is at least some high level concern within TEC about the process of decision making about litigation. In draft minutes of the September 15, 2008 of the audit committee of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society available on TEC’s website, one member of the audit committee, a bishop, expressed concern about the appearance of a potential conflict of interest in the process (although adding that he was not questioning the integrity of the individuals involved). Another member of the audit committee drew a connection between the issue raised by the bishop and the ability to satisfy fiduciary responsibilities. These concerns are now on the record, but the question appears to remain how if at all they have been addressed. And in any event, a more transparent process whereby persons with managerial responsibility within TEC would expose their reasoning behind the litigation against dioceses would be welcome.
Mike Watson is a lawyer retired from law firm practice in Houston, Texas. He is a member and former parish chancellor of St. Martin’s Episcopal Church in Houston. The views expressed here are his own and to the extent views on legal matters may be expressed or implied, they are not to be taken as legal advice or otherwise relied upon.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Both Sides Debate Significance of Fort Worth Ruling
From The Living Church:
Posted on: September 17, 2009
In a lawsuit regarding diocesan autonomy and multiple properties, a district judge ruled Wednesday that two attorneys are “barred from appearing in this suit as attorneys for the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and the Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that is associated with Bishop Iker.”
Statements from both sides debated the significance of that ruling and of remarks made from the bench by Judge John Chupp of the 141st District Court of Tarrant County.
“The judge also ruled that neither the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church nor the Constitution and Canons of this diocese prohibit withdrawal from TEC and realignment under another province,” said a statement from the diocese, led by the Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker. In November 2008, the former Episcopal diocese voted to amend its bylaws to leave The Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone on a temporary and emergency basis.
“Further, he found that the diocese had done so at its November 2008 annual convention, saying that ‘they [the members] took the diocese with them.’ The action of the November convention was not, he said, ultra vires and void, as the suit’s plaintiffs have argued. He declared, too, that the diocese had taken its property with it in realignment. He said he did not consider any court ruling concerning a realigning parish to be applicable in the present case, and he said that he considered it ‘self-serving on [the part of TEC] to say that [Bishop Iker] abandoned his job.’”
A statement from the leaders of the reorganized, TEC-loyal Diocese of Fort Worth downplayed the significance of Judge Chupp’s ruling and remarks, saying he “ruled that attorney Jon Nelson and Chancellor Kathleen Wells are not authorized to represent the diocese or the corporation that are associated with Jack L. Iker. These attorneys have never claimed to do so. The judge denied the motion by Bishop Iker’s attorneys to remove the diocese and the corporation from the lawsuit filed April 14, 2009.
“While the judge did make some off hand remarks in court and asked many questions, he made no other rulings.”
The dispute about which attorneys represent the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth goes to the heart of the case. Both the diocese led by Bishop Iker and a reorganized diocese led by the Rt. Rev. Ted Gulick, Bishop of Kentucky and a provisional bishop in Fort Worth, lay claim to being the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that was founded in January 1983.
A first amended original petition filed by Mr. Nelson and Ms. Wells depicted Bishop Iker’s diocese as phony.
“Defendant The Anglican Province of the Southern Cone's ‘Diocese of Fort Worth’ (hereinafter the ‘Southern Cone Diocese’) is an entity of unknown form which has no relation to the plaintiffs Church or Diocese and purports to be affiliated with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone,” the petition said. “The Southern Cone Diocese holds itself out and is doing business as ‘the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.’ The Southern Cone Diocese can be served with citation by serving its purported bishop, Jack Leo Iker.”
Bishop Iker’s diocese argued that it had the freedom to separate itself from the Episcopal Church while continuing to use the historical name of the diocese.
“Defendants also consider it significant that plaintiffs will not be able to offer any admissible proof of any constitutional provision or canon of the Episcopal Church that states in understandable language that once a diocese is accepted into a relationship with the Episcopal Church the diocese can never withdraw,” the diocese said. “In fact, there is no reasonable interpretation of any language in the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church that would support such an interpretation.”
“The court asked if plaintiffs were entitled to keep defendants from using the word ‘Episcopal’ in their names. The word ‘Episcopal’ is a descriptive word like Baptist or Lutheran. The Episcopal Church took its name from the Church in Scotland. Other Anglican provinces using the word Episcopal in their names are Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil, the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem & the Middle East, the Episcopal Church in the Philippines, L'Eglise Episcopal au Rwanda, the Scottish Episcopal Church, and the Episcopal Church of the Sudan. There are churches which are not provinces that use this name, such as Iglesia Episcopal de Cuba and the Reformed Episcopal Church of Spain. Accordingly, the Episcopal Church has no legal basis for objecting to defendants using the word ‘Episcopal’ in their names.”
On Oct. 15, Judge Chupp will hear the plaintiffs’ argument for partial summary judgment
Posted on: September 17, 2009
In a lawsuit regarding diocesan autonomy and multiple properties, a district judge ruled Wednesday that two attorneys are “barred from appearing in this suit as attorneys for the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and the Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that is associated with Bishop Iker.”
Statements from both sides debated the significance of that ruling and of remarks made from the bench by Judge John Chupp of the 141st District Court of Tarrant County.
“The judge also ruled that neither the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church nor the Constitution and Canons of this diocese prohibit withdrawal from TEC and realignment under another province,” said a statement from the diocese, led by the Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker. In November 2008, the former Episcopal diocese voted to amend its bylaws to leave The Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone on a temporary and emergency basis.
“Further, he found that the diocese had done so at its November 2008 annual convention, saying that ‘they [the members] took the diocese with them.’ The action of the November convention was not, he said, ultra vires and void, as the suit’s plaintiffs have argued. He declared, too, that the diocese had taken its property with it in realignment. He said he did not consider any court ruling concerning a realigning parish to be applicable in the present case, and he said that he considered it ‘self-serving on [the part of TEC] to say that [Bishop Iker] abandoned his job.’”
A statement from the leaders of the reorganized, TEC-loyal Diocese of Fort Worth downplayed the significance of Judge Chupp’s ruling and remarks, saying he “ruled that attorney Jon Nelson and Chancellor Kathleen Wells are not authorized to represent the diocese or the corporation that are associated with Jack L. Iker. These attorneys have never claimed to do so. The judge denied the motion by Bishop Iker’s attorneys to remove the diocese and the corporation from the lawsuit filed April 14, 2009.
“While the judge did make some off hand remarks in court and asked many questions, he made no other rulings.”
The dispute about which attorneys represent the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth goes to the heart of the case. Both the diocese led by Bishop Iker and a reorganized diocese led by the Rt. Rev. Ted Gulick, Bishop of Kentucky and a provisional bishop in Fort Worth, lay claim to being the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that was founded in January 1983.
A first amended original petition filed by Mr. Nelson and Ms. Wells depicted Bishop Iker’s diocese as phony.
“Defendant The Anglican Province of the Southern Cone's ‘Diocese of Fort Worth’ (hereinafter the ‘Southern Cone Diocese’) is an entity of unknown form which has no relation to the plaintiffs Church or Diocese and purports to be affiliated with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone,” the petition said. “The Southern Cone Diocese holds itself out and is doing business as ‘the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.’ The Southern Cone Diocese can be served with citation by serving its purported bishop, Jack Leo Iker.”
Bishop Iker’s diocese argued that it had the freedom to separate itself from the Episcopal Church while continuing to use the historical name of the diocese.
“Defendants also consider it significant that plaintiffs will not be able to offer any admissible proof of any constitutional provision or canon of the Episcopal Church that states in understandable language that once a diocese is accepted into a relationship with the Episcopal Church the diocese can never withdraw,” the diocese said. “In fact, there is no reasonable interpretation of any language in the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church that would support such an interpretation.”
“The court asked if plaintiffs were entitled to keep defendants from using the word ‘Episcopal’ in their names. The word ‘Episcopal’ is a descriptive word like Baptist or Lutheran. The Episcopal Church took its name from the Church in Scotland. Other Anglican provinces using the word Episcopal in their names are Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil, the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem & the Middle East, the Episcopal Church in the Philippines, L'Eglise Episcopal au Rwanda, the Scottish Episcopal Church, and the Episcopal Church of the Sudan. There are churches which are not provinces that use this name, such as Iglesia Episcopal de Cuba and the Reformed Episcopal Church of Spain. Accordingly, the Episcopal Church has no legal basis for objecting to defendants using the word ‘Episcopal’ in their names.”
On Oct. 15, Judge Chupp will hear the plaintiffs’ argument for partial summary judgment
Biggest U.S. churches 'contemporary, evangelical'
Via TitusOneNine:
By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
Two new reports on the size and strength of American congregations present contrasting pictures of church life today.
The October issue of Outreach magazine is all about growth. It lists the 100 largest U.S. churches, based on attendance statistics gathered by LifeWay Research, Nashville.
Leading the list, as in 2008, is Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church, Houston; 43,500 attend weekend worship.
Lakewood could almost swallow the second and third place megachurches in one gulp.
But the newest trend in church growth is exemplified by the No. 2 ranked church's cross-country reach. Lifechurch.tv transmits pastor Craig Groeschel's worship services from the church's studio home in Edmond, Okla., to 13 locations, reaching 26,776 people in average weekend worship attendance.
"Multiple sites are the new normal for fast-growing and large churches. Lakewood is the exception. The next 10 all have multiple sites," says Ed Stetzer, director of LifeWay. "They're contemporary, aggressively evangelistic and evangelical and they're moving beyond the 'big box' megachurch model. The best churches have very intentional systems to move people from sitting in rows to sitting in circles (in small groups) to going out and making a difference in the world."
But the third edition of the Faith Communities Today Study of 2,527 U.S. congregations, released last week, finds overall the nation's congregations — Catholic, Protestant and other world religions — are suffering. Only 19% say they are in excellent financial health, down from 31% in 2000.Less than half (48%) could report at least 2% growth in worship attendance, down from 58% in 2005.
The study was conducted by a multi-faith coalition hosted by the Hartford Seminary's Hartford Institute for Religion Research in Hartford, Conn. Institute Director David Roozen sees a "slow downward trickle" in measures of "spiritual vitality" such as participation in devotional practices, church attendance and satisfaction with the quality of worship.
The congregations that do well, Roozen says, are participatory, involve lay leadership, and have a "strong, clear sense of their purpose."
And drums. Churches with contemporary worship music grew while those with traditional music stalled.
By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
Two new reports on the size and strength of American congregations present contrasting pictures of church life today.
The October issue of Outreach magazine is all about growth. It lists the 100 largest U.S. churches, based on attendance statistics gathered by LifeWay Research, Nashville.
Leading the list, as in 2008, is Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church, Houston; 43,500 attend weekend worship.
Lakewood could almost swallow the second and third place megachurches in one gulp.
But the newest trend in church growth is exemplified by the No. 2 ranked church's cross-country reach. Lifechurch.tv transmits pastor Craig Groeschel's worship services from the church's studio home in Edmond, Okla., to 13 locations, reaching 26,776 people in average weekend worship attendance.
"Multiple sites are the new normal for fast-growing and large churches. Lakewood is the exception. The next 10 all have multiple sites," says Ed Stetzer, director of LifeWay. "They're contemporary, aggressively evangelistic and evangelical and they're moving beyond the 'big box' megachurch model. The best churches have very intentional systems to move people from sitting in rows to sitting in circles (in small groups) to going out and making a difference in the world."
But the third edition of the Faith Communities Today Study of 2,527 U.S. congregations, released last week, finds overall the nation's congregations — Catholic, Protestant and other world religions — are suffering. Only 19% say they are in excellent financial health, down from 31% in 2000.Less than half (48%) could report at least 2% growth in worship attendance, down from 58% in 2005.
The study was conducted by a multi-faith coalition hosted by the Hartford Seminary's Hartford Institute for Religion Research in Hartford, Conn. Institute Director David Roozen sees a "slow downward trickle" in measures of "spiritual vitality" such as participation in devotional practices, church attendance and satisfaction with the quality of worship.
The congregations that do well, Roozen says, are participatory, involve lay leadership, and have a "strong, clear sense of their purpose."
And drums. Churches with contemporary worship music grew while those with traditional music stalled.
SOUTHEAST FLORIDA: Bishop will allow blessing of same-gender marriages
Via Stand Firm:
By Mary Frances Schjonberg, September 16, 2009
[Episcopal News Service] Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida Bishop Leo Frade will allow clergy in the Miami-based diocese to bless the unions of same-sex couples who have been legally married in states or countries.
Frade made the announcement during a recent clergy conference and his comments were posted September 16 on his blog here.
The bishop said he was allowing the blessings in light of Resolution C056, passed by the General Convention during its July 8-17 meeting in Anaheim, California. The convention allowed bishops to "provide generous pastoral support to meet the needs of members of this church." While the resolution said this permission especially applied to bishops in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, Frade said clergy could only bless civil marriages of same-gender couples.
"This is no more nor less than we do for heterosexual couples who wish to have their unions blessed by the church -- they must be married," he said.
Frade said clergy cannot perform same-gender marriages because the convention had not authorized such marriages.
A committee of diocesan clergy, appointed by Frade and chaired by Dean Douglas McCaleb of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, will develop liturgical guidelines for proposed same-sex blessing services. Frade predicted that the guidelines would be ready in four to six weeks for clergy who request them. That move echoes C056's call for the Episcopal Church's Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to collect and develop theological and liturgical resources, and report to the 77th meeting of General Convention in 2012.
-- The Rev. Mary Frances Schjonberg is national correspondent for the Episcopal News Service.
By Mary Frances Schjonberg, September 16, 2009
[Episcopal News Service] Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida Bishop Leo Frade will allow clergy in the Miami-based diocese to bless the unions of same-sex couples who have been legally married in states or countries.
Frade made the announcement during a recent clergy conference and his comments were posted September 16 on his blog here.
The bishop said he was allowing the blessings in light of Resolution C056, passed by the General Convention during its July 8-17 meeting in Anaheim, California. The convention allowed bishops to "provide generous pastoral support to meet the needs of members of this church." While the resolution said this permission especially applied to bishops in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, Frade said clergy could only bless civil marriages of same-gender couples.
"This is no more nor less than we do for heterosexual couples who wish to have their unions blessed by the church -- they must be married," he said.
Frade said clergy cannot perform same-gender marriages because the convention had not authorized such marriages.
A committee of diocesan clergy, appointed by Frade and chaired by Dean Douglas McCaleb of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, will develop liturgical guidelines for proposed same-sex blessing services. Frade predicted that the guidelines would be ready in four to six weeks for clergy who request them. That move echoes C056's call for the Episcopal Church's Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to collect and develop theological and liturgical resources, and report to the 77th meeting of General Convention in 2012.
-- The Rev. Mary Frances Schjonberg is national correspondent for the Episcopal News Service.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
FT. WORTH: Court Decision on Rule 12 Motion
Via VirtueOnline:
September 16, 2009
FORT WORTH, Texas - In a hearing today in the141st District Court, Judge John Chupp granted the Diocese partial relief under Rule 12 of the Texas code Rules of Civil Procedure. He ruled that attorneys Jonathan Nelson and Kathleen Wells do not represent the diocese or the corporation which have realigned under the Province of the Southern Cone. He denied a second aspect of Rule 12 relief which would have removed the plaintiffs' diocese and corporation from the lawsuit filed April 14, 2009.
The judge also ruled that neither the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church nor the Constitution and Canons of this diocese prohibit withdrawal from TEC and realignment under another province. Further, he found that the Diocese had done so at its November 2008 annual convention, saying that "they [the members] took the diocese with them." The action of the November convention was not, he said, ultra vires and void, as the suit's plaintiffs have argued. He declared, too, that the Diocese had taken its property with it in realignment. He said he did not consider any court ruling concerning a realigning parish to be applicable in the present case, and he said that he considered it "self-serving on [the part of TEC] to say that [Bishop Iker] abandoned his job."
The hearing on the Rule 12 motion began Wednesday, Sept. 9. At that time, the judge denied a motion for continuance filed by Nelson and Wells. Each party filed a supplemental written statement in the period between the first and second portions of the hearing. The statement submitted by attorney Shelby Sharpe is available on the diocesan Web site.
Commenting on today's ruling, Bishop Iker said, "We are pleased that Judge Chupp has recognized the legitimacy of the vote of our Diocesan Convention in November 2008 to withdraw from the General Convention of The Episcopal Church and has ruled that we had the legal right to amend our Constitution in order to do so. This a positive step in support of the position we have taken. We will continue to keep our concerns before the Lord in prayer."
The date for a further hearing to take up the remaining Motion for Leave to File a Third-Party Petition will be set shortly. A date of October 15 has been set to hear the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgement.
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth was organized in 1982. It is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion and the Province of the Southern Cone. The Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker has served as the third diocesan Bishop of Fort Worth since 1995. The diocese enjoys companion relationships with the Dioceses of Northern Malawi and Northern Mexico.
Here is the Diocese Ft. Worth Court Ruling Today
http://fwepiscopal.org/downloads/Rule12decision.pdf
http://fwepiscopal.org/downloads/091509AnswerstoQuestionsoftheCourt.pdf
September 16, 2009
FORT WORTH, Texas - In a hearing today in the141st District Court, Judge John Chupp granted the Diocese partial relief under Rule 12 of the Texas code Rules of Civil Procedure. He ruled that attorneys Jonathan Nelson and Kathleen Wells do not represent the diocese or the corporation which have realigned under the Province of the Southern Cone. He denied a second aspect of Rule 12 relief which would have removed the plaintiffs' diocese and corporation from the lawsuit filed April 14, 2009.
The judge also ruled that neither the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church nor the Constitution and Canons of this diocese prohibit withdrawal from TEC and realignment under another province. Further, he found that the Diocese had done so at its November 2008 annual convention, saying that "they [the members] took the diocese with them." The action of the November convention was not, he said, ultra vires and void, as the suit's plaintiffs have argued. He declared, too, that the Diocese had taken its property with it in realignment. He said he did not consider any court ruling concerning a realigning parish to be applicable in the present case, and he said that he considered it "self-serving on [the part of TEC] to say that [Bishop Iker] abandoned his job."
The hearing on the Rule 12 motion began Wednesday, Sept. 9. At that time, the judge denied a motion for continuance filed by Nelson and Wells. Each party filed a supplemental written statement in the period between the first and second portions of the hearing. The statement submitted by attorney Shelby Sharpe is available on the diocesan Web site.
Commenting on today's ruling, Bishop Iker said, "We are pleased that Judge Chupp has recognized the legitimacy of the vote of our Diocesan Convention in November 2008 to withdraw from the General Convention of The Episcopal Church and has ruled that we had the legal right to amend our Constitution in order to do so. This a positive step in support of the position we have taken. We will continue to keep our concerns before the Lord in prayer."
The date for a further hearing to take up the remaining Motion for Leave to File a Third-Party Petition will be set shortly. A date of October 15 has been set to hear the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgement.
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth was organized in 1982. It is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion and the Province of the Southern Cone. The Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker has served as the third diocesan Bishop of Fort Worth since 1995. The diocese enjoys companion relationships with the Dioceses of Northern Malawi and Northern Mexico.
Here is the Diocese Ft. Worth Court Ruling Today
http://fwepiscopal.org/downloads/Rule12decision.pdf
http://fwepiscopal.org/downloads/091509AnswerstoQuestionsoftheCourt.pdf
Episcopal Diocese of New York Faces Fiscal Crisis
Vestries and Parishes accuse Diocese of taxing them
Small parishes face closure
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonoline.org
Sept. 16, 2009
The Diocese of New York is in financial trouble. Bishop Mark Sisk appointed a blue-ribbon committee to conduct a survey to find out what clergy and laity think about the diocese. He learned that pledge and plate income has been falling since 2006; got worse in 2007 when endowments began getting hit in 2007-2008.
A draft report released last week revealed that only 43 clergy filled out and sent in the survey mailed to all 140+ congregations. Committee members also visited some clergy and laity.
The committee's found that there is a widespread lack of understanding among the parishes as to what the Diocese actually does on a day-to-day basis. The overall mission of the Diocese is not widely understood. The Diocesan budget in particular is not clear. People do not understand how the Diocese is spending its money. Some view the spending as largely wasteful or misdirected.
Some congregations and vestries view their assessment to the diocese as essentially a "tax". The Committee also reported that many clergy asked, "What does the Diocese do for me?"
The survey also found that the economic crisis is affecting parishes in different ways.
The most significant financial problem the Committee found is the serious decline in the value of parish endowments Many parishes are dependent upon withdrawals from their endowment funds to meet operating expenses.
Diocesan guidelines say only 5% of a rolling average market value should be withdrawn, but many parishes were exceeding this percentage. The report said amounts in excess of guidelines present a "real danger" of seriously depleting or even exhausting endowment funds.
The report also noted that some parishes have experienced loss of rental income from parish properties. Traditionally large pledgers who normally get end of year bonuses might not be able to commit to past levels in 2009.
To meet the budget crisis, virtually all parishes have foregone salary increases in 2009. Some parishes made significant staff reductions, eliminated valued programs, reduced pay and mandated unpaid furloughs.
The Committee found that, in virtually all parishes, building maintenance is either a large drain on operating budgets or a deferred expense growing in size.
There is a concern that 2010 will be worse than 2009.
Despite this, the Committee found a remarkably positive attitude in the parishes, "positive, but concerned."
The between-the-lines message to the Bishop: "We found no evidence that assessments are being withheld because of the Diocese's support of General Convention's Resolutions on homosexual clergy." Not yet.
The Committee was not asked to find out if MEMBERSHIP in individual congregations has dropped. Presumably, that statistic is reported in parochial reports every year -- but those reports are also supposed to provide pledge and plate income.
There is the assumption that someone at the Diocese figured out that an unknown number of congregations were "low-balling" their income in order to avoid increases in assessments. The Committee suggested assessment readjustments and pointed to a number of requests for the same, VOL was told.
Upon seeing the report, a New York City parishioner wrote VOL saying that when he was at Trinity, the Vestry and Wardens notified the Diocese that they were capping their assessment at 25% of the Diocese's budget, explaining that real estate and stock profits were cyclical, and that it was unfair to the Diocese to become dependent during the years of plenty on Trinity's assessment, only to be hard hit by the years of famine. The Vestry and Wardens set up a separate fund to offer scholarships to clergy with children who were serving in areas with poor public schools.
"People are waking up to the fact that the diocese is just a drain on the local parish. Pity the committee doesn't see that, and vote to slash the diocese budget and return all the money to the parishes - instead they just recommend a small reduction in pledge amounts and punitive laws to force the non payers to pay. They recommend that parishes be educated on what the Diocese does. What does the diocese do? Pay for expensive bishops? Send money to HQ to fund lawsuits? Yes, it would be good to see people really educated on where their money is going."
A plan to forgive all or part of the assessments is also on the table.
Under the present system, the Adjustment Board said that if a parish has not paid all of its prior years' assessment, it may be "read out" at the Annual Convention and its lay delegates denied the vote.
The Adjustment Board has two remedies: To forgive all or part of the assessments for the years in question or place the parish on a payment plan for the amount of the assessment.
Over the last ten years, the Adjustment Board has heard appeals from 40 parishes with assessments in arrears of $1.8 million. The Board has forgiven $951,000 and placed another $467,000 on payment plans.
The committee found cases of parishes that are paying no assessment because they feel the amount of their current assessment is unrealistic. These parishes stated they would be willing to pay a lower amount.
The Committee believes that the current remedy, though inadequate, should be retained and recommended amending Canon 18. The change would add a three-step procedure that would apply only to a parish that is not a Parish Current in Assessments.
But the carrot of partial forgiveness comes with a stick approach as well.
The diocesan demands that, for the long-term financial health of the Diocese and the continuance of its programs, all parishes must participate in the payment of assessments or CSP contributions.
If they do not, the Adjustment Board would notify the Bishop. Then the Bishop and Standing Committee, and the Trustees of the Diocese, and the Chancellor would formally inform the Annual Convention that the Bishop could initiate a process toward ending the priest's tenure as rector. The Bishop would then appoint a vicar to serve in the parish.
The report noted that many think they need to close small parishes: "Many parishes also expressed the view, not applicable only to CSP parishes, that there are too many small parishes in the Diocese, often near to, and drawing resources from, other parishes.
"There was a distinct view that the assessment is taking too much from parishes. This view was expressed by many with a real intensity of feeling, as if we were touching a raw nerve.
"Many parishes stated that the assessment was preventing churches from undertaking programs that they wanted to do, particularly in the area of outreach. Parishes recognized the outreach component of the Diocesan assessment but expressed the view that this is 'third party' outreach. They regard the ability to support their own outreach as an essential part of their own ministry."
The report will be circulated to all four regions of the Diocese. Committee members will hold hearings on the Report in each Region.
Small parishes face closure
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonoline.org
Sept. 16, 2009
The Diocese of New York is in financial trouble. Bishop Mark Sisk appointed a blue-ribbon committee to conduct a survey to find out what clergy and laity think about the diocese. He learned that pledge and plate income has been falling since 2006; got worse in 2007 when endowments began getting hit in 2007-2008.
A draft report released last week revealed that only 43 clergy filled out and sent in the survey mailed to all 140+ congregations. Committee members also visited some clergy and laity.
The committee's found that there is a widespread lack of understanding among the parishes as to what the Diocese actually does on a day-to-day basis. The overall mission of the Diocese is not widely understood. The Diocesan budget in particular is not clear. People do not understand how the Diocese is spending its money. Some view the spending as largely wasteful or misdirected.
Some congregations and vestries view their assessment to the diocese as essentially a "tax". The Committee also reported that many clergy asked, "What does the Diocese do for me?"
The survey also found that the economic crisis is affecting parishes in different ways.
The most significant financial problem the Committee found is the serious decline in the value of parish endowments Many parishes are dependent upon withdrawals from their endowment funds to meet operating expenses.
Diocesan guidelines say only 5% of a rolling average market value should be withdrawn, but many parishes were exceeding this percentage. The report said amounts in excess of guidelines present a "real danger" of seriously depleting or even exhausting endowment funds.
The report also noted that some parishes have experienced loss of rental income from parish properties. Traditionally large pledgers who normally get end of year bonuses might not be able to commit to past levels in 2009.
To meet the budget crisis, virtually all parishes have foregone salary increases in 2009. Some parishes made significant staff reductions, eliminated valued programs, reduced pay and mandated unpaid furloughs.
The Committee found that, in virtually all parishes, building maintenance is either a large drain on operating budgets or a deferred expense growing in size.
There is a concern that 2010 will be worse than 2009.
Despite this, the Committee found a remarkably positive attitude in the parishes, "positive, but concerned."
The between-the-lines message to the Bishop: "We found no evidence that assessments are being withheld because of the Diocese's support of General Convention's Resolutions on homosexual clergy." Not yet.
The Committee was not asked to find out if MEMBERSHIP in individual congregations has dropped. Presumably, that statistic is reported in parochial reports every year -- but those reports are also supposed to provide pledge and plate income.
There is the assumption that someone at the Diocese figured out that an unknown number of congregations were "low-balling" their income in order to avoid increases in assessments. The Committee suggested assessment readjustments and pointed to a number of requests for the same, VOL was told.
Upon seeing the report, a New York City parishioner wrote VOL saying that when he was at Trinity, the Vestry and Wardens notified the Diocese that they were capping their assessment at 25% of the Diocese's budget, explaining that real estate and stock profits were cyclical, and that it was unfair to the Diocese to become dependent during the years of plenty on Trinity's assessment, only to be hard hit by the years of famine. The Vestry and Wardens set up a separate fund to offer scholarships to clergy with children who were serving in areas with poor public schools.
"People are waking up to the fact that the diocese is just a drain on the local parish. Pity the committee doesn't see that, and vote to slash the diocese budget and return all the money to the parishes - instead they just recommend a small reduction in pledge amounts and punitive laws to force the non payers to pay. They recommend that parishes be educated on what the Diocese does. What does the diocese do? Pay for expensive bishops? Send money to HQ to fund lawsuits? Yes, it would be good to see people really educated on where their money is going."
A plan to forgive all or part of the assessments is also on the table.
Under the present system, the Adjustment Board said that if a parish has not paid all of its prior years' assessment, it may be "read out" at the Annual Convention and its lay delegates denied the vote.
The Adjustment Board has two remedies: To forgive all or part of the assessments for the years in question or place the parish on a payment plan for the amount of the assessment.
Over the last ten years, the Adjustment Board has heard appeals from 40 parishes with assessments in arrears of $1.8 million. The Board has forgiven $951,000 and placed another $467,000 on payment plans.
The committee found cases of parishes that are paying no assessment because they feel the amount of their current assessment is unrealistic. These parishes stated they would be willing to pay a lower amount.
The Committee believes that the current remedy, though inadequate, should be retained and recommended amending Canon 18. The change would add a three-step procedure that would apply only to a parish that is not a Parish Current in Assessments.
But the carrot of partial forgiveness comes with a stick approach as well.
The diocesan demands that, for the long-term financial health of the Diocese and the continuance of its programs, all parishes must participate in the payment of assessments or CSP contributions.
If they do not, the Adjustment Board would notify the Bishop. Then the Bishop and Standing Committee, and the Trustees of the Diocese, and the Chancellor would formally inform the Annual Convention that the Bishop could initiate a process toward ending the priest's tenure as rector. The Bishop would then appoint a vicar to serve in the parish.
The report noted that many think they need to close small parishes: "Many parishes also expressed the view, not applicable only to CSP parishes, that there are too many small parishes in the Diocese, often near to, and drawing resources from, other parishes.
"There was a distinct view that the assessment is taking too much from parishes. This view was expressed by many with a real intensity of feeling, as if we were touching a raw nerve.
"Many parishes stated that the assessment was preventing churches from undertaking programs that they wanted to do, particularly in the area of outreach. Parishes recognized the outreach component of the Diocesan assessment but expressed the view that this is 'third party' outreach. They regard the ability to support their own outreach as an essential part of their own ministry."
The report will be circulated to all four regions of the Diocese. Committee members will hold hearings on the Report in each Region.
Episcopal Church Has Caused the Greatest Spiritual Catastrophe since the Reformation
English Archdeacon says staying means greater discipleship and uncompromising mission
By David W. Virtue in Virginia
www.virtueonline.org
Sept. 14, 2009
VIRGINIA---A Church of England Archdeacon says the behavior of The Episcopal Church has brought about the greatest spiritual catastrophe since the need for the Reformation and that the tear in the fabric of the Anglican Communion is near terminal.
The Venerable Michael Lawson of the Diocese of London told members of the Episcopal Evangelical Assembly at a conference held at Virginia Theological Seminary on Friday that the call to remain means a call to greater discipleship and uncompromising mission. He called it a "crisis of opportunity."
"You have no mandate to remain in The Episcopal Church and simply fade into the background, keeping your head down, avoiding controversy, and preaching a scaled down gospel for our very sick and resistant cultures."
Lawson said that reformation, revival and renewal are the pathway towards an Evangelical future. "Episcopal Evangelicals are some of the most strategic people in the world."
"I own and use all the commentaries of John Calvin because they constantly highlight the meta narrative of Scripture. The Reformers rescued the Bible from medieval allegory, distortions and attempts to keep the Scriptures from the people.
"The other aspect of Evangelical renewal is the renewal of the denomination. Ecclesia Reformata, Ecclesia Semper Reformanda - reforming the church from within. It's been a keynote since Augustine, since the magisterial reformers, and indeed since 1966 and 1967 with the National Evangelical Assembly and the first NEAC at Keele," he said.
Lawson praised American evangelist Billy Graham saying that the Church of England had more Evangelical ministers who were converted through him than any other person. "Billy had a huge influence upon our denomination." Lawson also praised the life-long ministry of John R.W. Stott saying that most of us would not have remained in the Church of England if it had not been for him and his enormous impact on the country through the preaching of the gospel for more than 50 years. Lawson said he worked for Stott for six years as Director of Pastoring at All Souls' Langham Place.
Lawson asked, "Are we children of the Donatists or Augustine, of the Anabaptists or the Magisterial Reformers? If we believe that the church must always be reforming itself, then these are some big issues to be tackled."
Lawson said both Calvin and Luther had a passion for the reformation of structures, doctrine and spirituality along biblical lines - a vision of reform within the church, not the creation of a new church.
"Luther and Pope Leo the 10th were chalk and cheese. It is said that Leo's first reaction was 'Luther is a drunken German, he'll feel differently when he is sober.' But it wasn't Luther who left the church, that's the legend. It was the church that left Luther. That's the truth. At the Diet of Worms in 1521 Lither was excommunicated and declared a political outlaw."
Luther was not persuaded to break away from the church. Why? Schism was the very last thing he wanted. Luther wrote in 1519, "If unfortunately, there are things in Rome which cannot be improved, there is not - and cannot be - any reason for tearing oneself away from the church in schism. Rather, the worse things become, the more one should help her stand by her, for by schism and contempt nothing can be mended."
Lawson also praised American preacher Jonathan Edwards, a frail and asthmatic man, who recovered the meta-narrative and laid the foundation becoming the most effective evangelist and theologian of the Great Awakening.
Lawson said that not only was reformation and revival necessary citing leaders like Whitfield, Wesley, Edwards and others but renewal also, praising ALPHA which has swept Europe, Africa and the U.S. It's now in 130 countries renewing many denominations including the Roman Catholic Church, he said.
Lawson, a converted Jew, said it is because of the meta-narrative of Scripture that he is an Evangelical. It makes sense of the whole salvation story. As C.S. Lewis says, "By it I see everything else."
"My family's roots were in Eastern Europe. I grew up post war under the smoldering cloud of the Holocaust. In our family, Auschwitz was often in our conversation, because many of my grandfather's family died there. I questioned a Rabbi about why God allowed the Holocaust to happen and if God exists and allowed the Holocaust, how could he possibly be good? I got no answers. I became a concert pianist and composer. Someone gave me an essay by C.S. Lewis called 'The Weight of Glory'. It ends in these luminous words, 'I believe in Christianity as I believe in the sun that rises.' That opened up for me a whole world of explanation."
Lawson said he did not condemn the formation of movements like the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMIA) or the newly formed Anglican Church of North America (ACNA). "I can recall awful stories of bullying, congregations locked out of churches and worse. I have spent time with (Archbishop) Bob Duncan and colleagues in ACNA. All these folk have taken their stand after huge soul searching and prayer. They would certainly say it's because they have been seriously and unmistakably thwarted in their gospel ministry. Given the circumstances I believe these new arrangements must be from God, and I seriously hope the Archbishop of Canterbury will find a way to recognize ACNA as part of the Anglican Communion.
"For those of you who have stayed, I believe this means a call to greater discipleship and uncompromising mission."
You can listen to a recording of his speech at http://canterburytrail.wordpress.com/.
The Rev. Chuck Alley's talk is also posted here: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11198
NOTE: The Episcopal Evangelical Assembly are a group of evangelical Episcopalians dedicated to staying in The Episcopal Church.
FOOTNOTE: An archdeacon in North American Anglican terms is the equivalent of a suffragan bishop. He represents the diocese in parishes when the bishop cannot, for reasons of time and other commitments, attend.
END
By David W. Virtue in Virginia
www.virtueonline.org
Sept. 14, 2009
VIRGINIA---A Church of England Archdeacon says the behavior of The Episcopal Church has brought about the greatest spiritual catastrophe since the need for the Reformation and that the tear in the fabric of the Anglican Communion is near terminal.
The Venerable Michael Lawson of the Diocese of London told members of the Episcopal Evangelical Assembly at a conference held at Virginia Theological Seminary on Friday that the call to remain means a call to greater discipleship and uncompromising mission. He called it a "crisis of opportunity."
"You have no mandate to remain in The Episcopal Church and simply fade into the background, keeping your head down, avoiding controversy, and preaching a scaled down gospel for our very sick and resistant cultures."
Lawson said that reformation, revival and renewal are the pathway towards an Evangelical future. "Episcopal Evangelicals are some of the most strategic people in the world."
"I own and use all the commentaries of John Calvin because they constantly highlight the meta narrative of Scripture. The Reformers rescued the Bible from medieval allegory, distortions and attempts to keep the Scriptures from the people.
"The other aspect of Evangelical renewal is the renewal of the denomination. Ecclesia Reformata, Ecclesia Semper Reformanda - reforming the church from within. It's been a keynote since Augustine, since the magisterial reformers, and indeed since 1966 and 1967 with the National Evangelical Assembly and the first NEAC at Keele," he said.
Lawson praised American evangelist Billy Graham saying that the Church of England had more Evangelical ministers who were converted through him than any other person. "Billy had a huge influence upon our denomination." Lawson also praised the life-long ministry of John R.W. Stott saying that most of us would not have remained in the Church of England if it had not been for him and his enormous impact on the country through the preaching of the gospel for more than 50 years. Lawson said he worked for Stott for six years as Director of Pastoring at All Souls' Langham Place.
Lawson asked, "Are we children of the Donatists or Augustine, of the Anabaptists or the Magisterial Reformers? If we believe that the church must always be reforming itself, then these are some big issues to be tackled."
Lawson said both Calvin and Luther had a passion for the reformation of structures, doctrine and spirituality along biblical lines - a vision of reform within the church, not the creation of a new church.
"Luther and Pope Leo the 10th were chalk and cheese. It is said that Leo's first reaction was 'Luther is a drunken German, he'll feel differently when he is sober.' But it wasn't Luther who left the church, that's the legend. It was the church that left Luther. That's the truth. At the Diet of Worms in 1521 Lither was excommunicated and declared a political outlaw."
Luther was not persuaded to break away from the church. Why? Schism was the very last thing he wanted. Luther wrote in 1519, "If unfortunately, there are things in Rome which cannot be improved, there is not - and cannot be - any reason for tearing oneself away from the church in schism. Rather, the worse things become, the more one should help her stand by her, for by schism and contempt nothing can be mended."
Lawson also praised American preacher Jonathan Edwards, a frail and asthmatic man, who recovered the meta-narrative and laid the foundation becoming the most effective evangelist and theologian of the Great Awakening.
Lawson said that not only was reformation and revival necessary citing leaders like Whitfield, Wesley, Edwards and others but renewal also, praising ALPHA which has swept Europe, Africa and the U.S. It's now in 130 countries renewing many denominations including the Roman Catholic Church, he said.
Lawson, a converted Jew, said it is because of the meta-narrative of Scripture that he is an Evangelical. It makes sense of the whole salvation story. As C.S. Lewis says, "By it I see everything else."
"My family's roots were in Eastern Europe. I grew up post war under the smoldering cloud of the Holocaust. In our family, Auschwitz was often in our conversation, because many of my grandfather's family died there. I questioned a Rabbi about why God allowed the Holocaust to happen and if God exists and allowed the Holocaust, how could he possibly be good? I got no answers. I became a concert pianist and composer. Someone gave me an essay by C.S. Lewis called 'The Weight of Glory'. It ends in these luminous words, 'I believe in Christianity as I believe in the sun that rises.' That opened up for me a whole world of explanation."
Lawson said he did not condemn the formation of movements like the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMIA) or the newly formed Anglican Church of North America (ACNA). "I can recall awful stories of bullying, congregations locked out of churches and worse. I have spent time with (Archbishop) Bob Duncan and colleagues in ACNA. All these folk have taken their stand after huge soul searching and prayer. They would certainly say it's because they have been seriously and unmistakably thwarted in their gospel ministry. Given the circumstances I believe these new arrangements must be from God, and I seriously hope the Archbishop of Canterbury will find a way to recognize ACNA as part of the Anglican Communion.
"For those of you who have stayed, I believe this means a call to greater discipleship and uncompromising mission."
You can listen to a recording of his speech at http://canterburytrail.wordpress.com/.
The Rev. Chuck Alley's talk is also posted here: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11198
NOTE: The Episcopal Evangelical Assembly are a group of evangelical Episcopalians dedicated to staying in The Episcopal Church.
FOOTNOTE: An archdeacon in North American Anglican terms is the equivalent of a suffragan bishop. He represents the diocese in parishes when the bishop cannot, for reasons of time and other commitments, attend.
END
High Noon in Fort Worth
From the Anglican Curmudgeon:
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
A momentous confrontation is occurring right now in Fort Worth. At issue is ECUSA's "go-for-broke" litigation strategy against departing dioceses. According to the official guideline for this strategy (as conveniently published in ENS), as soon as a diocesan convention has voted to amend its Constitution so as to remove the language by which it accedes to the Constitution and Canons of ECUSA, the steps that follow are these (not always taken in the same order):
1. If not done already, obtain a letter from the Title IV Review Committee charging the bishop of the diocese in question with "abandonment of communion."
2. Obtain permission from the three most senior diocesan bishops in the Church (currently -- for a little while longer, at least, +Frade, +Lee, and +Walker; when +Lee steps down this fall, it will be +Frade, +Walker, and +Howe) to the renegade bishop's inhibition, issue an inhibition, and bring a resolution to depose before the next House of Bishops meeting.
2a. If #1 is possible, but not #2, inhibit the bishop anyway, and declare that Canon IV.9 cannot be interpreted in such a way as to allow any senior bishop the ability to prevent the Presiding Bishop from "doing her duty."
2b. If neither #1 nor #2 is possible, take any announcement to the press by the renegade bishop of the Convention's decision as a "renunciation of ministry" pursuant to Canon IV.8, and sign a certificate of renunciation.
2c. If the required number of bishops (a majority of all active and resigned (retired) bishops with a seat in the House) does not attend the meeting, take a voice vote on the resolution anyway and declare -- no matter what opposition is made -- that the vote to depose carried because there were no objections (or because you overruled in advance any that could be made), and sign a certificate of deposition immediately afterwards.
3. Having gotten rid of the diocesan bishop by one of the means in Step #2, declare that you no longer recognize the Standing Committee of the departing Diocese as legitimate (unless one or more of its members swears allegiance to you, in which case use that one or more to appoint new loyal members to the positions on the Committee which have become suddenly vacant).
4. Exercising your claimed authority as Primate of the Church, convene a special diocesan convention in the affected area as soon as possible. Never mind requirements for notice, call or quorum; just require everyone attending to sign an oath of conformity to ECUSA.
5. Meanwhile, send a letter to the banking institutions at which the departing diocese maintains its accounts, and suggest that they might want to freeze all those accounts if they do not wish to be held responsible for disbursing funds to "anyone claiming to be the Diocese [in dispute] without first informing us."
6. At the special convention you called, take the following actions:
* Pass a resolution rescinding all the amendments made by the previous Convention as having been ultra vires and void.
* Elect (or confirm in office) persons to a Standing Committee and to any other positions you declare are "vacant" by reason of the opponents' departure.
* Have the Convention approve your designation of a "Provisional Bishop" to act for the "Diocese" in all matters.
* Pass a resolution authorizing the newly designated provisional bishop to file suit against the departing bishop, and to file any necessary amendments to the latter's corporation sole (if one exists), so as to claim title to all of the departing diocese's assets.
7. Immediately announce that you "recognize" the Standing Committee and the provisional bishop as the Standing Committee and diocesan of the departed Diocese, express your regret for the people who chose to leave, but maintain that the "door remains open" for them to return, and reaffirm the principle that "people may leave the Church, but Dioceses cannot".
8. As is convenient, have other branches of the Church (the Executive Council, the President of the House of Deputies, etc.) "recognize" the provisional bishop and Standing Committee as well; obtain invitations as necessary for them to any events where they can represent the national Church, and seat their deputies in the House of Deputies and their bishop in the House of Bishops. But do not, repeat: do not, have the "Diocese" apply for admission to General Convention, or have General Convention pass any kind of resolution admitting the "Diocese": that could be taken as an admission in a court of law that the "Diocese" which you set up is not the same entity as the one that claimed (illegally) the right to depart.
9. Once the lawsuit authorized in Step #6 has been filed, bring a motion for summary judgment as soon as possible to have the court declare that the departing group (remember, you cannot call it a Diocese) and its bishop must turn over all of their assets to the new provisional bishop. Justify the motion by showing how the national Church "deposed" the departing bishop and replaced him with a new bishop which it recognizes as the lawful head of the "Diocese", and tell the Court that the First Amendment prevents it from making any inquiry into the matter -- that it must accept your recognition of the latter as an "ecclesiastical determination" which is not reviewable in any court of law.
That, at any rate, is the official strategy. But last week it ran into a little difficulty, known to lawyers as Rule 12 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, in Tarrant County's 141st District Court. For the judge refused for the time being to go along with the program. The Rule provides in part:
A party in a suit or proceeding pending in a court of this state may, by sworn written motion stating that he believes the suit or proceeding is being prosecuted or defended without authority, cause the attorney to be cited to appear before the court and show his authority to act. . . . At the hearing on the motion, the burden of proof shall be upon the challenged attorney to show sufficient authority to prosecute or defend the suit on behalf of the other party. Upon his failure to show such authority, the court shall refuse to permit the attorney to appear in the cause, and shall strike the pleadings . . . .
In their lawsuit filed in the Tarrant County District Court, the plaintiffs had styled themselves as "The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, and The Episcopal Church." Then they made the following allegations:
2. Plaintiff Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (the "Diocese of Fort Worth" or "Diocese") is a non-profit unincorporated association that was formed effective January 1, 1983, and that at all relevant times has been a constituent and subordinate unit of the Episcopal Church. The Diocese has its principal office in Fort Worth, Texas, and is comprised of the Episcopal worshipping congregations located in all or part of 24 Texas counties, including Tarrant County.
3. Plaintiff The Corporation of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth ("Diocesan Corporation" or "Corporation") is a Texas non-profit corporation with its principal office in Fort Worth, Texas, formed on or about February 23, 1983, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and canons of the Diocese and subject to the provisions ofthe Constitutions and canons of the Diocese and The Episcopal Church.
I have pointed out before the hubris involved in these claims. The plaintiff "Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth" claims to be the only Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, because under the grand litigation strategy, dioceses may never leave the Episcopal Church (USA). Thus the group that went with Bishop Jack Iker, even though it insists it retained its legal identity as the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, cannot be recognized as such if the strategy is to succeed. So instead of referring to it as "the defendant Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth", call it by some other name that describes its affiliation with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone; the same goes for the defendant diocesan Corporation. And that is what the plaintiffs did here.
The plaintiffs' amended petition was filed in unverified form (I do not imply there was any requirement to do so), signed on their behalf by two attorneys: Jonathan D. F. Nelson and Kathleen Wells. It was thus tailor-made for a challenge to the attorneys' authority to file, under Rule 12 as quoted above. For the defendant Diocese and Corporation, who not unreasonably continue to regard themselves as the only entities under Texas law which answer to the descriptions given in the quoted allegations (i.e., founded in 1983 and not 2009), had not authorized Mr. Nelson or Ms. Wells to bring any lawsuit in their names, whether against them or not.
They therefore filed a simple motion under Rule 12 with the District Court, in which the six trustees of the diocesan Corporation (including Bishop Jack L. Iker) swore under oath:
We know that we are the Trustees of The Corporation of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and have been in our offices since each of us was elected as a trustee by the Annual Convention of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth; that we have never authorized nor requested Jonathan D.F. Nelson or Kathleen Wells to file any litigation on behalf of The Corporation of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth; and that any other individual who did authorize or request them to do so holds no position of authority with the Corporation that would authorize that person to retain or request any attorney to act on behalf of the Corporation for any purpose.
Under the provisions of the Rule, this action was sufficient to place the burden upon Mr. Nelson and Ms. Wells to show two things: (1) that they were indeed authorized to act for the entities they claimed to represent when they filed their papers; and (2) that the persons they claim authorized them indeed had the authority in law to retain them for that purpose.
The nature of the evidence as to the first part of their burden could be gleaned from these further allegations in the amended petition:
52. Church Canon III.13 provides that "[a] Diocese without a Bishop may, by an act of its Convention, and in consultation with the Presiding Bishop, be placed under the provisional charge and authority of a Bishop of another diocese or of a resigned Bishop, who shall by that act be authorized to exercise all the duties and offices of the Bishop of the Diocese .... "
53. The Diocese held a special meeting of its Convention on February 7, 2009. At that meeting, a provisional bishop of the Diocese was elected pursuant to Church Canon III.13; other vacant offices in the Diocese, including the Standing Committee, the Executive Council, and the Trustees of the Diocesan Corporation, were filled; resolutions declaring the constitutional and canonical amendments described in Paragraph 46 above void and of no effect were passed; and the Diocese's clergy and lay deputies to the Church's forthcoming 2009 meeting of the General Convention were elected.
54. The Church recognizes the plaintiff Diocese as the continuing Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. The Church and the Diocese recognize the bishop described in Paragraph 53 above as the bishop with Episcopal oversight of the Diocese, the persons elected to the Standing Committee described in Paragraph 53 above as the Standing Committee ofthe Diocese, the persons described in Paragraph 53 above as the Trustees of the Diocesan Corporation; and the persons described in Paragraph 53 above as the elected deputies or representatives of the Diocese to the Church's General Convention.
This is straight out of the litigation playbook described above, is it not? It represents steps 4 and 6 outlined earlier. But now we get to the crux of the matter. It is not sufficient to show that the persons who currently claim to be the "Trustees of The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth" hired you as their attorneys; in order to satisfy Rule 12, you must also show that those persons are who they claim to be, and indeed have the required authority to authorize you, as an attorney, to file suit in an entity's name. Stated another way: you cannot respond to a Rule 12 motion by saying "Joe Doakes at XYZ Corp. authorized me to bring suit for it, and he's the Vice President for Legal Affairs." You have to show that there actually is a Joe Doakes, and he has to prove that the corporation (through its Board of Directors, or President) gave him the authority to hire attorneys to institute litigation in the corporation's name.
Thus in order to have the requisite authority, the persons claiming to be the "Trustees of The Corporation of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth" would have to show that they were duly appointed to that office in accordance with The Corporation's Articles and bylaws. And here they encounter an obstacle. For the Diocesan Canons (Canon 17) provide for one of the Board's Five Trustees (the Bishop is an ex officio Trustee and Chairman) to be elected at each Annual Convention to a staggered five-year term. When a Trustee does not serve out his term, and a vacancy occurs, the bylaws specify that the remaining Trustees have authority to appoint an interim Trustee to serve until the next Annual Convention, as I noted in this previous post.
Under the way the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor view things, the Trustees of the Corporation hold lay positions "in this Church" for the purposes of Canon I.17.8, which I previously discussed here. (Never mind that their only requirement is that they be clergy or lay communicants in good standing of a parish or mission in the Diocese; the Diocese is part of "this Church", don't you see?) And as persons subject to that Canon, they become instantly disqualified to hold their position once they do anything that the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor regard as disloyal to the Church as a whole (never mind the Diocese again).
We do not know whether any of the five Trustees also served as deputies to the Diocesan Convention that voted to leave. ECUSA's petition simply alleges that the five individual Trustees "supported" the Convention's vote to leave, and not that they themselves so voted; apparently that is disloyalty enough, from 815's standpoint, to cause the Canon's unstated "ejector-seat mechanism" to spring into action. In such a way does the national Church claim the unprecedented authority to swoop down into a Diocese and "remove" locally elected people from office by the simple expedient of "derecognizing" them.
Thus with all members of the Board gone (Bishop Iker declared to have renounced his ministry, and the other five Trustees "derecognized"), how can any interim appointments be made to fill the vacancies? (From the Presiding Bishop's standpoint, there is no time to wait until the "Diocese" can hold an Annual Convention -- it needs a lawsuit filed right away in order to claim the bank accounts it has asked to be frozen.)
To replace the five derecognized trustees, the "special convention" called in February 2009 by the Presiding Bishop first authorized her pick, the Rt. Rev. Edward Gulick of Kentucky, to serve as "Provisional Bishop" for the "Diocese." Then, acting as ex officio Trustee of the Corporation, Bishop Gulick exercised his purported authority under the bylaws to "fill" the five vacancies with interim appointments until the "Diocese" could hold its next Annual Convention. (The candidates he chose were those "recommended" to him by another vote at the "special convention.") These people then immediately met as a "Board" with Bishop Gulick and authorized the bringing of a lawsuit in the name of the "Corporation," while Bishop Gulick on his own authorized the same for the "Diocese" which he now headed.
So far, the litigation script was being followed to the letter. There is just one slight problem, however: the Presiding Bishop was the one who called the "special convention" into existence -- without any authority to do so under the national Constitution or Canons, and in direct violation of the Diocesan Constitution. The latter provides:
ARTICLE 4
SPECIAL MEETINGS OF CONVENTION
The Bishop, or a majority of all members of the Standing Committee, may call a special meeting of the Convention upon thirty (30) days notice thereof. When there is not Bishop, the Standing Committee shall have power to call a special meeting of the Convention, giving thirty (30) days notice thereof. At any special meeting of the Convention, the only business to be transacted shall be specified in the call.
(Bold emphasis added.) As one should well know by now, the Presiding Bishop operates outside, and not within, Church law and canons -- they simply are read not to apply to her actions. Her grand litigation strategy says that there is a continuing Diocese, notwithstanding its vote to disaffiliate from the Church, so the continuing Diocese must be able to hold a special convention. And if there is no "Ecclesiastical Authority" left in the Diocese to call one, she will call the convention herself. (God forfend we should have to conclude that there was no Ecclesiastical Authority because there was no Diocese. That would mean that we would have to go to the trouble of organizing a new one, and of admitting it to General Convention all over again.)
Since the "special convention" was not called in the manner provided by the diocesan Constitution, it could not be considered a legally invoked gathering of the Diocese -- whether the real one or the pseudo one, it does not matter which. And this legal infirmity affects all of the actions supposedly taken at it.
But there is more. The next requirement for the interim Trustees to have been validly appointed is that the convention which cloaked the bishop with authority to make the appointments had the Constitutionally required quorum present to conduct business:
ARTICLE 5
QUORUM
At any meeting of the Convention of this Diocese a quorum necessary to transact business shall consist of one-third (1/3) of the Clergy entitled to seats therein and Lay Delegates from one-third (1/3) of the Parishes and Missions in union with the Convention; but a smaller number shall have the power to adjourn from day to day until a quorum is obtained.
Needless to say, this Constitutional requirement was not met, either. (According to this report from ENS, there were only 19 clergy attending, and 62 lay delegates representing 31 congregations [the current Website lists just nineteen, so that latter number may have been a stretch]. While there might have been a quorum of congregations represented, there were far more than 57 clergy canonically resident in the Diocese in February 2009 -- there were 57 separate parishes in the Diocese as of 2007 -- and so 19 clergy could not have constituted a legal quorum of at least one-third their number. This is the same problem that occurred with the "special convention" called in San Joaquin.)
The Court is thus faced with two rival groups and two rival corporations, each claiming to be the only true entity under Texas law. The Trustees of the one Corporation have been properly elected in accordance with diocesan Canon 17: one at each of the five previous Annual Conventions. But the Trustees of the other Corporation are all serving interim terms, having been "approved" en masse at a "special convention" which was not called by the proper authority and which did not have a quorum present. The latter group of Trustees claims to have authorized the bringing of the lawsuit in the name of the Corporation; the former group states they gave Ms. Wells and Mr. Nelson no such authorization.
The hearing on the Rule 12 motion resumed this afternoon at 2 p.m. in Judge Chupp's courtroom in Fort Worth. After hearing the arguments from both sides, the Judge ruled from the bench that a Diocese had the right to leave the Episcopal Church and to take its property with it. This meant that the plaintiffs could not, in law, be the same legal entities as were associated with Bishop Iker -- i.e., the Diocese and the Corporation which were each founded in 1983. The Judge then signed an order with the following text:
ORDER GRANTING RULE 12 MOTION
On 9th day of September, 2009, came on to be heard Defendants' Motion Challenging the Authority of Attorneys to Prosecute This Suit on Behalf of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and The Corporation of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. Movants appeared by and through their counsel of record along with Jonathan D. F. Nelson and Kathleen Wells. All parties announced ready for the hearing, which began and recessed until September 16, 2009. Movants once again appeared by and through their counsel of record along with Jonathan D. F. Nelson and Kathleen Wells and announced ready for the resumption of the hearing. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Court finds that the attorneys cited to appear have not discharged their burden of proof that they were hired by individuals holding positions at the time of the hiring within The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and The Corporation of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that are associated with Bishop Iker.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Jonathan D. F. Nelson and Kathleen Wells are barred from appearing in this suit as attorneys for The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that is associated with Bishop Iker.
The effect of this Order on ECUSA's pending motion for summary adjudication is unclear, since the Judge deleted language from the proposed Order which would have stricken the pleadings filed by the plaintiffs' attorneys. However, what does seem clear is that the grand litigation strategy of pretending to be the original Diocese has been foiled, at least for the time being. The plaintiffs will now have to differentiate themselves from Bishop Iker's Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and acknowledge that their "Diocese" is a new unincorporated association that began its existence only in February 2009. The plaintiff "Corporation" of that new Diocese will have to file incorporation papers with the State of Texas, which will serve to distinguish it from the Corporation that was formed in 1983.
Then the big question will be: how can the 2009 "Diocese" claim to be a Diocese in ECUSA when there was no resolution to admit it as such adopted by General Convention in July 2009? Will the "Diocese" now have to wait until 2012 before it can be recognized, or will the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor once again flaunt the Constitution and Canons, and "recognize" the Diocese without any formal action? This decision, and what the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor do in response to it, is bound to have significant ramifications for the other cases involving departing Dioceses.
Thus while somewhat confusing for Bishop Iker and his group, the Order cannot be good news for the plaintiffs. It sounds as though the Court has already, in effect, ruled that they cannot prevail on their motion for summary adjudication to obtain title to the diocesan assets, since he ruled that nothing prevented Bishop Iker's Diocese from leaving the Church with its property.
Let's wait for the dust in Fort Worth to settle a bit, and then I will have more. I am told that Bishop Iker's office will issue a statement shortly -- the statement is now out, and may be read here. It adds even more detail to what the Judge said at the hearing, and reinforces my conclusions above.
Posted by A. S. Haley at 11:59 AM
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
A momentous confrontation is occurring right now in Fort Worth. At issue is ECUSA's "go-for-broke" litigation strategy against departing dioceses. According to the official guideline for this strategy (as conveniently published in ENS), as soon as a diocesan convention has voted to amend its Constitution so as to remove the language by which it accedes to the Constitution and Canons of ECUSA, the steps that follow are these (not always taken in the same order):
1. If not done already, obtain a letter from the Title IV Review Committee charging the bishop of the diocese in question with "abandonment of communion."
2. Obtain permission from the three most senior diocesan bishops in the Church (currently -- for a little while longer, at least, +Frade, +Lee, and +Walker; when +Lee steps down this fall, it will be +Frade, +Walker, and +Howe) to the renegade bishop's inhibition, issue an inhibition, and bring a resolution to depose before the next House of Bishops meeting.
2a. If #1 is possible, but not #2, inhibit the bishop anyway, and declare that Canon IV.9 cannot be interpreted in such a way as to allow any senior bishop the ability to prevent the Presiding Bishop from "doing her duty."
2b. If neither #1 nor #2 is possible, take any announcement to the press by the renegade bishop of the Convention's decision as a "renunciation of ministry" pursuant to Canon IV.8, and sign a certificate of renunciation.
2c. If the required number of bishops (a majority of all active and resigned (retired) bishops with a seat in the House) does not attend the meeting, take a voice vote on the resolution anyway and declare -- no matter what opposition is made -- that the vote to depose carried because there were no objections (or because you overruled in advance any that could be made), and sign a certificate of deposition immediately afterwards.
3. Having gotten rid of the diocesan bishop by one of the means in Step #2, declare that you no longer recognize the Standing Committee of the departing Diocese as legitimate (unless one or more of its members swears allegiance to you, in which case use that one or more to appoint new loyal members to the positions on the Committee which have become suddenly vacant).
4. Exercising your claimed authority as Primate of the Church, convene a special diocesan convention in the affected area as soon as possible. Never mind requirements for notice, call or quorum; just require everyone attending to sign an oath of conformity to ECUSA.
5. Meanwhile, send a letter to the banking institutions at which the departing diocese maintains its accounts, and suggest that they might want to freeze all those accounts if they do not wish to be held responsible for disbursing funds to "anyone claiming to be the Diocese [in dispute] without first informing us."
6. At the special convention you called, take the following actions:
* Pass a resolution rescinding all the amendments made by the previous Convention as having been ultra vires and void.
* Elect (or confirm in office) persons to a Standing Committee and to any other positions you declare are "vacant" by reason of the opponents' departure.
* Have the Convention approve your designation of a "Provisional Bishop" to act for the "Diocese" in all matters.
* Pass a resolution authorizing the newly designated provisional bishop to file suit against the departing bishop, and to file any necessary amendments to the latter's corporation sole (if one exists), so as to claim title to all of the departing diocese's assets.
7. Immediately announce that you "recognize" the Standing Committee and the provisional bishop as the Standing Committee and diocesan of the departed Diocese, express your regret for the people who chose to leave, but maintain that the "door remains open" for them to return, and reaffirm the principle that "people may leave the Church, but Dioceses cannot".
8. As is convenient, have other branches of the Church (the Executive Council, the President of the House of Deputies, etc.) "recognize" the provisional bishop and Standing Committee as well; obtain invitations as necessary for them to any events where they can represent the national Church, and seat their deputies in the House of Deputies and their bishop in the House of Bishops. But do not, repeat: do not, have the "Diocese" apply for admission to General Convention, or have General Convention pass any kind of resolution admitting the "Diocese": that could be taken as an admission in a court of law that the "Diocese" which you set up is not the same entity as the one that claimed (illegally) the right to depart.
9. Once the lawsuit authorized in Step #6 has been filed, bring a motion for summary judgment as soon as possible to have the court declare that the departing group (remember, you cannot call it a Diocese) and its bishop must turn over all of their assets to the new provisional bishop. Justify the motion by showing how the national Church "deposed" the departing bishop and replaced him with a new bishop which it recognizes as the lawful head of the "Diocese", and tell the Court that the First Amendment prevents it from making any inquiry into the matter -- that it must accept your recognition of the latter as an "ecclesiastical determination" which is not reviewable in any court of law.
That, at any rate, is the official strategy. But last week it ran into a little difficulty, known to lawyers as Rule 12 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, in Tarrant County's 141st District Court. For the judge refused for the time being to go along with the program. The Rule provides in part:
A party in a suit or proceeding pending in a court of this state may, by sworn written motion stating that he believes the suit or proceeding is being prosecuted or defended without authority, cause the attorney to be cited to appear before the court and show his authority to act. . . . At the hearing on the motion, the burden of proof shall be upon the challenged attorney to show sufficient authority to prosecute or defend the suit on behalf of the other party. Upon his failure to show such authority, the court shall refuse to permit the attorney to appear in the cause, and shall strike the pleadings . . . .
In their lawsuit filed in the Tarrant County District Court, the plaintiffs had styled themselves as "The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, and The Episcopal Church." Then they made the following allegations:
2. Plaintiff Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (the "Diocese of Fort Worth" or "Diocese") is a non-profit unincorporated association that was formed effective January 1, 1983, and that at all relevant times has been a constituent and subordinate unit of the Episcopal Church. The Diocese has its principal office in Fort Worth, Texas, and is comprised of the Episcopal worshipping congregations located in all or part of 24 Texas counties, including Tarrant County.
3. Plaintiff The Corporation of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth ("Diocesan Corporation" or "Corporation") is a Texas non-profit corporation with its principal office in Fort Worth, Texas, formed on or about February 23, 1983, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and canons of the Diocese and subject to the provisions ofthe Constitutions and canons of the Diocese and The Episcopal Church.
I have pointed out before the hubris involved in these claims. The plaintiff "Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth" claims to be the only Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, because under the grand litigation strategy, dioceses may never leave the Episcopal Church (USA). Thus the group that went with Bishop Jack Iker, even though it insists it retained its legal identity as the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, cannot be recognized as such if the strategy is to succeed. So instead of referring to it as "the defendant Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth", call it by some other name that describes its affiliation with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone; the same goes for the defendant diocesan Corporation. And that is what the plaintiffs did here.
The plaintiffs' amended petition was filed in unverified form (I do not imply there was any requirement to do so), signed on their behalf by two attorneys: Jonathan D. F. Nelson and Kathleen Wells. It was thus tailor-made for a challenge to the attorneys' authority to file, under Rule 12 as quoted above. For the defendant Diocese and Corporation, who not unreasonably continue to regard themselves as the only entities under Texas law which answer to the descriptions given in the quoted allegations (i.e., founded in 1983 and not 2009), had not authorized Mr. Nelson or Ms. Wells to bring any lawsuit in their names, whether against them or not.
They therefore filed a simple motion under Rule 12 with the District Court, in which the six trustees of the diocesan Corporation (including Bishop Jack L. Iker) swore under oath:
We know that we are the Trustees of The Corporation of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and have been in our offices since each of us was elected as a trustee by the Annual Convention of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth; that we have never authorized nor requested Jonathan D.F. Nelson or Kathleen Wells to file any litigation on behalf of The Corporation of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth; and that any other individual who did authorize or request them to do so holds no position of authority with the Corporation that would authorize that person to retain or request any attorney to act on behalf of the Corporation for any purpose.
Under the provisions of the Rule, this action was sufficient to place the burden upon Mr. Nelson and Ms. Wells to show two things: (1) that they were indeed authorized to act for the entities they claimed to represent when they filed their papers; and (2) that the persons they claim authorized them indeed had the authority in law to retain them for that purpose.
The nature of the evidence as to the first part of their burden could be gleaned from these further allegations in the amended petition:
52. Church Canon III.13 provides that "[a] Diocese without a Bishop may, by an act of its Convention, and in consultation with the Presiding Bishop, be placed under the provisional charge and authority of a Bishop of another diocese or of a resigned Bishop, who shall by that act be authorized to exercise all the duties and offices of the Bishop of the Diocese .... "
53. The Diocese held a special meeting of its Convention on February 7, 2009. At that meeting, a provisional bishop of the Diocese was elected pursuant to Church Canon III.13; other vacant offices in the Diocese, including the Standing Committee, the Executive Council, and the Trustees of the Diocesan Corporation, were filled; resolutions declaring the constitutional and canonical amendments described in Paragraph 46 above void and of no effect were passed; and the Diocese's clergy and lay deputies to the Church's forthcoming 2009 meeting of the General Convention were elected.
54. The Church recognizes the plaintiff Diocese as the continuing Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. The Church and the Diocese recognize the bishop described in Paragraph 53 above as the bishop with Episcopal oversight of the Diocese, the persons elected to the Standing Committee described in Paragraph 53 above as the Standing Committee ofthe Diocese, the persons described in Paragraph 53 above as the Trustees of the Diocesan Corporation; and the persons described in Paragraph 53 above as the elected deputies or representatives of the Diocese to the Church's General Convention.
This is straight out of the litigation playbook described above, is it not? It represents steps 4 and 6 outlined earlier. But now we get to the crux of the matter. It is not sufficient to show that the persons who currently claim to be the "Trustees of The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth" hired you as their attorneys; in order to satisfy Rule 12, you must also show that those persons are who they claim to be, and indeed have the required authority to authorize you, as an attorney, to file suit in an entity's name. Stated another way: you cannot respond to a Rule 12 motion by saying "Joe Doakes at XYZ Corp. authorized me to bring suit for it, and he's the Vice President for Legal Affairs." You have to show that there actually is a Joe Doakes, and he has to prove that the corporation (through its Board of Directors, or President) gave him the authority to hire attorneys to institute litigation in the corporation's name.
Thus in order to have the requisite authority, the persons claiming to be the "Trustees of The Corporation of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth" would have to show that they were duly appointed to that office in accordance with The Corporation's Articles and bylaws. And here they encounter an obstacle. For the Diocesan Canons (Canon 17) provide for one of the Board's Five Trustees (the Bishop is an ex officio Trustee and Chairman) to be elected at each Annual Convention to a staggered five-year term. When a Trustee does not serve out his term, and a vacancy occurs, the bylaws specify that the remaining Trustees have authority to appoint an interim Trustee to serve until the next Annual Convention, as I noted in this previous post.
Under the way the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor view things, the Trustees of the Corporation hold lay positions "in this Church" for the purposes of Canon I.17.8, which I previously discussed here. (Never mind that their only requirement is that they be clergy or lay communicants in good standing of a parish or mission in the Diocese; the Diocese is part of "this Church", don't you see?) And as persons subject to that Canon, they become instantly disqualified to hold their position once they do anything that the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor regard as disloyal to the Church as a whole (never mind the Diocese again).
We do not know whether any of the five Trustees also served as deputies to the Diocesan Convention that voted to leave. ECUSA's petition simply alleges that the five individual Trustees "supported" the Convention's vote to leave, and not that they themselves so voted; apparently that is disloyalty enough, from 815's standpoint, to cause the Canon's unstated "ejector-seat mechanism" to spring into action. In such a way does the national Church claim the unprecedented authority to swoop down into a Diocese and "remove" locally elected people from office by the simple expedient of "derecognizing" them.
Thus with all members of the Board gone (Bishop Iker declared to have renounced his ministry, and the other five Trustees "derecognized"), how can any interim appointments be made to fill the vacancies? (From the Presiding Bishop's standpoint, there is no time to wait until the "Diocese" can hold an Annual Convention -- it needs a lawsuit filed right away in order to claim the bank accounts it has asked to be frozen.)
To replace the five derecognized trustees, the "special convention" called in February 2009 by the Presiding Bishop first authorized her pick, the Rt. Rev. Edward Gulick of Kentucky, to serve as "Provisional Bishop" for the "Diocese." Then, acting as ex officio Trustee of the Corporation, Bishop Gulick exercised his purported authority under the bylaws to "fill" the five vacancies with interim appointments until the "Diocese" could hold its next Annual Convention. (The candidates he chose were those "recommended" to him by another vote at the "special convention.") These people then immediately met as a "Board" with Bishop Gulick and authorized the bringing of a lawsuit in the name of the "Corporation," while Bishop Gulick on his own authorized the same for the "Diocese" which he now headed.
So far, the litigation script was being followed to the letter. There is just one slight problem, however: the Presiding Bishop was the one who called the "special convention" into existence -- without any authority to do so under the national Constitution or Canons, and in direct violation of the Diocesan Constitution. The latter provides:
ARTICLE 4
SPECIAL MEETINGS OF CONVENTION
The Bishop, or a majority of all members of the Standing Committee, may call a special meeting of the Convention upon thirty (30) days notice thereof. When there is not Bishop, the Standing Committee shall have power to call a special meeting of the Convention, giving thirty (30) days notice thereof. At any special meeting of the Convention, the only business to be transacted shall be specified in the call.
(Bold emphasis added.) As one should well know by now, the Presiding Bishop operates outside, and not within, Church law and canons -- they simply are read not to apply to her actions. Her grand litigation strategy says that there is a continuing Diocese, notwithstanding its vote to disaffiliate from the Church, so the continuing Diocese must be able to hold a special convention. And if there is no "Ecclesiastical Authority" left in the Diocese to call one, she will call the convention herself. (God forfend we should have to conclude that there was no Ecclesiastical Authority because there was no Diocese. That would mean that we would have to go to the trouble of organizing a new one, and of admitting it to General Convention all over again.)
Since the "special convention" was not called in the manner provided by the diocesan Constitution, it could not be considered a legally invoked gathering of the Diocese -- whether the real one or the pseudo one, it does not matter which. And this legal infirmity affects all of the actions supposedly taken at it.
But there is more. The next requirement for the interim Trustees to have been validly appointed is that the convention which cloaked the bishop with authority to make the appointments had the Constitutionally required quorum present to conduct business:
ARTICLE 5
QUORUM
At any meeting of the Convention of this Diocese a quorum necessary to transact business shall consist of one-third (1/3) of the Clergy entitled to seats therein and Lay Delegates from one-third (1/3) of the Parishes and Missions in union with the Convention; but a smaller number shall have the power to adjourn from day to day until a quorum is obtained.
Needless to say, this Constitutional requirement was not met, either. (According to this report from ENS, there were only 19 clergy attending, and 62 lay delegates representing 31 congregations [the current Website lists just nineteen, so that latter number may have been a stretch]. While there might have been a quorum of congregations represented, there were far more than 57 clergy canonically resident in the Diocese in February 2009 -- there were 57 separate parishes in the Diocese as of 2007 -- and so 19 clergy could not have constituted a legal quorum of at least one-third their number. This is the same problem that occurred with the "special convention" called in San Joaquin.)
The Court is thus faced with two rival groups and two rival corporations, each claiming to be the only true entity under Texas law. The Trustees of the one Corporation have been properly elected in accordance with diocesan Canon 17: one at each of the five previous Annual Conventions. But the Trustees of the other Corporation are all serving interim terms, having been "approved" en masse at a "special convention" which was not called by the proper authority and which did not have a quorum present. The latter group of Trustees claims to have authorized the bringing of the lawsuit in the name of the Corporation; the former group states they gave Ms. Wells and Mr. Nelson no such authorization.
The hearing on the Rule 12 motion resumed this afternoon at 2 p.m. in Judge Chupp's courtroom in Fort Worth. After hearing the arguments from both sides, the Judge ruled from the bench that a Diocese had the right to leave the Episcopal Church and to take its property with it. This meant that the plaintiffs could not, in law, be the same legal entities as were associated with Bishop Iker -- i.e., the Diocese and the Corporation which were each founded in 1983. The Judge then signed an order with the following text:
ORDER GRANTING RULE 12 MOTION
On 9th day of September, 2009, came on to be heard Defendants' Motion Challenging the Authority of Attorneys to Prosecute This Suit on Behalf of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and The Corporation of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. Movants appeared by and through their counsel of record along with Jonathan D. F. Nelson and Kathleen Wells. All parties announced ready for the hearing, which began and recessed until September 16, 2009. Movants once again appeared by and through their counsel of record along with Jonathan D. F. Nelson and Kathleen Wells and announced ready for the resumption of the hearing. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Court finds that the attorneys cited to appear have not discharged their burden of proof that they were hired by individuals holding positions at the time of the hiring within The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and The Corporation of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that are associated with Bishop Iker.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Jonathan D. F. Nelson and Kathleen Wells are barred from appearing in this suit as attorneys for The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that is associated with Bishop Iker.
The effect of this Order on ECUSA's pending motion for summary adjudication is unclear, since the Judge deleted language from the proposed Order which would have stricken the pleadings filed by the plaintiffs' attorneys. However, what does seem clear is that the grand litigation strategy of pretending to be the original Diocese has been foiled, at least for the time being. The plaintiffs will now have to differentiate themselves from Bishop Iker's Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and acknowledge that their "Diocese" is a new unincorporated association that began its existence only in February 2009. The plaintiff "Corporation" of that new Diocese will have to file incorporation papers with the State of Texas, which will serve to distinguish it from the Corporation that was formed in 1983.
Then the big question will be: how can the 2009 "Diocese" claim to be a Diocese in ECUSA when there was no resolution to admit it as such adopted by General Convention in July 2009? Will the "Diocese" now have to wait until 2012 before it can be recognized, or will the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor once again flaunt the Constitution and Canons, and "recognize" the Diocese without any formal action? This decision, and what the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor do in response to it, is bound to have significant ramifications for the other cases involving departing Dioceses.
Thus while somewhat confusing for Bishop Iker and his group, the Order cannot be good news for the plaintiffs. It sounds as though the Court has already, in effect, ruled that they cannot prevail on their motion for summary adjudication to obtain title to the diocesan assets, since he ruled that nothing prevented Bishop Iker's Diocese from leaving the Church with its property.
Let's wait for the dust in Fort Worth to settle a bit, and then I will have more. I am told that Bishop Iker's office will issue a statement shortly -- the statement is now out, and may be read here. It adds even more detail to what the Judge said at the hearing, and reinforces my conclusions above.
Posted by A. S. Haley at 11:59 AM
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Archbishop Nicholas Okoh new primate of Nigeria
From CANA:
Praise be to God! Bishop Minns and Canon Dobbs are reporting from Nigeria that Archbishop Nicholas Okoh has been duly elected as the new Primate-elect of All Nigeria. More information to follow. Please be in prayer for Archbishop Okoh as he begins to work alongside our beloved Primate Peter Akinola during the coming months of transition.
Praise be to God! Bishop Minns and Canon Dobbs are reporting from Nigeria that Archbishop Nicholas Okoh has been duly elected as the new Primate-elect of All Nigeria. More information to follow. Please be in prayer for Archbishop Okoh as he begins to work alongside our beloved Primate Peter Akinola during the coming months of transition.
WISCONSIN: American Anglican Council Announces Formation of Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans-NA
By David W. Virtue
and Mary Ann Mueller in Wisconsin
www.virtueonline.org
Sept 14, 2009
NASHOTAH, WISCONSIN---In a stunning pronouncement, the American Anglican Council (AAC) announced the launching of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans-North America (FCA-NA) this week bringing together individual Anglicans in the great Diaspora who are unable to find an ACNA church near them. Orthodox Episcopalians and Anglicans can join to become ministry partners.
"I am pleased to announce the formation of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans - North America as a ministry partner of AC-NA to which you can apply immediately," said the Rev. Phillip Ashey AAC's travelling chaplain. He urged Anglicans to go on line and join the FCA -NA apply at: www.fca.net
FCA-NA joins with FCA in England and South Africa.
This much-awaited announcement was made at the Nashotah House refectory in front of more than 50 members the Southeastern Wisconsin American Anglican Council (SEWAAC) chapter monthly meeting.
GAFCON secretariat and FCA director Anglican Archbishop Sydney Jensen charged the ACC to organize the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in North America. Since then Fr. Ashey and others, including Nashotah House Dean Robert Munday and Fr. William Beasley - who were both present at this month's SEWAAC meeting - have been working towards seeing FCA-NA become a reality. As AAC's Chief Operating Officer, Fr. Ashey has been kept busy with back-to-back meetings while in the Upper Midwest. He will address delegates at a major FCA-NA planning summit in Plano, Texas, this week, along with Dean Munday, Fr. Beasley and others, to hammer out detailed plans for the FCA-NA's eventual roll out.
FCA has rolled out with great fanfare and success in England and South Africa. The next logical step was North America where the infant Anglican Church in North America is getting a foothold and seeking formal recognition from the rest of the Anglican Communion as the Thirty-Ninth Province. Hopefully, FCA's American unveiling will take place before the end of the year.
Fr. Ashey explained that ACNA's focus is to reach North America with the transforming love of Jesus Christ, and with the help of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, which was originally conceived through last summer's GACFON meeting for the "benefit of the church and the furtherance of its mission".
"We must move ahead together. But there is one situation where we are in danger of leaving Anglicans behind," the AAC priest lamented. "This is the situation we are in..."
Many southern Wisconsin Episcopalians feel disenfranchised from their orthodox Anglican roots and traditional Anglican heritage. They have found it spiritually necessary to either leave The Episcopal Church or hang tough in The Episcopal Church because there is no local ACNA congregation to plug into for a variety of reasons including distance and lack of enough members to plant a parish.
SEWAAC President Bill Chapin explained that many SEWAAC members particularity feel disenfranchised because they are trapped within a revisionist TEC diocese, sit in revisionist TEC pews and because there are only three ACNA churches within the entire Diocese of Milwaukee. There is nowhere else to go. The three churches are: St. Edmund's, Elm Grove; Light of Christ, Kenosha; and all Saints, Milwaukee. The Episcopal Diocese of Milwaukee encompasses the entire southern third of the state, stretching from Lake Michigan to Iowa along the Mississippi River. The other Episcopal dioceses in Wisconsin include Eau Claire and Fond du Lac.
Fr. Ashey came to exhort, build up, and encourage the SEWAAC members and support them in their Anglicanism. He explained the spiritual mechanics of ACNA and how it can help the beleaguered Wisconsin Episcopalians as they struggle to remain faithful to their Anglicanism in a spiritually hostile environment.
"At this watershed moment we need to be sure that it is God that is going before us and not just our own ideas," he cautioned. "Don't get ahead of the Lord - we must move together."
Fr. Ashey was quick to point out that even though TEC has become theologically revisionist through a false gospel, heretical, and heterodox ways in the post-modern, post-Christian culture, The Episcopal Church leaves behind a great tradition.
"Saying that TEC is dead does not remove our respect for what was once great and Godly," he explained. "Our Book of Common Prayer, our worship, our architecture and hymnody ..."
He mentioned some of the great Episcopal orthodox bishops including Jackson Kemper who was a driving force behind the creation of Nashotah House and is still a Wisconsin legend.
However, the priest cautioned that too many times the problematic preoccupation is with the hurts of the past and the loss of buildings, rather than reaching out to the next generation with the life-giving power and transforming love of Jesus Christ.
He then laid out a game plan in which SEWAAC members, indeed all Anglican Christians, could grasp the essence of the Gospel message.
"First get a grip on God's promises," he said. "Draw on the great Evangelical stream of Anglicanism."
He noted that exegetical preaching and teaching in worship and small groups give the Christian the much needed opportunity and time to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the Word of God in Holy Scripture.
"This will mean intentionally supporting seminaries like Nashotah House," Fr. Ashey noted.
He also noted that all Anglicans need to be committed to Bible study and allow what they learn to shape their values in the vision, mission and strategic objectives of the church and that every person needs to consciously commit Scripture passages to memory.
The next step is to get a grip on God's patterns --- personal holiness of life including Anglo-Catholic spiritual disciplines, which help to cultivate the interior life in Christ. He pointed to developing a Rule of Life which includes frequent Eucharist, the Daily Office, Scripture meditation, listening prayer, spiritual accountability and regular confession.
"Every member of the church is called to be a fully devoted follower of Jesus Christ," he said.
Next comes laying hold of the presence and power of God through the Holy Spirit, a new Pentecost need for renewal of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the Life of the Spirit - a Christianity with Power as the supernatural dimension of the normal Christian life.
Other points Fr. Ashey mentioned were that worship and prayer have to take priority because they are what shape everything in ACNA.
"As foolish and powerless as it may seem, our Number One strategy to build the Anglican Church in North America is to preach Christ Crucified." Fr. Ashey explained. "We will preach Christ crucified through personal relational evangelism: 'presenting Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit so that people everywhere will put their trust in God through Him, know Him as Saviour and serve Him as Lord in the fellowship of the Church."
He went on to say that other ways of preaching Christ crucified are to fulfill the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations... equipping each member so that they may reconcile the world to Christ ... establishing mission partnerships with the Global South and to learn from them.
Finally Fr. Ashey enumerated various points on how ACNA can gain recognition as the Thirty-Ninth Province and help stem the tide of the false Gospel from continuing to spread and infect "the torn Communion."
He noted that ACNA's leadership needs to join in demanding that the Ridley Cambridge Draft of the proposed Anglican Covenant be immediately released; that ACNA join others in asking the Archbishop of Canterbury to request that all TEC representative withdraw from participation in any Anglican Communion office including the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council; request that the Church of England's General Synod, as well as the other primates of provinces of the Anglican Communion, recognize ACNA as the only Windsor-compliant authentically Anglican body in North America; help facilitate a meeting of wider the Confessing Communion to address various aspects of TEC's revisionist theology which depart from the historic faith and order of the ancient church; and support Nashotah House as it enters into theological collaboration with the Orthodox which could hopefully lead to an Anglican-Orthodox statement.
Also: ACNA leadership must demand that the Communion-wide "Indaba listening process" be suspended until such time that an alternative funding source can be secured; continue to help inform the Global South and GAFCON partners of TEC's underhanded way of attempting to infiltrate their Provinces through the use of money, seminary exchanges and the corrupted Indaba listening process; help the GAFCON's Global South partners establish solid Biblical and confessional inter-Anglican ministry networks and help bind together the Confessing Communion; and finally, help support Global South and GAFCON provinces in engaging the Torn Communion other than on Canterbury's terms and TEC's liberal agendas, focusing instead on the Jerusalem Declaration.
"The most effective thing we can do is gain recognition as a genuine, robust Anglican Province is to stay focused on our mission," Fr. Ashley concluded, "to continue to preach Christ crucified, and to continue to share the transforming love of Jesus Christ to all of North America through evangelism, church planting, discipleship, and mission."
"Let us build a Church like the one in Acts 2:42-47," he urged, "a Church that is worthy of recognition as the Thirty-Ninth Province."
Following Fr. Ashey's presentation, SEWAAC's President Bill Chapin said that in his opinion Fr. Ashey's address was "one of the finest we have ever had."
SEWAAC has been helping disenfranchised Wisconsin Episcopalians stay moored to the wider Anglican Communion while they are currently trapped in a revisionist parish in a hostile diocese.
"We are a conduit for orthodoxy," he noted. "We are an orthodox advocacy group. There are no SEWAAC parishes. We do not plant churches."
Chapin said that SEWAAC has worked hand-in-glove with Nashotah House through the years. He is very grateful for the traditional seminary's enthusiastic support in helping provide a meeting place and theological underpinnings of the Christianity 101 course and upcoming Christianity 201 course.
END
and Mary Ann Mueller in Wisconsin
www.virtueonline.org
Sept 14, 2009
NASHOTAH, WISCONSIN---In a stunning pronouncement, the American Anglican Council (AAC) announced the launching of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans-North America (FCA-NA) this week bringing together individual Anglicans in the great Diaspora who are unable to find an ACNA church near them. Orthodox Episcopalians and Anglicans can join to become ministry partners.
"I am pleased to announce the formation of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans - North America as a ministry partner of AC-NA to which you can apply immediately," said the Rev. Phillip Ashey AAC's travelling chaplain. He urged Anglicans to go on line and join the FCA -NA apply at: www.fca.net
FCA-NA joins with FCA in England and South Africa.
This much-awaited announcement was made at the Nashotah House refectory in front of more than 50 members the Southeastern Wisconsin American Anglican Council (SEWAAC) chapter monthly meeting.
GAFCON secretariat and FCA director Anglican Archbishop Sydney Jensen charged the ACC to organize the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in North America. Since then Fr. Ashey and others, including Nashotah House Dean Robert Munday and Fr. William Beasley - who were both present at this month's SEWAAC meeting - have been working towards seeing FCA-NA become a reality. As AAC's Chief Operating Officer, Fr. Ashey has been kept busy with back-to-back meetings while in the Upper Midwest. He will address delegates at a major FCA-NA planning summit in Plano, Texas, this week, along with Dean Munday, Fr. Beasley and others, to hammer out detailed plans for the FCA-NA's eventual roll out.
FCA has rolled out with great fanfare and success in England and South Africa. The next logical step was North America where the infant Anglican Church in North America is getting a foothold and seeking formal recognition from the rest of the Anglican Communion as the Thirty-Ninth Province. Hopefully, FCA's American unveiling will take place before the end of the year.
Fr. Ashey explained that ACNA's focus is to reach North America with the transforming love of Jesus Christ, and with the help of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, which was originally conceived through last summer's GACFON meeting for the "benefit of the church and the furtherance of its mission".
"We must move ahead together. But there is one situation where we are in danger of leaving Anglicans behind," the AAC priest lamented. "This is the situation we are in..."
Many southern Wisconsin Episcopalians feel disenfranchised from their orthodox Anglican roots and traditional Anglican heritage. They have found it spiritually necessary to either leave The Episcopal Church or hang tough in The Episcopal Church because there is no local ACNA congregation to plug into for a variety of reasons including distance and lack of enough members to plant a parish.
SEWAAC President Bill Chapin explained that many SEWAAC members particularity feel disenfranchised because they are trapped within a revisionist TEC diocese, sit in revisionist TEC pews and because there are only three ACNA churches within the entire Diocese of Milwaukee. There is nowhere else to go. The three churches are: St. Edmund's, Elm Grove; Light of Christ, Kenosha; and all Saints, Milwaukee. The Episcopal Diocese of Milwaukee encompasses the entire southern third of the state, stretching from Lake Michigan to Iowa along the Mississippi River. The other Episcopal dioceses in Wisconsin include Eau Claire and Fond du Lac.
Fr. Ashey came to exhort, build up, and encourage the SEWAAC members and support them in their Anglicanism. He explained the spiritual mechanics of ACNA and how it can help the beleaguered Wisconsin Episcopalians as they struggle to remain faithful to their Anglicanism in a spiritually hostile environment.
"At this watershed moment we need to be sure that it is God that is going before us and not just our own ideas," he cautioned. "Don't get ahead of the Lord - we must move together."
Fr. Ashey was quick to point out that even though TEC has become theologically revisionist through a false gospel, heretical, and heterodox ways in the post-modern, post-Christian culture, The Episcopal Church leaves behind a great tradition.
"Saying that TEC is dead does not remove our respect for what was once great and Godly," he explained. "Our Book of Common Prayer, our worship, our architecture and hymnody ..."
He mentioned some of the great Episcopal orthodox bishops including Jackson Kemper who was a driving force behind the creation of Nashotah House and is still a Wisconsin legend.
However, the priest cautioned that too many times the problematic preoccupation is with the hurts of the past and the loss of buildings, rather than reaching out to the next generation with the life-giving power and transforming love of Jesus Christ.
He then laid out a game plan in which SEWAAC members, indeed all Anglican Christians, could grasp the essence of the Gospel message.
"First get a grip on God's promises," he said. "Draw on the great Evangelical stream of Anglicanism."
He noted that exegetical preaching and teaching in worship and small groups give the Christian the much needed opportunity and time to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the Word of God in Holy Scripture.
"This will mean intentionally supporting seminaries like Nashotah House," Fr. Ashey noted.
He also noted that all Anglicans need to be committed to Bible study and allow what they learn to shape their values in the vision, mission and strategic objectives of the church and that every person needs to consciously commit Scripture passages to memory.
The next step is to get a grip on God's patterns --- personal holiness of life including Anglo-Catholic spiritual disciplines, which help to cultivate the interior life in Christ. He pointed to developing a Rule of Life which includes frequent Eucharist, the Daily Office, Scripture meditation, listening prayer, spiritual accountability and regular confession.
"Every member of the church is called to be a fully devoted follower of Jesus Christ," he said.
Next comes laying hold of the presence and power of God through the Holy Spirit, a new Pentecost need for renewal of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the Life of the Spirit - a Christianity with Power as the supernatural dimension of the normal Christian life.
Other points Fr. Ashey mentioned were that worship and prayer have to take priority because they are what shape everything in ACNA.
"As foolish and powerless as it may seem, our Number One strategy to build the Anglican Church in North America is to preach Christ Crucified." Fr. Ashey explained. "We will preach Christ crucified through personal relational evangelism: 'presenting Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit so that people everywhere will put their trust in God through Him, know Him as Saviour and serve Him as Lord in the fellowship of the Church."
He went on to say that other ways of preaching Christ crucified are to fulfill the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations... equipping each member so that they may reconcile the world to Christ ... establishing mission partnerships with the Global South and to learn from them.
Finally Fr. Ashey enumerated various points on how ACNA can gain recognition as the Thirty-Ninth Province and help stem the tide of the false Gospel from continuing to spread and infect "the torn Communion."
He noted that ACNA's leadership needs to join in demanding that the Ridley Cambridge Draft of the proposed Anglican Covenant be immediately released; that ACNA join others in asking the Archbishop of Canterbury to request that all TEC representative withdraw from participation in any Anglican Communion office including the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council; request that the Church of England's General Synod, as well as the other primates of provinces of the Anglican Communion, recognize ACNA as the only Windsor-compliant authentically Anglican body in North America; help facilitate a meeting of wider the Confessing Communion to address various aspects of TEC's revisionist theology which depart from the historic faith and order of the ancient church; and support Nashotah House as it enters into theological collaboration with the Orthodox which could hopefully lead to an Anglican-Orthodox statement.
Also: ACNA leadership must demand that the Communion-wide "Indaba listening process" be suspended until such time that an alternative funding source can be secured; continue to help inform the Global South and GAFCON partners of TEC's underhanded way of attempting to infiltrate their Provinces through the use of money, seminary exchanges and the corrupted Indaba listening process; help the GAFCON's Global South partners establish solid Biblical and confessional inter-Anglican ministry networks and help bind together the Confessing Communion; and finally, help support Global South and GAFCON provinces in engaging the Torn Communion other than on Canterbury's terms and TEC's liberal agendas, focusing instead on the Jerusalem Declaration.
"The most effective thing we can do is gain recognition as a genuine, robust Anglican Province is to stay focused on our mission," Fr. Ashley concluded, "to continue to preach Christ crucified, and to continue to share the transforming love of Jesus Christ to all of North America through evangelism, church planting, discipleship, and mission."
"Let us build a Church like the one in Acts 2:42-47," he urged, "a Church that is worthy of recognition as the Thirty-Ninth Province."
Following Fr. Ashey's presentation, SEWAAC's President Bill Chapin said that in his opinion Fr. Ashey's address was "one of the finest we have ever had."
SEWAAC has been helping disenfranchised Wisconsin Episcopalians stay moored to the wider Anglican Communion while they are currently trapped in a revisionist parish in a hostile diocese.
"We are a conduit for orthodoxy," he noted. "We are an orthodox advocacy group. There are no SEWAAC parishes. We do not plant churches."
Chapin said that SEWAAC has worked hand-in-glove with Nashotah House through the years. He is very grateful for the traditional seminary's enthusiastic support in helping provide a meeting place and theological underpinnings of the Christianity 101 course and upcoming Christianity 201 course.
END
Diocese of Southwest Florida: St. Dunstans Departs TEC, Joins ACNA
from Stand Firm:
[Received via email]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: September 13, 2009
Release: 2009-01
Contact: The Rev. Oscar P. Seara - (727) 421-1289
LARGO, FL – By a vote of 174 to 13, the membership of St. Dunstan’s Church today voted to sever its ties with The Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) as a parish within the Anglican Diocese of Quincy, Ill. The vote took place during a special meeting convened following regularly scheduled church services today.
The ACNA unites some 100,000 Anglicans in 700 parishes into a single church. Jurisdictions which have joined together to form the 28 dioceses and dioceses-in-formation of the Anglican Church in North America include four former Episcopal dioceses (the dioceses of Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy and San Joaquin); the Anglican Mission in the Americas; the Convocation of Anglicans in North America; the Anglican Network in Canada; the Anglican Coalition in Canada; the Reformed Episcopal Church; and the missionary initiatives of Kenya, Uganda, and South America’s Southern Cone. Additionally, the American Anglican Council and Forward in Faith North America are founding organizations. The ACNA is headed by the Archbishop Robert Duncan, Archbishop and Primate.
Media representatives wishing to interview the Rector of St. Dunstan’s, the Rev. A. Edward Sellers, are asked to contact the Rev. Oscar Seara at the number listed above or via e-mail at FrSeara@YMail.com.
[Received via email]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: September 13, 2009
Release: 2009-01
Contact: The Rev. Oscar P. Seara - (727) 421-1289
LARGO, FL – By a vote of 174 to 13, the membership of St. Dunstan’s Church today voted to sever its ties with The Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) as a parish within the Anglican Diocese of Quincy, Ill. The vote took place during a special meeting convened following regularly scheduled church services today.
The ACNA unites some 100,000 Anglicans in 700 parishes into a single church. Jurisdictions which have joined together to form the 28 dioceses and dioceses-in-formation of the Anglican Church in North America include four former Episcopal dioceses (the dioceses of Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy and San Joaquin); the Anglican Mission in the Americas; the Convocation of Anglicans in North America; the Anglican Network in Canada; the Anglican Coalition in Canada; the Reformed Episcopal Church; and the missionary initiatives of Kenya, Uganda, and South America’s Southern Cone. Additionally, the American Anglican Council and Forward in Faith North America are founding organizations. The ACNA is headed by the Archbishop Robert Duncan, Archbishop and Primate.
Media representatives wishing to interview the Rector of St. Dunstan’s, the Rev. A. Edward Sellers, are asked to contact the Rev. Oscar Seara at the number listed above or via e-mail at FrSeara@YMail.com.
Call to Prayer: The Anglican Church of Nigeria prepares to elect a new primate
Note: St. Andrew's in Vestal and Holy Trinity in Syracuse are CANA churches under Bishop Martyn Minns, missionary bishop of the Province of Nigeria. ed.
from BabyBlueOnline by BabyBlue
Archbishop Peter Akinola is preparing to retire in 2010 and his successor is to be elected tomorrow by the Church of Nigeria's House of Bishops, which includes the bishops of the Convocation of Anglican in North America (CANA), now also a member of the Anglican Church in North America. We remember our brothers and sisters in the Church of Nigeria who are also praying this night for wisdom and discernment to break through the political intrigue of the election and elect the man God is calling to lead the largest province in the Anglican Communion.
Almighty God, you have given your Holy Spirit to the Church to lead us into all truth: bless with the Spirit's grace and presence the members of the House of Bishops of the Church of Nigeria, Anglican Communion; keep them steadfast in faith and united in love, that they may manifest your glory and prepare the way of your kingdom; through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord. Amen.
from BabyBlueOnline by BabyBlue
Archbishop Peter Akinola is preparing to retire in 2010 and his successor is to be elected tomorrow by the Church of Nigeria's House of Bishops, which includes the bishops of the Convocation of Anglican in North America (CANA), now also a member of the Anglican Church in North America. We remember our brothers and sisters in the Church of Nigeria who are also praying this night for wisdom and discernment to break through the political intrigue of the election and elect the man God is calling to lead the largest province in the Anglican Communion.
Almighty God, you have given your Holy Spirit to the Church to lead us into all truth: bless with the Spirit's grace and presence the members of the House of Bishops of the Church of Nigeria, Anglican Communion; keep them steadfast in faith and united in love, that they may manifest your glory and prepare the way of your kingdom; through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord. Amen.
Monday, September 14, 2009
URGENT! Uganda Needs Immediate Intercessory Prayer
From the ACNA:
Late last night we received an urgent prayer request from the Rev. Canon Dr. Alison Barfoot, Archibishop Henry Orombi's assistant for international relations.
Alison writes, "Please pray for peace and order in Kampala and the central region of Uganda. At the moment, the police, riot police, and army have been heavily deployed to quell rioting against the government.
"Now, for me, the challenge is that I live very close to the center of the government of the Buganda kingdom, which is in Mengo town, just around the corner from where I live. So, last night and today, we are being serenaded with gun fire. Of course, it's impossible to know what the gun fire is about. Is it the police shooting bullets in the air to disburse rioters? Or, is it rioters who have gotten hold of fire arms and going crazy? You can't know these things.
"Our office is closed today. The Provincial Secretary just called me to ask for prayers, and I told him I was writing you. He was concerned because they don't have food at home, and there's no place to buy food, because all the markets are closed. So, please pray for a swift resolution to this crisis."
You can read more about the specifics of the conflict here:
Late last night we received an urgent prayer request from the Rev. Canon Dr. Alison Barfoot, Archibishop Henry Orombi's assistant for international relations.
Alison writes, "Please pray for peace and order in Kampala and the central region of Uganda. At the moment, the police, riot police, and army have been heavily deployed to quell rioting against the government.
"Now, for me, the challenge is that I live very close to the center of the government of the Buganda kingdom, which is in Mengo town, just around the corner from where I live. So, last night and today, we are being serenaded with gun fire. Of course, it's impossible to know what the gun fire is about. Is it the police shooting bullets in the air to disburse rioters? Or, is it rioters who have gotten hold of fire arms and going crazy? You can't know these things.
"Our office is closed today. The Provincial Secretary just called me to ask for prayers, and I told him I was writing you. He was concerned because they don't have food at home, and there's no place to buy food, because all the markets are closed. So, please pray for a swift resolution to this crisis."
You can read more about the specifics of the conflict here:
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Georgians Elect Bishop on Second Ballot
Posted on: September 12, 2009
Episcopalians in the Diocese of Georgia decided quickly on Saturday when electing the diocese's tenth bishop. Convening at 9 a.m., a special diocesan convention elected the Rev. Scott A. Benhase within 90 minutes.
Fr. Benhase, rector of St. Alban's Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C., since 2006, was elected on the second ballot. He also led voting in both the clergy and lay orders on the first ballot. He is 52 and has been a priest for 25 years.
Like other parishes in the Diocese of Washington, St. Alban's provides blessing services for same-sex couples. "While a majority oppose, a significant minority support ordinations, blessings and marriages of gay and lesbian members," said a diocesan profile prepared in late 2008. "With rare exception, we continue in this diocese to abide with and learn from one another."
When asked in his diocesan profile about divisive issues facing the Anglican Communion, Fr. Benhase responded, in part:
"We have the opportunity to be witnesses to a different way of being Christian: one that takes discipleship in Jesus seriously, but also one that is open to the new things the Holy Spirit is up to in the world. My hunch is there are a lot of Georgians who think they have only two choices: adopt the fundamentalist agenda hook, line, and sinker or reject Christianity as being irrelevant. Wouldn't it be compelling to show them a different way of following Jesus?"
Other nominees were the Rev. William Patrick Gahan III, Wimberley, Texas; the Rev. Frank Sullivan Logue, Kingsland, Ga.; the Rev. Charles Dean Taylor, Dalton, Ga.; the Rev. William Willoughby III, Savannah, Ga.; and the Rev. Stephen Francis Zimmerman, Boca Raton, Fla.
Episcopalians in the Diocese of Georgia decided quickly on Saturday when electing the diocese's tenth bishop. Convening at 9 a.m., a special diocesan convention elected the Rev. Scott A. Benhase within 90 minutes.
Fr. Benhase, rector of St. Alban's Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C., since 2006, was elected on the second ballot. He also led voting in both the clergy and lay orders on the first ballot. He is 52 and has been a priest for 25 years.
Like other parishes in the Diocese of Washington, St. Alban's provides blessing services for same-sex couples. "While a majority oppose, a significant minority support ordinations, blessings and marriages of gay and lesbian members," said a diocesan profile prepared in late 2008. "With rare exception, we continue in this diocese to abide with and learn from one another."
When asked in his diocesan profile about divisive issues facing the Anglican Communion, Fr. Benhase responded, in part:
"We have the opportunity to be witnesses to a different way of being Christian: one that takes discipleship in Jesus seriously, but also one that is open to the new things the Holy Spirit is up to in the world. My hunch is there are a lot of Georgians who think they have only two choices: adopt the fundamentalist agenda hook, line, and sinker or reject Christianity as being irrelevant. Wouldn't it be compelling to show them a different way of following Jesus?"
Other nominees were the Rev. William Patrick Gahan III, Wimberley, Texas; the Rev. Frank Sullivan Logue, Kingsland, Ga.; the Rev. Charles Dean Taylor, Dalton, Ga.; the Rev. William Willoughby III, Savannah, Ga.; and the Rev. Stephen Francis Zimmerman, Boca Raton, Fla.
Georgia diocese elects Scott Benhase as bishop
As Sarah Hey reports at Stand Firm, this guy is bad news for the Diocese of Georgia. According to the information he provided in the bishop search he practices open communion and offers same sex blessings. He has a non-celibate gay man on his staff at St. Alban's in Washington. I believe that Hey is right on this one - this is going to cost the DoGA big time.
Via TitusOneNine:
By ENS staff, September 12, 2009
[Episcopal News Service] The Rev. Scott Benhase was elected September 12 as tenth bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia.
Benhase, 52, rector of St. Alban's Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. (Diocese of Washington), was elected on the second ballot out of a field of six nominees. He received 76 votes of 146 cast in the lay order and 58 of 103 cast in the clergy order. An election on that ballot required 74 in the lay order and 53 in the clergy order.
The election took place during the diocese's 188th annual convention at the Dubose Porter Center, a business and training center in Dublin, Georgia.
Under the canons of the Episcopal Church (III.11.4), a majority of bishops exercising jurisdiction and diocesan Standing Committees must consent to Benhase's ordination as bishop within 120 days of receiving notice of the election.
Providing he receives the required consents, Benhase will succeed Georgia's ninth bishop, Henry I. Louttit, who has served the diocese since January 1995. The ordination and consecration is set for January 23, 2010 at the Savannah International Trade and Convention Center.
Benhase, who graduated from Virginia Theological Seminary, served congregations in Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia before being called to St. Alban's in 2006. He is married to Kelly Jones Benhase and they have three children, John, 21; Charley, 18 and Mary Grace, 16.
More information about Benhase, including a video presentation and answers to the search committee's questions, is available here.
The other nominees were:
* The Rev. William Patrick Gahan, 54, rector of St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, Wimberley, Texas (Diocese of West Texas);
* The Rev. Frank S. Logue, 46, vicar, King of Peace Episcopal Church, Kingsland, Georgia (Diocese of Georgia);
* The Very Rev. C. Dean Taylor, 53, rector, St. Mark's Episcopal Church, Dalton, Georgia (Diocese of Atlanta);
* The Very Rev. William Willoughby III, 53, rector, St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Savannah, Georgia (Diocese of Georgia); and
* The Rev. Stephen E. Zimmerman, 60, rector, Chapel of St. Andrew, Boca Raton, Florida (Diocese of Southeast Florida).
The Diocese of Georgia covers the southern two thirds of the state of Georgia, including Savannah, Augusta, Albany, Thomasville, Valdosta, and Brunswick.
»
Via TitusOneNine:
By ENS staff, September 12, 2009
[Episcopal News Service] The Rev. Scott Benhase was elected September 12 as tenth bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia.
Benhase, 52, rector of St. Alban's Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. (Diocese of Washington), was elected on the second ballot out of a field of six nominees. He received 76 votes of 146 cast in the lay order and 58 of 103 cast in the clergy order. An election on that ballot required 74 in the lay order and 53 in the clergy order.
The election took place during the diocese's 188th annual convention at the Dubose Porter Center, a business and training center in Dublin, Georgia.
Under the canons of the Episcopal Church (III.11.4), a majority of bishops exercising jurisdiction and diocesan Standing Committees must consent to Benhase's ordination as bishop within 120 days of receiving notice of the election.
Providing he receives the required consents, Benhase will succeed Georgia's ninth bishop, Henry I. Louttit, who has served the diocese since January 1995. The ordination and consecration is set for January 23, 2010 at the Savannah International Trade and Convention Center.
Benhase, who graduated from Virginia Theological Seminary, served congregations in Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia before being called to St. Alban's in 2006. He is married to Kelly Jones Benhase and they have three children, John, 21; Charley, 18 and Mary Grace, 16.
More information about Benhase, including a video presentation and answers to the search committee's questions, is available here.
The other nominees were:
* The Rev. William Patrick Gahan, 54, rector of St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, Wimberley, Texas (Diocese of West Texas);
* The Rev. Frank S. Logue, 46, vicar, King of Peace Episcopal Church, Kingsland, Georgia (Diocese of Georgia);
* The Very Rev. C. Dean Taylor, 53, rector, St. Mark's Episcopal Church, Dalton, Georgia (Diocese of Atlanta);
* The Very Rev. William Willoughby III, 53, rector, St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Savannah, Georgia (Diocese of Georgia); and
* The Rev. Stephen E. Zimmerman, 60, rector, Chapel of St. Andrew, Boca Raton, Florida (Diocese of Southeast Florida).
The Diocese of Georgia covers the southern two thirds of the state of Georgia, including Savannah, Augusta, Albany, Thomasville, Valdosta, and Brunswick.
»
Saturday, September 12, 2009
To Our Bishops
From the Cathedral Church of the Advent, Birmingham, AL via TitusOneNine:
Following the conclusion of the 2009 General Convention of The Episcopal Church, the Vestry of the Advent sent a letter to our Bishops, expressing our concerns about several resolutions that had been adopted by the Convention. Bishop Parsley asked to meet with the Vestry in order to respond to the letter and to engage in a conversation on the issues raised in it. The Vestry was glad to have this opportunity, and was able to change its regularly scheduled meeting date from September 17 to September 10, to accommodate the Bishop. During his initial remarks at the September 10 meeting, the Bishop stated that he was grateful for the letter, and for the Vestry's expressing of its opinions so clearly. He presented his views on the issues, and then opened the floor for questions and comments. The Vestry now desires to share its letter with the parish:
August 6, 2009
Dear Bishop Parsley and Bishop Sloan,
We write to you in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ and ask you to pray for us, as we do for you.
We want you to know that we have followed carefully the activities of the 2009 General Convention, and especially your votes cast on resolutions D025 and C056 and the Anaheim Statement. We believe the General Convention’s actions show that The Episcopal Church is departing from the uniform teachings of the Bible and the apostles. In particular, we believe that D025 overturns the 2006 Resolution B033, which called us to "exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church". At the House of Bishops Meeting in New Orleans in 2007, the Bishops acknowledged that the word "candidate" in 2006 Resolution BO33 referred to non-celibate gay and lesbians as well as any other persons "whose manner of life may present a challenge to the wider church." D025 expresses the mind of the General Convention today and removes the effect of B033. We are both saddened and appalled by these actions, in D025 and also in C056, which further indicate to us the current direction of TEC.
Moreover, we want you to know that we support Dean Frank Limehouse’s decision to join Richmond Webster in expressing their views on this matter in the Birmingham News.
As you know, in his July 27, 2009 "'Reflections on the Episcopal Church’s 2009 General Convention. . .," the Archbishop of Canterbury discussed the possibility of a "two-fold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance. . .[whereby] there may be associated local churches in various kinds of mutual partnership and solidarity with one another and with ‘covenanted’ provinces." God willing, should there come an opportunity for this Diocese, and likewise for the Advent, to remain aligned with the orthodox Anglican Communion and at the same time distance ourselves from the current direction and decisions of TEC, we prayerfully believe that you will take all necessary actions to remain aligned with the Anglican Communion.
May God be with both of you, and grant us all His wisdom.
The undersigned represents the unanimous vote of our Vestry, and also the Emeriti present on August 6, 2009.
//s// Nina J. Botsford, Senior Warden
//s// James L. Goyer III, Junior Warden
//s// Bruce A. Rawls
//s// James A. Bradford
//s// Emily Curran
//s// Kathleen Doss
//s// Bing Edwards
//s// John Goodman
//s// Victor Hanson III
//s// Frank Jones
//s// Carolyn Lankford
//s// David Tanner
//s// Mary K Wilson
//s// Frances A. Cade
//s// Russell W. Chambliss
//s// C. Harold Doss
//s// Matthew B. Menendez
//s// Lee M. Pope
//s// Frank D. Taylor
//s// James D. Williams
//s// Sara Jane Ball
//s// Samuel S. Everette, II
I //s// Joseph M. Farley, Jr.
//s// Harold H. Goings
//s// John W. Hargrove
//s// Winston T. McCalley
//s// J. Benjamin Patrick
//s// Elizabeth C. Sharman
//s// L. Stephens Tilghman
//s// Louise W. Yoder
//s// Thomas Wilson, Sr.
//s// Wm. Pritchard, III
//s// Hatton C.V. Smith
//s// George B. Elliott
//s// Henry Seibels, III
//s// Lee Thuston
//s// John Bingham
//s// Hampton Smith
Robin Anderson (with express permission)
Bill Pradat (with express permission)
Frank H. Bromberg Jr. (with express permission)
Margaret Aderholt (with express permission)
Mary Margaret Hendry (with express permission)
David S. McKee, Jr. (with express permission)
Bayard S. Tynes, Jr. (with express permission)
J.D. Brown (with express permission)
Jim Gorrie (with express permission)
Bill Tynes (with express permission)
Chip Mattison (with express permission)
Hewes Hull (with express permission)
Joseph M. Farley, Sr. (with express permission)
Following the conclusion of the 2009 General Convention of The Episcopal Church, the Vestry of the Advent sent a letter to our Bishops, expressing our concerns about several resolutions that had been adopted by the Convention. Bishop Parsley asked to meet with the Vestry in order to respond to the letter and to engage in a conversation on the issues raised in it. The Vestry was glad to have this opportunity, and was able to change its regularly scheduled meeting date from September 17 to September 10, to accommodate the Bishop. During his initial remarks at the September 10 meeting, the Bishop stated that he was grateful for the letter, and for the Vestry's expressing of its opinions so clearly. He presented his views on the issues, and then opened the floor for questions and comments. The Vestry now desires to share its letter with the parish:
August 6, 2009
Dear Bishop Parsley and Bishop Sloan,
We write to you in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ and ask you to pray for us, as we do for you.
We want you to know that we have followed carefully the activities of the 2009 General Convention, and especially your votes cast on resolutions D025 and C056 and the Anaheim Statement. We believe the General Convention’s actions show that The Episcopal Church is departing from the uniform teachings of the Bible and the apostles. In particular, we believe that D025 overturns the 2006 Resolution B033, which called us to "exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church". At the House of Bishops Meeting in New Orleans in 2007, the Bishops acknowledged that the word "candidate" in 2006 Resolution BO33 referred to non-celibate gay and lesbians as well as any other persons "whose manner of life may present a challenge to the wider church." D025 expresses the mind of the General Convention today and removes the effect of B033. We are both saddened and appalled by these actions, in D025 and also in C056, which further indicate to us the current direction of TEC.
Moreover, we want you to know that we support Dean Frank Limehouse’s decision to join Richmond Webster in expressing their views on this matter in the Birmingham News.
As you know, in his July 27, 2009 "'Reflections on the Episcopal Church’s 2009 General Convention. . .," the Archbishop of Canterbury discussed the possibility of a "two-fold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance. . .[whereby] there may be associated local churches in various kinds of mutual partnership and solidarity with one another and with ‘covenanted’ provinces." God willing, should there come an opportunity for this Diocese, and likewise for the Advent, to remain aligned with the orthodox Anglican Communion and at the same time distance ourselves from the current direction and decisions of TEC, we prayerfully believe that you will take all necessary actions to remain aligned with the Anglican Communion.
May God be with both of you, and grant us all His wisdom.
The undersigned represents the unanimous vote of our Vestry, and also the Emeriti present on August 6, 2009.
//s// Nina J. Botsford, Senior Warden
//s// James L. Goyer III, Junior Warden
//s// Bruce A. Rawls
//s// James A. Bradford
//s// Emily Curran
//s// Kathleen Doss
//s// Bing Edwards
//s// John Goodman
//s// Victor Hanson III
//s// Frank Jones
//s// Carolyn Lankford
//s// David Tanner
//s// Mary K Wilson
//s// Frances A. Cade
//s// Russell W. Chambliss
//s// C. Harold Doss
//s// Matthew B. Menendez
//s// Lee M. Pope
//s// Frank D. Taylor
//s// James D. Williams
//s// Sara Jane Ball
//s// Samuel S. Everette, II
I //s// Joseph M. Farley, Jr.
//s// Harold H. Goings
//s// John W. Hargrove
//s// Winston T. McCalley
//s// J. Benjamin Patrick
//s// Elizabeth C. Sharman
//s// L. Stephens Tilghman
//s// Louise W. Yoder
//s// Thomas Wilson, Sr.
//s// Wm. Pritchard, III
//s// Hatton C.V. Smith
//s// George B. Elliott
//s// Henry Seibels, III
//s// Lee Thuston
//s// John Bingham
//s// Hampton Smith
Robin Anderson (with express permission)
Bill Pradat (with express permission)
Frank H. Bromberg Jr. (with express permission)
Margaret Aderholt (with express permission)
Mary Margaret Hendry (with express permission)
David S. McKee, Jr. (with express permission)
Bayard S. Tynes, Jr. (with express permission)
J.D. Brown (with express permission)
Jim Gorrie (with express permission)
Bill Tynes (with express permission)
Chip Mattison (with express permission)
Hewes Hull (with express permission)
Joseph M. Farley, Sr. (with express permission)
Door is closing on Church’s foot, says Williams
From the Church Times via TitusOneNine:
by Ed Beavan
“THE FOOT is still in the door, even if it is being squashed very painfully,” the Archbishop of Canterbury said last weekend when he was asked about the Church’s participation in public debate. He did not think that the Church had yet “dropped off the radar”.
Dr Williams was in dialogue with Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye and panellist on the BBC’s Have I Got News for You, at an event during “The Gathering”, a series of activities for all ages at Canterbury Cathedral.
Mr Hislop described the difficulty that Dr Williams faced with the media when people called for a moral lead from the Church. “When the Archbishop of Canterbury says anything, they say, ‘Shut up,’” he suggested.
Dr Williams responded that “the leadership thing is a problem.” It was “a matter of trying to remember that when you’re speaking from the Church you’re trying to give some sort of critical perspective to try and show something”. The Archbishop admitted that he was “not brilliant at sound-bites”.
There was scepticism towards the media, Dr Williams said, and “people do know there are other places to go” to get information. “When I go to the theatre, I’m glad theatres are full, and there are ways of opening up the world that don’t depend on news.”
The media wanted simple stories, and “the way that news is handled is not neutral.” Dr Williams warned that “the consolidation of the media into big business does pose a problem to independence, truth, fullness, and reflection,” a situation that he described as “concerning”.
Mr Hislop said there was a lack of analysis and history in today’s media. Questions were asked, but there was “no time to digest”.
Dr Williams suggested that Britain had lost a “large amount of cultural awareness of Christianity” because of “shifting patterns of education and society”, and described an experience of going into a school in a deprived area of London where none of the children knew the parable of the Good Samaritan.
“Telling somebody these parables for the first time is an extraordinary thing, as you see how it changes people’s frame of reference. I hope there’s some way we can make some capital value out of that.”
Mr Hislop said that it seemed that today’s society had overcompensated in concessions to other religions: his children seemed to know more about Ramadan than about other religious events. He believed that religious education should contain a “fairly substantial whack of Christianity”.
Both Dr Williams and Mr Hislop lamented the loss of the culture of voluntary work in society.
When asked why God allows suffering, Dr Williams said: “Nobody has ever given a nice, neat theory in 2000 years” on the subject. He frequently thought through the issue, he said, but, even then, “The very best theory about God and suffering doesn’t help.” He took strength from people he had met who had lived through suffering.
When asked what constituted success for the Church, he spoke of Jesus’s death on the cross, and the persecution of the Early Church. “God left us with a very troubling model of success. I think success for the Church has to be something measured by the degree to which the compelling radiance of God comes through.”
by Ed Beavan
“THE FOOT is still in the door, even if it is being squashed very painfully,” the Archbishop of Canterbury said last weekend when he was asked about the Church’s participation in public debate. He did not think that the Church had yet “dropped off the radar”.
Dr Williams was in dialogue with Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye and panellist on the BBC’s Have I Got News for You, at an event during “The Gathering”, a series of activities for all ages at Canterbury Cathedral.
Mr Hislop described the difficulty that Dr Williams faced with the media when people called for a moral lead from the Church. “When the Archbishop of Canterbury says anything, they say, ‘Shut up,’” he suggested.
Dr Williams responded that “the leadership thing is a problem.” It was “a matter of trying to remember that when you’re speaking from the Church you’re trying to give some sort of critical perspective to try and show something”. The Archbishop admitted that he was “not brilliant at sound-bites”.
There was scepticism towards the media, Dr Williams said, and “people do know there are other places to go” to get information. “When I go to the theatre, I’m glad theatres are full, and there are ways of opening up the world that don’t depend on news.”
The media wanted simple stories, and “the way that news is handled is not neutral.” Dr Williams warned that “the consolidation of the media into big business does pose a problem to independence, truth, fullness, and reflection,” a situation that he described as “concerning”.
Mr Hislop said there was a lack of analysis and history in today’s media. Questions were asked, but there was “no time to digest”.
Dr Williams suggested that Britain had lost a “large amount of cultural awareness of Christianity” because of “shifting patterns of education and society”, and described an experience of going into a school in a deprived area of London where none of the children knew the parable of the Good Samaritan.
“Telling somebody these parables for the first time is an extraordinary thing, as you see how it changes people’s frame of reference. I hope there’s some way we can make some capital value out of that.”
Mr Hislop said that it seemed that today’s society had overcompensated in concessions to other religions: his children seemed to know more about Ramadan than about other religious events. He believed that religious education should contain a “fairly substantial whack of Christianity”.
Both Dr Williams and Mr Hislop lamented the loss of the culture of voluntary work in society.
When asked why God allows suffering, Dr Williams said: “Nobody has ever given a nice, neat theory in 2000 years” on the subject. He frequently thought through the issue, he said, but, even then, “The very best theory about God and suffering doesn’t help.” He took strength from people he had met who had lived through suffering.
When asked what constituted success for the Church, he spoke of Jesus’s death on the cross, and the persecution of the Early Church. “God left us with a very troubling model of success. I think success for the Church has to be something measured by the degree to which the compelling radiance of God comes through.”
Communion Partner Dioceses and The Anglican Covenant
Via TitusOneNine:
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Tuesday, September 8th, 2009
The Reverend Canon Professor Christopher Seitz
The Reverend Dr. Philip Turner
The Reverend Dr. Ephraim Radner
Mark McCall, Esq.
1. We address below issues related to the capacity of CP dioceses to sign the Anglican Covenant. We consider the text of Section 4 of the Ridley Cambridge draft, ACC Resolution 14.11, the unique polity of TEC and the ACC constitution and membership schedule. Although the final wording of Section 4 has not yet been agreed, the principles discussed below, particularly the constitutional integrity of member churches, are fundamental to Anglicanism and not in dispute.
Who Can Sign?
2. There are two paragraphs in Section 4 of the Ridley Cambridge text dealing with adoption of the Covenant by participating churches. Paragraph 4.1.4 invites “Every Church of the Anglican Communion, as recognised in accordance with the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council” to adopt the Covenant. Paragraph 4.1.5 provides “It shall be open to other Churches to adopt the Covenant.” These paragraphs treat the different kinds of adopting churches differently in terms of procedures and the effect of adoption by a particular church. Because CP dioceses are constituent parts of TEC, a member church of the ACC, they are covered under 4.1.4, but it should be noted that if this were disputed they would then come within the scope of 4.1.5.
3. With regard to adoption by the CP dioceses, the most important consideration is the language in 4.1.4 that adoption is to be effected by a member church “according to its own constitutional procedures.” Both 4.1.4 and 4.1.3 emphasize that (quoting 4.1.3) “Nothing in this Covenant of itself shall be deemed to alter any provision of the Constitution and Canons of any Church of the Communion, or to limit its autonomy of governance.” Thus, when it comes to the procedures for adoption by a particular church, these matters are not within the purview of any of the Instruments of Communion. On the mechanics of adoption the Instruments are required to defer to the procedures applicable in the adopting churches.
4. These provisions of Section 4 deferring to the constitutional procedures of the member churches on matters of internal governance reflect a principle that already has been articulated in the first three sections of the Covenant (3.1.2 and 3.2.2) and has long been recognized as fundamental to Anglicanism. This principle is not in dispute.
5. That the reference in 4.1.4 to member churches of the ACC includes the constituent and extra-provincial bodies of those churches is apparent from the fact that not all churches recognized as full members of the Anglican Communion are direct members in their own names of the ACC. The extra-provincial churches are generally (with the exception of Ceylon) not listed as members of the ACC, but are represented through their primatial provinces. In the absence of an expressed intention to excommunicate or otherwise exclude these churches through the covenant process, one must interpret 4.1.4 to include member churches and all their constituent and extra-provincial churches.
What Constitutional Procedures Are Applicable In TEC?
6. There is a tension in Anglican ecclesiology as to the nature of the local church. As the Archbishop of Canterbury has noted, traditional catholic ecclesiology gives priority to the diocese as the expression of the local or particular church. But the Church of England itself manifests the importance of the national church. In the Church of England the supreme governor of the church is the monarch and all bishops swear oaths of due obedience to metropolitical authority. This tension regarding the primacy of the diocese and the national church has been noted by the Church of England in its comments on previous drafts of the Covenant and by the Covenant Design Group in its Lambeth Commentary. Both the Church of England and the CDG suggested that this tension is best resolved by focusing in each case on the particular constitutional procedures of the member church involved. Section 4 of the Covenant implements this approach.
7. In the case of TEC, its polity is widely regarded as unique. One of the ways in which it may be unique within the Anglican Communion is that it is a voluntary association of dioceses that are not subject to any metropolitical authority. Neither TEC’s constitution nor its ordination vows contain any provision establishing a hierarchy above the level of the diocese. Thus, in TEC the dioceses are the national church in a way similar to that in which the member churches are the Anglican Communion. This feature of TEC’s polity was articulated fully by fifteen CP bishops and the three theologians of ACI last April in their “Bishops’ Statement on the Polity of The Episcopal Church.”
8. The autonomy of TEC dioceses has long been recognized as a feature of TEC polity. For example, the standard text on polity when many of TEC’s current bishops were trained was the volume in the widely-distributed official series in the 1950s and 1960s entitled “The Church’s Teaching.” It was written by the long-time sub-dean and professor of church history at the General Theological Seminary with the assistance of an “Authors’ Committee” composed of numerous church leaders. The author, Dr. Powel Mills Dawley, summarized the role of the diocese as follows:
Diocesan participation in any national program or effort, for example, must be voluntarily given; it cannot be forced. Again, while the bishop’s exercise of independent power within the diocese is restricted by the share in church government possessed by the Diocesan Convention or the Standing Committee, his independence in respect to the rest of the Church is almost complete.
9. Moreover, the preamble of TEC’s constitution explicitly identifies TEC as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, which it characterizes (quoting the well-known Lambeth Conference resolution) as a fellowship of “Dioceses, Provinces and regional Churches.”
10. Thus, in the case of TEC the relevant constitutional procedures for adopting the Covenant include direct adoption by its autonomous dioceses, which are the highest governing bodies within their territory and enjoy a particular constitutional prerogative concerning constituent membership in the Anglican Communion. Indeed, given the autonomy of TEC dioceses, central bodies such as General Convention could not commit individual dioceses to the Covenant over their objection. Thus, when the Covenant is sent to the member churches, dioceses are appropriate bodies to respond at that time under the unique constitutional procedures of TEC.
11. This long-standing polity of TEC is now being challenged by the Presiding Bishop in civil litigation that she has commenced against departing dioceses and parishes. Official records show and she has conceded in sworn testimony that she has commenced this litigation without approval from any other body or office in TEC. She does not have the constitutional authority either to change TEC polity in this manner or to institute civil litigation in the name of TEC against dioceses. This civil litigation is in the early stages and final resolution of inevitable appeals will not come for several years.
12. In any event, this remains a dispute that must be resolved within TEC and one in which Communion Instruments must remain neutral as required by the fundamental principle of constitutional integrity of member churches that is recognized explicitly in paragraphs 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 of the Covenant. Any steps taken by Communion Instruments to evaluate these conflicting claims or attempt to reject a diocese’s decision to adopt would be interference in the constitutional procedures of TEC to which the Covenant exclusively commits the adoption process. For these reasons of TEC’s unique polity, TEC dioceses will have the ability to sign the Covenant whenever it is sent to TEC. The Communion has no role to play in this aspect of TEC governance.
When Can CP Dioceses Sign?
13. To address questions of timing, one must begin by noting that the Covenant is an agreement among churches. It is neither a charter of any of the Instruments of Communion nor a creature of those Instruments. The Covenant itself does not flow from the Instruments to the adopting churches. To the contrary, it is an agreement by the churches to recognize first each other and then the Instruments and to undertake to act collectively through those Instruments. The Instruments, with respect to initial Covenant adoption, act only as facilitating mechanisms without any intrinsic authority of their own in that adoption process itself.
14. Thus, no Instrument “owns” or controls the Covenant. Any Instrument or any member church could request others to sign the Covenant at any time. It would become effective for the signatories as soon as any two churches sign on.
15. In practice, the ACC has taken the lead among the Instruments only at the end of the Covenant’s drafting – other Instruments initiated and fostered the idea and its formulation — and has advised that the Covenant be sent to the member churches for adoption at the end of this year after further review of Section 4. But there is nothing in the Covenant itself, nor in the stated program of its initiation and drafting, that required or requires this procedure. Another Instrument or church could request that the Covenant be signed by member churches or other churches at any time, and some have already advocated this procedure. The degree to which the procedure recommended by the ACC is accepted by the Communion as a whole will ultimately depend on the credibility that procedure has in the Communion among its member churches.
16. Even taking the ACC’s own requests as a basis for the adoption process, CP dioceses will soon be able to adopt the Covenant formally. By Resolution 14.11, the ACC earlier this year asked “the Secretary General to send the revised Ridley Cambridge Text, at that time [at the next meeting of the JSC], only to the member Churches of the Anglican Consultative Council for consideration and decision on acceptance or adoption by them as The Anglican Communion Covenant.” If the other Instruments and member churches defer to this timetable, CP dioceses, as constituent members of TEC, would be able to consider and sign the Covenant when it is sent to TEC at the end of this year.
What Effect Does the ACC Constitution Have on the Covenant?
17. The Covenant and the ACC constitution are two distinct documents. The Covenant does not purport to, nor could it, amend the ACC constitution. And the ACC constitution neither serves the function of the Covenant nor otherwise precludes it. The ACC is a consultative body; its constitution limits its role in inter-Anglican affairs to advice, viz., “To advise on inter-Anglican, provincial, and diocesan relationships, including the division of provinces, the formation of new provinces and of regional councils, and the problems of extra-provincial dioceses.” In the Covenant, the participating churches agree to recognize the ACC as an Instrument of Communion and commit to endeavor to accommodate its recommendations. But that is a status that derives from the Covenant, not the ACC constitution. The covenanting churches could agree to de-recognize the ACC or recognize another body in its place. We are not recommending such an action in the future. But the point is that, although this would have significant consequences for the covenanted communion, it would have no effect on the ACC constitution.
18. Given the distinct functions of the Covenant and the ACC constitution, two questions arise as to the interrelation of the two documents. The first is relatively minor and easily handled. How would covenanting dioceses be represented at the ACC if TEC is unwilling to undertake the commitments entailed by the Covenant? This issue could be resolved in a number of ways under the ACC’s existing procedures and precedents. For example, under recent precedent a member selected in a way deemed to be inconsistent with the Windsor moratoria was found to be not “qualified” and was not seated. The ACC might decide following this precedent to seat only members from bodies that had committed to the moratoria through the Covenant. Or, taking a different approach, the Communion has long had extra-provincial churches whose interests are represented at the ACC through their primatial churches. Covenanting dioceses could be represented indirectly in an analogous way. Or in some cases they might have direct representation through the co-opted membership provisions in section (e) of the ACC membership schedule. In any event, this question can be handled under the ACC’s existing procedures.
19. A more profound question unrelated to diocesan adoption might arise, however, from the possibility, indeed likelihood, that the membership of the ACC and the covenanting churches will not be identical. There is even a possibility, albeit unlikely, that the ACC would be subject to substantial influence or control by churches that are not parties to the Covenant, a fear already voiced by some. In such an event, the ACC might not have the credibility to function as an Instrument of Communion for the covenanting churches. This would be a possibility to be seriously guarded against for the sake of the Communion as a whole.
20. Given these realities, constitutional reform of the ACC might become necessary. In this regard, it is significant that reform of the ACC has been recognized as necessary by a number of Communion members and groups, including the Lambeth Conference, the Church of England and the Windsor Continuation Group. Such reform could not be undertaken effectively, however, until the Covenant is in place. What kinds of reform might be necessary and the extent of any necessary changes are questions that cannot be answered until the Covenant is fully implemented.
21. In the meantime, it is essential to the integrity of the Covenant that provisions be included in Section 4 limiting consideration of Covenant issues to churches (and representatives of churches) that have adopted the Covenant. For similar reasons, it is crucial that these provisions be applied realistically to limit participation in Covenant matters by those who have provisionally rejected the Covenant by their actions even while nominally continuing to consider it. The Covenant is a powerful and flexible instrument. As already noted, it can be taken up and utilized by any member church or Instrument. “Official” processes are likely to enjoy the confidence of a Communion in which trust is in short supply only if those processes are seen to be effective and not subject to undermining by parties hostile to the intent of the Covenant. Otherwise, other processes, potentially more disintegrative of the Communion, will inevitably arise.
22. Both ACI and the Communion Partner fellowship have been committed to the revitalization of the Anglican Communion through the working and enhancement of its Instruments. That is a defining feature of our groups. We remain committed to that objective as set out above.
September 08 2009 11:08 am
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Tuesday, September 8th, 2009
The Reverend Canon Professor Christopher Seitz
The Reverend Dr. Philip Turner
The Reverend Dr. Ephraim Radner
Mark McCall, Esq.
1. We address below issues related to the capacity of CP dioceses to sign the Anglican Covenant. We consider the text of Section 4 of the Ridley Cambridge draft, ACC Resolution 14.11, the unique polity of TEC and the ACC constitution and membership schedule. Although the final wording of Section 4 has not yet been agreed, the principles discussed below, particularly the constitutional integrity of member churches, are fundamental to Anglicanism and not in dispute.
Who Can Sign?
2. There are two paragraphs in Section 4 of the Ridley Cambridge text dealing with adoption of the Covenant by participating churches. Paragraph 4.1.4 invites “Every Church of the Anglican Communion, as recognised in accordance with the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council” to adopt the Covenant. Paragraph 4.1.5 provides “It shall be open to other Churches to adopt the Covenant.” These paragraphs treat the different kinds of adopting churches differently in terms of procedures and the effect of adoption by a particular church. Because CP dioceses are constituent parts of TEC, a member church of the ACC, they are covered under 4.1.4, but it should be noted that if this were disputed they would then come within the scope of 4.1.5.
3. With regard to adoption by the CP dioceses, the most important consideration is the language in 4.1.4 that adoption is to be effected by a member church “according to its own constitutional procedures.” Both 4.1.4 and 4.1.3 emphasize that (quoting 4.1.3) “Nothing in this Covenant of itself shall be deemed to alter any provision of the Constitution and Canons of any Church of the Communion, or to limit its autonomy of governance.” Thus, when it comes to the procedures for adoption by a particular church, these matters are not within the purview of any of the Instruments of Communion. On the mechanics of adoption the Instruments are required to defer to the procedures applicable in the adopting churches.
4. These provisions of Section 4 deferring to the constitutional procedures of the member churches on matters of internal governance reflect a principle that already has been articulated in the first three sections of the Covenant (3.1.2 and 3.2.2) and has long been recognized as fundamental to Anglicanism. This principle is not in dispute.
5. That the reference in 4.1.4 to member churches of the ACC includes the constituent and extra-provincial bodies of those churches is apparent from the fact that not all churches recognized as full members of the Anglican Communion are direct members in their own names of the ACC. The extra-provincial churches are generally (with the exception of Ceylon) not listed as members of the ACC, but are represented through their primatial provinces. In the absence of an expressed intention to excommunicate or otherwise exclude these churches through the covenant process, one must interpret 4.1.4 to include member churches and all their constituent and extra-provincial churches.
What Constitutional Procedures Are Applicable In TEC?
6. There is a tension in Anglican ecclesiology as to the nature of the local church. As the Archbishop of Canterbury has noted, traditional catholic ecclesiology gives priority to the diocese as the expression of the local or particular church. But the Church of England itself manifests the importance of the national church. In the Church of England the supreme governor of the church is the monarch and all bishops swear oaths of due obedience to metropolitical authority. This tension regarding the primacy of the diocese and the national church has been noted by the Church of England in its comments on previous drafts of the Covenant and by the Covenant Design Group in its Lambeth Commentary. Both the Church of England and the CDG suggested that this tension is best resolved by focusing in each case on the particular constitutional procedures of the member church involved. Section 4 of the Covenant implements this approach.
7. In the case of TEC, its polity is widely regarded as unique. One of the ways in which it may be unique within the Anglican Communion is that it is a voluntary association of dioceses that are not subject to any metropolitical authority. Neither TEC’s constitution nor its ordination vows contain any provision establishing a hierarchy above the level of the diocese. Thus, in TEC the dioceses are the national church in a way similar to that in which the member churches are the Anglican Communion. This feature of TEC’s polity was articulated fully by fifteen CP bishops and the three theologians of ACI last April in their “Bishops’ Statement on the Polity of The Episcopal Church.”
8. The autonomy of TEC dioceses has long been recognized as a feature of TEC polity. For example, the standard text on polity when many of TEC’s current bishops were trained was the volume in the widely-distributed official series in the 1950s and 1960s entitled “The Church’s Teaching.” It was written by the long-time sub-dean and professor of church history at the General Theological Seminary with the assistance of an “Authors’ Committee” composed of numerous church leaders. The author, Dr. Powel Mills Dawley, summarized the role of the diocese as follows:
Diocesan participation in any national program or effort, for example, must be voluntarily given; it cannot be forced. Again, while the bishop’s exercise of independent power within the diocese is restricted by the share in church government possessed by the Diocesan Convention or the Standing Committee, his independence in respect to the rest of the Church is almost complete.
9. Moreover, the preamble of TEC’s constitution explicitly identifies TEC as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, which it characterizes (quoting the well-known Lambeth Conference resolution) as a fellowship of “Dioceses, Provinces and regional Churches.”
10. Thus, in the case of TEC the relevant constitutional procedures for adopting the Covenant include direct adoption by its autonomous dioceses, which are the highest governing bodies within their territory and enjoy a particular constitutional prerogative concerning constituent membership in the Anglican Communion. Indeed, given the autonomy of TEC dioceses, central bodies such as General Convention could not commit individual dioceses to the Covenant over their objection. Thus, when the Covenant is sent to the member churches, dioceses are appropriate bodies to respond at that time under the unique constitutional procedures of TEC.
11. This long-standing polity of TEC is now being challenged by the Presiding Bishop in civil litigation that she has commenced against departing dioceses and parishes. Official records show and she has conceded in sworn testimony that she has commenced this litigation without approval from any other body or office in TEC. She does not have the constitutional authority either to change TEC polity in this manner or to institute civil litigation in the name of TEC against dioceses. This civil litigation is in the early stages and final resolution of inevitable appeals will not come for several years.
12. In any event, this remains a dispute that must be resolved within TEC and one in which Communion Instruments must remain neutral as required by the fundamental principle of constitutional integrity of member churches that is recognized explicitly in paragraphs 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 of the Covenant. Any steps taken by Communion Instruments to evaluate these conflicting claims or attempt to reject a diocese’s decision to adopt would be interference in the constitutional procedures of TEC to which the Covenant exclusively commits the adoption process. For these reasons of TEC’s unique polity, TEC dioceses will have the ability to sign the Covenant whenever it is sent to TEC. The Communion has no role to play in this aspect of TEC governance.
When Can CP Dioceses Sign?
13. To address questions of timing, one must begin by noting that the Covenant is an agreement among churches. It is neither a charter of any of the Instruments of Communion nor a creature of those Instruments. The Covenant itself does not flow from the Instruments to the adopting churches. To the contrary, it is an agreement by the churches to recognize first each other and then the Instruments and to undertake to act collectively through those Instruments. The Instruments, with respect to initial Covenant adoption, act only as facilitating mechanisms without any intrinsic authority of their own in that adoption process itself.
14. Thus, no Instrument “owns” or controls the Covenant. Any Instrument or any member church could request others to sign the Covenant at any time. It would become effective for the signatories as soon as any two churches sign on.
15. In practice, the ACC has taken the lead among the Instruments only at the end of the Covenant’s drafting – other Instruments initiated and fostered the idea and its formulation — and has advised that the Covenant be sent to the member churches for adoption at the end of this year after further review of Section 4. But there is nothing in the Covenant itself, nor in the stated program of its initiation and drafting, that required or requires this procedure. Another Instrument or church could request that the Covenant be signed by member churches or other churches at any time, and some have already advocated this procedure. The degree to which the procedure recommended by the ACC is accepted by the Communion as a whole will ultimately depend on the credibility that procedure has in the Communion among its member churches.
16. Even taking the ACC’s own requests as a basis for the adoption process, CP dioceses will soon be able to adopt the Covenant formally. By Resolution 14.11, the ACC earlier this year asked “the Secretary General to send the revised Ridley Cambridge Text, at that time [at the next meeting of the JSC], only to the member Churches of the Anglican Consultative Council for consideration and decision on acceptance or adoption by them as The Anglican Communion Covenant.” If the other Instruments and member churches defer to this timetable, CP dioceses, as constituent members of TEC, would be able to consider and sign the Covenant when it is sent to TEC at the end of this year.
What Effect Does the ACC Constitution Have on the Covenant?
17. The Covenant and the ACC constitution are two distinct documents. The Covenant does not purport to, nor could it, amend the ACC constitution. And the ACC constitution neither serves the function of the Covenant nor otherwise precludes it. The ACC is a consultative body; its constitution limits its role in inter-Anglican affairs to advice, viz., “To advise on inter-Anglican, provincial, and diocesan relationships, including the division of provinces, the formation of new provinces and of regional councils, and the problems of extra-provincial dioceses.” In the Covenant, the participating churches agree to recognize the ACC as an Instrument of Communion and commit to endeavor to accommodate its recommendations. But that is a status that derives from the Covenant, not the ACC constitution. The covenanting churches could agree to de-recognize the ACC or recognize another body in its place. We are not recommending such an action in the future. But the point is that, although this would have significant consequences for the covenanted communion, it would have no effect on the ACC constitution.
18. Given the distinct functions of the Covenant and the ACC constitution, two questions arise as to the interrelation of the two documents. The first is relatively minor and easily handled. How would covenanting dioceses be represented at the ACC if TEC is unwilling to undertake the commitments entailed by the Covenant? This issue could be resolved in a number of ways under the ACC’s existing procedures and precedents. For example, under recent precedent a member selected in a way deemed to be inconsistent with the Windsor moratoria was found to be not “qualified” and was not seated. The ACC might decide following this precedent to seat only members from bodies that had committed to the moratoria through the Covenant. Or, taking a different approach, the Communion has long had extra-provincial churches whose interests are represented at the ACC through their primatial churches. Covenanting dioceses could be represented indirectly in an analogous way. Or in some cases they might have direct representation through the co-opted membership provisions in section (e) of the ACC membership schedule. In any event, this question can be handled under the ACC’s existing procedures.
19. A more profound question unrelated to diocesan adoption might arise, however, from the possibility, indeed likelihood, that the membership of the ACC and the covenanting churches will not be identical. There is even a possibility, albeit unlikely, that the ACC would be subject to substantial influence or control by churches that are not parties to the Covenant, a fear already voiced by some. In such an event, the ACC might not have the credibility to function as an Instrument of Communion for the covenanting churches. This would be a possibility to be seriously guarded against for the sake of the Communion as a whole.
20. Given these realities, constitutional reform of the ACC might become necessary. In this regard, it is significant that reform of the ACC has been recognized as necessary by a number of Communion members and groups, including the Lambeth Conference, the Church of England and the Windsor Continuation Group. Such reform could not be undertaken effectively, however, until the Covenant is in place. What kinds of reform might be necessary and the extent of any necessary changes are questions that cannot be answered until the Covenant is fully implemented.
21. In the meantime, it is essential to the integrity of the Covenant that provisions be included in Section 4 limiting consideration of Covenant issues to churches (and representatives of churches) that have adopted the Covenant. For similar reasons, it is crucial that these provisions be applied realistically to limit participation in Covenant matters by those who have provisionally rejected the Covenant by their actions even while nominally continuing to consider it. The Covenant is a powerful and flexible instrument. As already noted, it can be taken up and utilized by any member church or Instrument. “Official” processes are likely to enjoy the confidence of a Communion in which trust is in short supply only if those processes are seen to be effective and not subject to undermining by parties hostile to the intent of the Covenant. Otherwise, other processes, potentially more disintegrative of the Communion, will inevitably arise.
22. Both ACI and the Communion Partner fellowship have been committed to the revitalization of the Anglican Communion through the working and enhancement of its Instruments. That is a defining feature of our groups. We remain committed to that objective as set out above.
September 08 2009 11:08 am
Friday, September 11, 2009
Statement from the Synod of Bishops of the Church of South Africa
Via the American Anglican Council:
Statement by the Synod of Bishops, 9 September 2009
The Synod of Bishops meeting in Midrand, Gauteng from 7 – 9 September 2009, has been disturbed by various recent reports in the media to the effect that the world-wide Anglican Communion and the Anglican Church in Southern Africa are on the brink of schism. We want to assure the faithful that these reports are grossly exaggerated and in some cases, misrepresented.
Our Worldwide Anglican Communion has for a number of years been struggling with the issue of human sexuality without, as yet, having reached any significant consensus. There are, indeed, broken and damaged relationships within the Communion, but there is still a deep desire among the bishops throughout the world to maintain the bonds of unity in obedience to the High Priestly prayer of our Lord that “..they may be one as we are one (Jn 17:11).
To this end the Communion is exploring an Anglican Covenant which would express our Common Unity in Christ and the criteria for accountability to each other.
We the Bishops and the Anglican Church of Southern Africa have, on a number of occasions spelt out our common mind at this stage of our journey with the world-wide Communion. We believe that we are called to love others with God’s unconditional, sacrificial love and do not believe sexual orientation a barrier to leadership within the church. However, holding as we do, that Christian marriage is a lifelong union between one man and one woman, we hold that clergy unable to commit to another in Christian marriage partnership are called to a life of celibacy.
We have also received the resolution of the Diocese of Cape Town requesting us to provide guidelines for the pastoral care of those in committed same sex relationships. Despite the misconceptions created by media reports, Cape Town Diocese is intending to proceed with the blessing of same sex unions, we recognise the request to be pastoral in nature and not in any way in conflict with Resolution 110 of Lambeth Conference 1998. The task of responding to this request has been referred to a team committee which will prepare a preliminary paper building upon the resolutions and statement made thus far by ACSA.
We remain committed to holding together the bonds of unity when we journey together through the difficult questions that confront the world-wide Anglican Communion. Differences of opinion are inevitable, schism is not.
Now to him, who by the power at work within us
is able to do far more abundantly
than all that we ask or think to him be glory in the
Church and in Christ Jesus
to all generations, for ever and ever. Amen
Ends.
Statement by the Synod of Bishops, 9 September 2009
The Synod of Bishops meeting in Midrand, Gauteng from 7 – 9 September 2009, has been disturbed by various recent reports in the media to the effect that the world-wide Anglican Communion and the Anglican Church in Southern Africa are on the brink of schism. We want to assure the faithful that these reports are grossly exaggerated and in some cases, misrepresented.
Our Worldwide Anglican Communion has for a number of years been struggling with the issue of human sexuality without, as yet, having reached any significant consensus. There are, indeed, broken and damaged relationships within the Communion, but there is still a deep desire among the bishops throughout the world to maintain the bonds of unity in obedience to the High Priestly prayer of our Lord that “..they may be one as we are one (Jn 17:11).
To this end the Communion is exploring an Anglican Covenant which would express our Common Unity in Christ and the criteria for accountability to each other.
We the Bishops and the Anglican Church of Southern Africa have, on a number of occasions spelt out our common mind at this stage of our journey with the world-wide Communion. We believe that we are called to love others with God’s unconditional, sacrificial love and do not believe sexual orientation a barrier to leadership within the church. However, holding as we do, that Christian marriage is a lifelong union between one man and one woman, we hold that clergy unable to commit to another in Christian marriage partnership are called to a life of celibacy.
We have also received the resolution of the Diocese of Cape Town requesting us to provide guidelines for the pastoral care of those in committed same sex relationships. Despite the misconceptions created by media reports, Cape Town Diocese is intending to proceed with the blessing of same sex unions, we recognise the request to be pastoral in nature and not in any way in conflict with Resolution 110 of Lambeth Conference 1998. The task of responding to this request has been referred to a team committee which will prepare a preliminary paper building upon the resolutions and statement made thus far by ACSA.
We remain committed to holding together the bonds of unity when we journey together through the difficult questions that confront the world-wide Anglican Communion. Differences of opinion are inevitable, schism is not.
Now to him, who by the power at work within us
is able to do far more abundantly
than all that we ask or think to him be glory in the
Church and in Christ Jesus
to all generations, for ever and ever. Amen
Ends.
US Church cannot sign Covenant, say Wright and American critics
From the Church Times (UK) via American Anglican Council:
by a staff reporter
THE Episcopal Church in the United States cannot in conscience sign the Anglican Covenant, a group of conservatives says. The group includes the Bishop of Durham, Dr Tom Wright.
The criticism of the Episcopal Church comes in a 27-page position paper, “The Anglican Covenant: Shared Discernment Recognized by All”, published on Thursday of last week. The signatories are Dr Wright and four US conservatives: Canon Professor Christopher Seitz, the Revd Dr Philip Turner, the Revd Dr Ephraim Radner, and Mark McCall.
The group contends that the ongoing Covenant process, designed to bring some structure to the Anglican Communion, has interdependence at its heart. This explicitly involves accountability — defined as being open to correction — to other provinces in matters that affect the whole Communion. The obvious case in point is the debate about the blessing of same-sex couples and the consecration of gay priests and bishops.
The paper states: “Without accountability there is no communion, and a Church that is unaccountable by definition has ordered its life outside the Communion of Churches.”
The paper cites the recent decisions of the US General Convention to open the door to same-sex blessings, and its statement that “God has called, and may call” gay and lesbian people “to any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church”.
The General Convention passed a resolution, D025, which reaffirmed its commitment to the Anglican Communion as an active, participating member. There has since been talk of a willingness to study and sign the Covenent when it is finalised.
The authors of the paper take issue with this, stating: “That the actions of the General Convention constitute instead a provisional rejection of the Anglican Covenant is manifest. . . The actions of the General Convention repudiating the teaching of the Communion on human sexuality can only be seen as the repudiation of the Covenant itself.”
The paper argues that the goal of shared discernment, outlined in the Covenant, requires commitment to “joint organs of discernment and decision which are recognised by all”. It cites the “recommendations” given to the Episcopal Church by the Primates’ Meeting, which were “immediately rejected” by the US House of Bishops.
The paper concludes: “An Anglican Church cannot simultaneously commit itself through the Anglican Covenant to shared discernment and reject that discernment; to interdependence and then act independently; to accountability and remain determined to be unaccountable. If the battle over homosexuality in the Episcopal Church is truly over, then so is the battle over the Anglican Covenant in the Episcopal Church.”
Only a formal overturning of its recent decisions could place the Episcopal Church “in a position capable of truly assuming the Covenant’s already articulated commitments”, the paper says.
“Until such time, the Episcopal Church has rejected the Covenant commitments openly and concretely, and her members and other Anglican Churches within the Communion must take this into account.”
Lambeth summit cheers US 'Windsor' bishops
SEVEN conservative bishops from the Episcopal Church in the United States have described as “encouraging” a private meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth Palace last week.
They represent what are generally described as the moderate or centre-right conservative bishops, those who want to remain within the Episcopal Church and as full constituent members of the Anglican Communion. Dr Williams has described the grouping, also referred to as the Windsor or Camp Allen bishops, as “a significant minority” (News, 24 July).
The seven (from South Carolina, West Texas, Northern Indiana, Albany, North Dakota, Dallas, and Western Louisiana) were among 36 bishops who signed the Anaheim Convention, a declaration made after the US General Convention’s decision in July to remove any bar to the ordination or consecration of gay and lesbian candidates and to begin to develop rites for same-sex blessings (News, 17 July, 24 July).
The convention reaffirmed their commitment to honouring the moratoriums on both these developments, as requested by the Windsor report. Some of the bishops have previously argued that the national Church has no power to speak for them, and that individual dioceses should be able to sign up to the Anglican Covenant even if a province as a whole decided not to.
The seven bishops give no details of their meeting with Dr Williams. Nothing has come from Lambeth, either. But the bishops issued a short statement on Tuesday which seeks a groundswell of support for the Covenant from within the Episcopal Church. In what sounds very much like a petition, they urge individuals as well as dioceses and parishes to register their support for the Covenant, on the website of Communion Partners.
The final draft of the Covenant, the Ridley Draft, has not yet gone out to the provinces for consideration. Disagreement arose at the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) meeting in Jamaica in May over the meaning and implications of wording in section four, which said: “It shall be open to other Churches to adopt the Covenant.”
The meeting resolved not to send the draft out until an appointed group had clarified whether this meant that groups such as the breakaway Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) could sign, and whether it could be adopted by elements within a province (News, 15 May). Dr Williams, who sees the Covenant as the best hope, said he was seeking “a clear answer” to this, in his reflections after the General Convention (News, 31 July).
The Episcopal Church’s General Convention does not meet again until 2012, and is unlikely to make a decision before 2015. The seven bishops press for the national Church to adopt the Covenant, with the reminder that resolution D020 at this year’s meeting commended it for study as “a document to inform their understanding of and commitment to our common life in the Anglican Communion”.
In the report issued this week, they also encourage the Episcopal Church bishops exercising jurisdiction “to call upon us for service in needed cases of Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight”. They “invite primates and bishops of the Communion to offer their public support to these efforts”.
The seven include bishops who met the Bishop of Durham, Dr Tom Wright, and the Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt, at Camp Allen in September 2006, with Dr Williams’s blessing. At that meeting, the bishops accepted and affirmed the Windsor report and endorsed its recommendations for the development of the Covenant.
by a staff reporter
THE Episcopal Church in the United States cannot in conscience sign the Anglican Covenant, a group of conservatives says. The group includes the Bishop of Durham, Dr Tom Wright.
The criticism of the Episcopal Church comes in a 27-page position paper, “The Anglican Covenant: Shared Discernment Recognized by All”, published on Thursday of last week. The signatories are Dr Wright and four US conservatives: Canon Professor Christopher Seitz, the Revd Dr Philip Turner, the Revd Dr Ephraim Radner, and Mark McCall.
The group contends that the ongoing Covenant process, designed to bring some structure to the Anglican Communion, has interdependence at its heart. This explicitly involves accountability — defined as being open to correction — to other provinces in matters that affect the whole Communion. The obvious case in point is the debate about the blessing of same-sex couples and the consecration of gay priests and bishops.
The paper states: “Without accountability there is no communion, and a Church that is unaccountable by definition has ordered its life outside the Communion of Churches.”
The paper cites the recent decisions of the US General Convention to open the door to same-sex blessings, and its statement that “God has called, and may call” gay and lesbian people “to any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church”.
The General Convention passed a resolution, D025, which reaffirmed its commitment to the Anglican Communion as an active, participating member. There has since been talk of a willingness to study and sign the Covenent when it is finalised.
The authors of the paper take issue with this, stating: “That the actions of the General Convention constitute instead a provisional rejection of the Anglican Covenant is manifest. . . The actions of the General Convention repudiating the teaching of the Communion on human sexuality can only be seen as the repudiation of the Covenant itself.”
The paper argues that the goal of shared discernment, outlined in the Covenant, requires commitment to “joint organs of discernment and decision which are recognised by all”. It cites the “recommendations” given to the Episcopal Church by the Primates’ Meeting, which were “immediately rejected” by the US House of Bishops.
The paper concludes: “An Anglican Church cannot simultaneously commit itself through the Anglican Covenant to shared discernment and reject that discernment; to interdependence and then act independently; to accountability and remain determined to be unaccountable. If the battle over homosexuality in the Episcopal Church is truly over, then so is the battle over the Anglican Covenant in the Episcopal Church.”
Only a formal overturning of its recent decisions could place the Episcopal Church “in a position capable of truly assuming the Covenant’s already articulated commitments”, the paper says.
“Until such time, the Episcopal Church has rejected the Covenant commitments openly and concretely, and her members and other Anglican Churches within the Communion must take this into account.”
Lambeth summit cheers US 'Windsor' bishops
SEVEN conservative bishops from the Episcopal Church in the United States have described as “encouraging” a private meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth Palace last week.
They represent what are generally described as the moderate or centre-right conservative bishops, those who want to remain within the Episcopal Church and as full constituent members of the Anglican Communion. Dr Williams has described the grouping, also referred to as the Windsor or Camp Allen bishops, as “a significant minority” (News, 24 July).
The seven (from South Carolina, West Texas, Northern Indiana, Albany, North Dakota, Dallas, and Western Louisiana) were among 36 bishops who signed the Anaheim Convention, a declaration made after the US General Convention’s decision in July to remove any bar to the ordination or consecration of gay and lesbian candidates and to begin to develop rites for same-sex blessings (News, 17 July, 24 July).
The convention reaffirmed their commitment to honouring the moratoriums on both these developments, as requested by the Windsor report. Some of the bishops have previously argued that the national Church has no power to speak for them, and that individual dioceses should be able to sign up to the Anglican Covenant even if a province as a whole decided not to.
The seven bishops give no details of their meeting with Dr Williams. Nothing has come from Lambeth, either. But the bishops issued a short statement on Tuesday which seeks a groundswell of support for the Covenant from within the Episcopal Church. In what sounds very much like a petition, they urge individuals as well as dioceses and parishes to register their support for the Covenant, on the website of Communion Partners.
The final draft of the Covenant, the Ridley Draft, has not yet gone out to the provinces for consideration. Disagreement arose at the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) meeting in Jamaica in May over the meaning and implications of wording in section four, which said: “It shall be open to other Churches to adopt the Covenant.”
The meeting resolved not to send the draft out until an appointed group had clarified whether this meant that groups such as the breakaway Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) could sign, and whether it could be adopted by elements within a province (News, 15 May). Dr Williams, who sees the Covenant as the best hope, said he was seeking “a clear answer” to this, in his reflections after the General Convention (News, 31 July).
The Episcopal Church’s General Convention does not meet again until 2012, and is unlikely to make a decision before 2015. The seven bishops press for the national Church to adopt the Covenant, with the reminder that resolution D020 at this year’s meeting commended it for study as “a document to inform their understanding of and commitment to our common life in the Anglican Communion”.
In the report issued this week, they also encourage the Episcopal Church bishops exercising jurisdiction “to call upon us for service in needed cases of Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight”. They “invite primates and bishops of the Communion to offer their public support to these efforts”.
The seven include bishops who met the Bishop of Durham, Dr Tom Wright, and the Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt, at Camp Allen in September 2006, with Dr Williams’s blessing. At that meeting, the bishops accepted and affirmed the Windsor report and endorsed its recommendations for the development of the Covenant.
SAVANNAH, GA: A Statement by the Clergy, Wardens, and Vestry of St. John's Church
Via VirtueOnline:
http://www.stjohnssav.org/chPPReadIt.asp?ID=371
8/30/09
WHERE WE STAND:
This statement was adopted without dissent on August 24th, the Feast of St. Bartholomew the Apostle, by the Wardens and Vestry of Saint John's Church, together with the Clergy. It is not a declaration of war, a line drawn in the sand, or a step towards secession. Amid the confusions and ambiguities of the Episcopal Church, especially those generated at General Convention in Anaheim this summer, it is an attempt to declare with clarity and honesty what we consider our witness to Christ must be. Please feel free to bring your comments or questions to the Clergy or to members of the Vestry (listed on page 2).
Where do we as Episcopalians stand? Our Christian heritage and constitution commit us to uphold the historic Faith taught by the Word of God written in Holy Scripture and set forth for us in the Book of Common Prayer. It is this fundamental commitment to our Lord, to one another, and to our partner churches in the Anglican Communion, that defines us as Episcopalians and unites us with seventy-seven million Anglican Christians world-wide.
Since the 1970's, the national leadership of the Episcopal Church, through the actions of its General Convention, has repeatedly undermined and violated this fundamental commitment in a series of unilateral decisions. Thereby they have impaired, and even broken, communion and compromised our witness and worship.
We are reluctant to speak out in a way that may cause hurt or embarrassment to anyone, for we are committed to "receive one another, as Christ also received us" (Romans 15:7). We all stand under the judgment of God; we all depend upon his grace and mercy in Christ. That is why we welcome all who come to worship with us in sincere repentance, faith, and charity. Nonetheless, the integrity of our witness requires that we speak out against the actions of General Convention 2009.
At that Convention, two resolutions were passed: D025, which opens the door to the ordination of persons living in same-sex partnerships; and C056, which permits the blessing of sexual partnerships outside of marriage. We are not convinced by attempts to whitewash these resolutions as changing nothing. In passing them, General Convention has again violated its own constitution, further deepened the existing divisions within the Anglican Communion and further compromised the Church's witness to Christ.
St. John's will continue to stand where the vast majority of the world's Christians stand and where the Anglican Church has always stood.
Therefore we, the Clergy, Wardens, and Vestry of St. John's Church in Savannah:
1. reaffirm our commitment to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as set forth in the Word of God, written in the Holy Scripture, and received by this Church in the Book of Common Prayer (1662 and 1928);
2. reaffirm our commitment to uphold the sanctity of marriage, instituted by God as the union of a man and a woman;
3. reaffirm our commitment to observe "the proper constraints of the bonds of affection" within the Anglican Communion, including wholehearted observance of the moratoria on the blessing and ordination of persons in same-sex partnerships requested of us by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Instruments of Unity in the Anglican Communion;
4. welcome the opportunities for strengthening our ties with the Communion set forth in the proposed Anglican Covenant;
5. deplore, and dissociate ourselves from, Resolutions C056 and D025 of General Convention 2009 as divisive of the Communion and destructive of the Christian Faith;
6. thank the Bishop of Georgia, the Rt. Rev. Henry I. Louttit, and the majority of the delegates of the Diocese of Georgia for voting against these resolutions; and
7. call upon the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops to renounce the license granted them by General Convention in these resolutions, and to work for their repeal, as the first step in the reform of the Episcopal Church in accord with its constitution's commitment to historic and Biblical Faith and Order.
Explanatory Notes
Para 2. The text of these resolutions may be read at:
http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/
Clause 3. The phrase in quotation marks is from the Windsor Report, and refers to the limits on the autonomy of action by national churches in the Communion. The "moratoria" are those requested by the "Instruments of Unity" (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates' Meeting, as well as the Lambeth Conference) as necessary conditions for restoring the broken unity of the Communion.
Clause 4. The "Anglican Covenant" is a proposal to strengthen the ties of unity in the Communion. Its current "Ridley-Cambridge" draft may be read at:
www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/ridley_cambridge/intro_text.cfm
The Wardens, Vestry and Clergy of St. John's Church
http://www.stjohnssav.org/chPPReadIt.asp?ID=371
8/30/09
WHERE WE STAND:
This statement was adopted without dissent on August 24th, the Feast of St. Bartholomew the Apostle, by the Wardens and Vestry of Saint John's Church, together with the Clergy. It is not a declaration of war, a line drawn in the sand, or a step towards secession. Amid the confusions and ambiguities of the Episcopal Church, especially those generated at General Convention in Anaheim this summer, it is an attempt to declare with clarity and honesty what we consider our witness to Christ must be. Please feel free to bring your comments or questions to the Clergy or to members of the Vestry (listed on page 2).
Where do we as Episcopalians stand? Our Christian heritage and constitution commit us to uphold the historic Faith taught by the Word of God written in Holy Scripture and set forth for us in the Book of Common Prayer. It is this fundamental commitment to our Lord, to one another, and to our partner churches in the Anglican Communion, that defines us as Episcopalians and unites us with seventy-seven million Anglican Christians world-wide.
Since the 1970's, the national leadership of the Episcopal Church, through the actions of its General Convention, has repeatedly undermined and violated this fundamental commitment in a series of unilateral decisions. Thereby they have impaired, and even broken, communion and compromised our witness and worship.
We are reluctant to speak out in a way that may cause hurt or embarrassment to anyone, for we are committed to "receive one another, as Christ also received us" (Romans 15:7). We all stand under the judgment of God; we all depend upon his grace and mercy in Christ. That is why we welcome all who come to worship with us in sincere repentance, faith, and charity. Nonetheless, the integrity of our witness requires that we speak out against the actions of General Convention 2009.
At that Convention, two resolutions were passed: D025, which opens the door to the ordination of persons living in same-sex partnerships; and C056, which permits the blessing of sexual partnerships outside of marriage. We are not convinced by attempts to whitewash these resolutions as changing nothing. In passing them, General Convention has again violated its own constitution, further deepened the existing divisions within the Anglican Communion and further compromised the Church's witness to Christ.
St. John's will continue to stand where the vast majority of the world's Christians stand and where the Anglican Church has always stood.
Therefore we, the Clergy, Wardens, and Vestry of St. John's Church in Savannah:
1. reaffirm our commitment to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as set forth in the Word of God, written in the Holy Scripture, and received by this Church in the Book of Common Prayer (1662 and 1928);
2. reaffirm our commitment to uphold the sanctity of marriage, instituted by God as the union of a man and a woman;
3. reaffirm our commitment to observe "the proper constraints of the bonds of affection" within the Anglican Communion, including wholehearted observance of the moratoria on the blessing and ordination of persons in same-sex partnerships requested of us by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Instruments of Unity in the Anglican Communion;
4. welcome the opportunities for strengthening our ties with the Communion set forth in the proposed Anglican Covenant;
5. deplore, and dissociate ourselves from, Resolutions C056 and D025 of General Convention 2009 as divisive of the Communion and destructive of the Christian Faith;
6. thank the Bishop of Georgia, the Rt. Rev. Henry I. Louttit, and the majority of the delegates of the Diocese of Georgia for voting against these resolutions; and
7. call upon the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops to renounce the license granted them by General Convention in these resolutions, and to work for their repeal, as the first step in the reform of the Episcopal Church in accord with its constitution's commitment to historic and Biblical Faith and Order.
Explanatory Notes
Para 2. The text of these resolutions may be read at:
http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/
Clause 3. The phrase in quotation marks is from the Windsor Report, and refers to the limits on the autonomy of action by national churches in the Communion. The "moratoria" are those requested by the "Instruments of Unity" (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates' Meeting, as well as the Lambeth Conference) as necessary conditions for restoring the broken unity of the Communion.
Clause 4. The "Anglican Covenant" is a proposal to strengthen the ties of unity in the Communion. Its current "Ridley-Cambridge" draft may be read at:
www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/ridley_cambridge/intro_text.cfm
The Wardens, Vestry and Clergy of St. John's Church
Forward in Faith Bishop Answers Questions About His New Episcopacy
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
Sept. 9, 2009
On August 22, 2009 The Right Reverend William H. Ilgenfritz was ordained and consecrated as Bishop of The Missionary Diocese of All Saints, Anglican Church in North America.
This is the first consecration of a Forward in Faith bishop in the new diocese for FIF congregations across the country.
Archbishop Robert W. Duncan was the chief consecrator. The other co-consecrators were Bishop Jack Leo Iker, Bishop Keith Ackerman, Bishop Edward MacBurney, and Bishop William Wantland, who also preached at the service. Thirteen bishops participated in the apostolic laying on of hands in the historic ceremony.
Bishop Ilgenfritz continues to serve as Rector of St. Mary's Anglican Church in Charleroi, PA, in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. The service took place at a local Roman Catholic parish, Mary, Mother of the Church. The new bishop previously served in the Diocese of Fort Worth as Rector of St. John's Church in Brownwood from 1990 to 1994.
According to Ft. Worth Bishop Jack Iker, this consecration fulfills the vision of the Episcopal Synod of America, formed in 1989 in Fort Worth, to create a non-geographic diocese or province for congregations upholding the faith and practice of the historic catholic church, including the tradition of an all-male priesthood. It secures a continuing line of apostolic succession for traditional Anglo-Catholics, which is no longer possible in The Episcopal Church in the United States.
Bishop Ilgenfritz agreed to answer questions put to him by VirtueOnline about his new position.
VOL: What is your position on Women's Ordination?
Ilgenfritz: I affirm the Church's historical position that the Christian ministerial priesthood is male.
VOL: Are all FIFNA parishes you minister to now out of TEC?
Ilgenfritz: Yes.
VOL: Will you be ministering to any FIFNA parishes still in The Episcopal Church?
Ilgenfritz:. FIFNA has created an "Episcopal Desk" for FIFNA parishes still in TEC. The Chairman is Fr. James Guill.
VOL: Are there any FIF parishes still left in TEC?
Ilgenfritz: Yes.
VOL: If so, how have they taken your consecration?
Ilgenfritz: The response to my consecration has been quite positive. Some are planning to depart TEC when the time is right for them .Others may stay in TEC longer. It is impossible to predict the outcome of congregational votes.
VOL: In 2002, you and Fr. David Moyer were put forward as candidates as bishop for traditionalist parishes in the U.S. Fr. Moyer subsequently went to the Traditional Anglican Communion where he was ordained a bishop. You have now become FIFNA's bishop. Is the timing on your consecration in keeping with FIF developments in other jurisdictions around the world especially the UK?
Ilgenfritz: Bishop Moyer, of course, decided on the TAC option. I believe the timing for my consecration was right for FIFNA. Obviously, FIFNA has decided to be a part of the Anglican Communion. I cannot say, because I do not know what direction the UK will take, but I am confident that they will make the right decision for their constituency.
VOL: How many parishes will you have as bishop of FIFNA?
Ilgenfritz: A conservative estimate is thirteeen by the end of 2009 with more to come as the Missionary Diocese of All Saints develops.
VOL: Where are they located?
Ilgenfritz: At the moment, I can only identify them by state: Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky and Ohio. (Canada is a good possibility)
VOL: Do you see FIFNA growing?
Ilgenfritz: Absolutely, the new Province and Diocese is what we have been working and praying for, for at least 30 years.
VOL: What other bishops are you in communion with?
Ilgenfritz: I consider myself in full communion with all bishops who are members of FIFNA, FIFNA UK and FIFNA Australia.
VOL: I understand that, with the upcoming consecration of the Rev. Neil Lebhar as Bishop of the Gulf Atlantic Diocese of the Anglican Church in North America, he will lead some 5,000 orthodox Anglicans in North Florida and southern Georgia, mostly drawn from the Episcopal Diocese of Florida. Two dioceses-in-formation (DIF) are now transitioning into full dioceses so the number will remain at 28. The FIFNA DIF is now the Diocese of All Saints. In north Florida and south GA, the Anglican DIF in the SE will become the Gulf Atlantic Diocese assuming the ACNA Provincial Council so approves at its December meeting.
Ilgenfritz: Yes, I believe that is the case.
VOL: Thank you, Bishop.
END
www.virtueonline.org
Sept. 9, 2009
On August 22, 2009 The Right Reverend William H. Ilgenfritz was ordained and consecrated as Bishop of The Missionary Diocese of All Saints, Anglican Church in North America.
This is the first consecration of a Forward in Faith bishop in the new diocese for FIF congregations across the country.
Archbishop Robert W. Duncan was the chief consecrator. The other co-consecrators were Bishop Jack Leo Iker, Bishop Keith Ackerman, Bishop Edward MacBurney, and Bishop William Wantland, who also preached at the service. Thirteen bishops participated in the apostolic laying on of hands in the historic ceremony.
Bishop Ilgenfritz continues to serve as Rector of St. Mary's Anglican Church in Charleroi, PA, in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. The service took place at a local Roman Catholic parish, Mary, Mother of the Church. The new bishop previously served in the Diocese of Fort Worth as Rector of St. John's Church in Brownwood from 1990 to 1994.
According to Ft. Worth Bishop Jack Iker, this consecration fulfills the vision of the Episcopal Synod of America, formed in 1989 in Fort Worth, to create a non-geographic diocese or province for congregations upholding the faith and practice of the historic catholic church, including the tradition of an all-male priesthood. It secures a continuing line of apostolic succession for traditional Anglo-Catholics, which is no longer possible in The Episcopal Church in the United States.
Bishop Ilgenfritz agreed to answer questions put to him by VirtueOnline about his new position.
VOL: What is your position on Women's Ordination?
Ilgenfritz: I affirm the Church's historical position that the Christian ministerial priesthood is male.
VOL: Are all FIFNA parishes you minister to now out of TEC?
Ilgenfritz: Yes.
VOL: Will you be ministering to any FIFNA parishes still in The Episcopal Church?
Ilgenfritz:. FIFNA has created an "Episcopal Desk" for FIFNA parishes still in TEC. The Chairman is Fr. James Guill.
VOL: Are there any FIF parishes still left in TEC?
Ilgenfritz: Yes.
VOL: If so, how have they taken your consecration?
Ilgenfritz: The response to my consecration has been quite positive. Some are planning to depart TEC when the time is right for them .Others may stay in TEC longer. It is impossible to predict the outcome of congregational votes.
VOL: In 2002, you and Fr. David Moyer were put forward as candidates as bishop for traditionalist parishes in the U.S. Fr. Moyer subsequently went to the Traditional Anglican Communion where he was ordained a bishop. You have now become FIFNA's bishop. Is the timing on your consecration in keeping with FIF developments in other jurisdictions around the world especially the UK?
Ilgenfritz: Bishop Moyer, of course, decided on the TAC option. I believe the timing for my consecration was right for FIFNA. Obviously, FIFNA has decided to be a part of the Anglican Communion. I cannot say, because I do not know what direction the UK will take, but I am confident that they will make the right decision for their constituency.
VOL: How many parishes will you have as bishop of FIFNA?
Ilgenfritz: A conservative estimate is thirteeen by the end of 2009 with more to come as the Missionary Diocese of All Saints develops.
VOL: Where are they located?
Ilgenfritz: At the moment, I can only identify them by state: Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky and Ohio. (Canada is a good possibility)
VOL: Do you see FIFNA growing?
Ilgenfritz: Absolutely, the new Province and Diocese is what we have been working and praying for, for at least 30 years.
VOL: What other bishops are you in communion with?
Ilgenfritz: I consider myself in full communion with all bishops who are members of FIFNA, FIFNA UK and FIFNA Australia.
VOL: I understand that, with the upcoming consecration of the Rev. Neil Lebhar as Bishop of the Gulf Atlantic Diocese of the Anglican Church in North America, he will lead some 5,000 orthodox Anglicans in North Florida and southern Georgia, mostly drawn from the Episcopal Diocese of Florida. Two dioceses-in-formation (DIF) are now transitioning into full dioceses so the number will remain at 28. The FIFNA DIF is now the Diocese of All Saints. In north Florida and south GA, the Anglican DIF in the SE will become the Gulf Atlantic Diocese assuming the ACNA Provincial Council so approves at its December meeting.
Ilgenfritz: Yes, I believe that is the case.
VOL: Thank you, Bishop.
END
Episcopal Presiding Bishop Rejects Two-Track System Proposed by Archbishop Williams
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
9/8/2009
The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori has rejected The Archbishop of Canterbury's call for the church to accept a two-tier model for the Anglican Communion to prevent its break-up saying he doesn't have the authority to impose it.
"No individual body in the Communion really has the authority to impose a structure like that. It simply is his theorizing about what he thinks the future may hold," she told a reporter for the "Daily Record/Sunday News" in central Pennsylvania, where she is shortly to make an Episcopal visit.
"He wrote about it three years ago, too. It's an idea that's found some traction in some parts of the worldwide Anglican Communion, but not a great deal of traction in other parts."
Questioned about what she liked and didn't like about the model, Jefferts Schori said, "We don't all believe everything in the same way. We never have and never will. There are parts of the Anglican Communion that don't ordain women and think it wrong to do so, yet we remain in communion and relationship and in mission partnerships together."
"We've always had a variety of ways of being in relationship together, and I don't think that will change," she said.
The Presiding Bishop said the Anglican Communion is composed of 38 individual church bodies. Each of those provinces in the Anglican Communion is autonomous. They each govern themselves. They are in relationship with other members of the Anglican Communion because of a shared heritage, their shared form of worship and, to a large degree, their shared theology and understanding of Scripture and tradition.
Questioned on what will happen if Episcopalians in the dioceses of Minnesota and Los Angeles elect a bishop from candidate pools that include priests in same-gender relationships, despite warnings from some Anglicans overseas to not elect more gay bishops Jefferts Schori said each diocese makes its own decisions. If such a person were to be elected, she would have to wait and see what the consent process produces.
"Each diocese, in producing a slate for an episcopal election, is very careful in thinking about the qualities of the person they seek in their next bishop, their particular gifts, leadership capacity, the ability of that person to be a holy example for the people of that diocese. I assure you the diocese in electing processes are very careful about that work."
Asked if she drew comfort from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's recent step towards rostering gay clergy this summer, Jefferts Schori replied, "These issues are facing all Christians, all people of faith, and the Jewish community has wrestled with this as well. They're not going to go away. Particularly in the North American context, they are significant. They're not issues we can ignore. . . . We don't all believe everything in the same way. We never have and never will. There are parts of the Anglican Communion that don't ordain women and think it wrong to do so, yet we remain in communion and relationship and in mission partnerships together."
Asked why in the North American context in particular, she replied, "It's simply the state of the cultural discussion and the church's engagement in that. It's not a matter of such import or open conversation in parts of Africa. It is in South Africa -- the Anglican Church in South Africa is having similar kinds of discussions. The church in Japan, Mexico and New Zealand and Australia is also having these conversations. It depends on where you are. . . . For the same reasons that issues of polygamy are of significant import to the church in Kenya or the church in Uganda, but not to the church in North America."
Questioned on the shrinking diocese of Central Pennsylvania -- down 14 percent since 1997 and now numbering about 15,000 -- and what can be done to stanch these losses, Jefferts Schori replied that it was a combination of demographic, communities shrinking for economic reasons, and the need to make young people, growing up, understand their role in the church and made to feel welcome as full members of the church from the very beginning. "Part of the role of the church also is to reach out to others in the community who do not have a faith tradition or an active Christian membership to spread the gospel there."
Asked about the continuing hemorrhaging of TEC and if people will continue to leave the church over sexuality issues, Jefferts Schori said that people have always decided to pursue their spiritual journeys elsewhere -- some people -- at times of controversy. "Certainly, the same kind of thing happened when the church began wrestling honestly with the place of African-Americans in the church and the place of women in the church. At the same time, we tend to attract others who find our stances positive, so there is a give and take."
Questioned on why ten Episcopal nuns from a convent in Catonsville, MD, left TEC and joined the Roman Catholic Church over recent decisions of the church on homosexuality, Jefferts Schori said that one did remain within the Episcopal Church.
"I note the interesting dilemma that that situation raises. They would not have the freedom to make that kind of a decision once they were in the Roman Catholic Church. They do have the freedom to make that kind of a decision within the Episcopal Church. Religious orders are independent bodies within the Episcopal Church. They're not like a congregation or a diocese, and they can vote to affiliate with another body. Once they're in the Roman Catholic Church, they will not have that ability."
The presiding bishop will be visiting the 24-county Diocese of Central Pennsylvania from Friday through Sunday.
END
www.virtueonline.org
9/8/2009
The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori has rejected The Archbishop of Canterbury's call for the church to accept a two-tier model for the Anglican Communion to prevent its break-up saying he doesn't have the authority to impose it.
"No individual body in the Communion really has the authority to impose a structure like that. It simply is his theorizing about what he thinks the future may hold," she told a reporter for the "Daily Record/Sunday News" in central Pennsylvania, where she is shortly to make an Episcopal visit.
"He wrote about it three years ago, too. It's an idea that's found some traction in some parts of the worldwide Anglican Communion, but not a great deal of traction in other parts."
Questioned about what she liked and didn't like about the model, Jefferts Schori said, "We don't all believe everything in the same way. We never have and never will. There are parts of the Anglican Communion that don't ordain women and think it wrong to do so, yet we remain in communion and relationship and in mission partnerships together."
"We've always had a variety of ways of being in relationship together, and I don't think that will change," she said.
The Presiding Bishop said the Anglican Communion is composed of 38 individual church bodies. Each of those provinces in the Anglican Communion is autonomous. They each govern themselves. They are in relationship with other members of the Anglican Communion because of a shared heritage, their shared form of worship and, to a large degree, their shared theology and understanding of Scripture and tradition.
Questioned on what will happen if Episcopalians in the dioceses of Minnesota and Los Angeles elect a bishop from candidate pools that include priests in same-gender relationships, despite warnings from some Anglicans overseas to not elect more gay bishops Jefferts Schori said each diocese makes its own decisions. If such a person were to be elected, she would have to wait and see what the consent process produces.
"Each diocese, in producing a slate for an episcopal election, is very careful in thinking about the qualities of the person they seek in their next bishop, their particular gifts, leadership capacity, the ability of that person to be a holy example for the people of that diocese. I assure you the diocese in electing processes are very careful about that work."
Asked if she drew comfort from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's recent step towards rostering gay clergy this summer, Jefferts Schori replied, "These issues are facing all Christians, all people of faith, and the Jewish community has wrestled with this as well. They're not going to go away. Particularly in the North American context, they are significant. They're not issues we can ignore. . . . We don't all believe everything in the same way. We never have and never will. There are parts of the Anglican Communion that don't ordain women and think it wrong to do so, yet we remain in communion and relationship and in mission partnerships together."
Asked why in the North American context in particular, she replied, "It's simply the state of the cultural discussion and the church's engagement in that. It's not a matter of such import or open conversation in parts of Africa. It is in South Africa -- the Anglican Church in South Africa is having similar kinds of discussions. The church in Japan, Mexico and New Zealand and Australia is also having these conversations. It depends on where you are. . . . For the same reasons that issues of polygamy are of significant import to the church in Kenya or the church in Uganda, but not to the church in North America."
Questioned on the shrinking diocese of Central Pennsylvania -- down 14 percent since 1997 and now numbering about 15,000 -- and what can be done to stanch these losses, Jefferts Schori replied that it was a combination of demographic, communities shrinking for economic reasons, and the need to make young people, growing up, understand their role in the church and made to feel welcome as full members of the church from the very beginning. "Part of the role of the church also is to reach out to others in the community who do not have a faith tradition or an active Christian membership to spread the gospel there."
Asked about the continuing hemorrhaging of TEC and if people will continue to leave the church over sexuality issues, Jefferts Schori said that people have always decided to pursue their spiritual journeys elsewhere -- some people -- at times of controversy. "Certainly, the same kind of thing happened when the church began wrestling honestly with the place of African-Americans in the church and the place of women in the church. At the same time, we tend to attract others who find our stances positive, so there is a give and take."
Questioned on why ten Episcopal nuns from a convent in Catonsville, MD, left TEC and joined the Roman Catholic Church over recent decisions of the church on homosexuality, Jefferts Schori said that one did remain within the Episcopal Church.
"I note the interesting dilemma that that situation raises. They would not have the freedom to make that kind of a decision once they were in the Roman Catholic Church. They do have the freedom to make that kind of a decision within the Episcopal Church. Religious orders are independent bodies within the Episcopal Church. They're not like a congregation or a diocese, and they can vote to affiliate with another body. Once they're in the Roman Catholic Church, they will not have that ability."
The presiding bishop will be visiting the 24-county Diocese of Central Pennsylvania from Friday through Sunday.
END
Breaking: Hearing in Fort Worth Continued to Next Week
From the Anglican Curmudgeon via TitusOneNine:
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The following is a statement just received from Bishop Iker's office (I have added the bold for emphasis):
In a hearing this morning before Judge John Chupp in the 141st District Court in Tarrant County, our attorney filed a motion that requires the lawyers who have brought litigation against us to prove that they had the legal authority to bring the suit. They moved for a continuance, which the Judge denied.
At 10 a.m. Judge Chupp adjourned the hearing due to the fact that a jury trial in another case was scheduled to resume in his court. The hearing on our Rule 12 motion will reconvene at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, Sept. 16.
Please continue to keep this situation in your daily prayers, and pray for Judge Chupp and attorney Shelby Sharpe by name. As you did last Sunday, please pray during worship this week. For those who are able, fasting as well as prayer will be appropriate and appreciated on the 16th.
Bishop Iker
The plaintiffs in the Fort Worth litigation claim to be the authentic "Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth" and the "Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth." The defendants are given different designations in the lawsuit, but the fact is that they are the true and continuing Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and its associated Corporation. The District Court is thus faced with the spectacle of two entities, each of whom as plaintiff is suing itself and the other as defendants. (That is the plaintiffs' chosen strategy, as I explained in an earlier post.)
The defendant entities filed a motion under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure which challenged the authority of the plaintiffs' attorneys to bring a lawsuit in their names. The attorneys had requested a continuance so that the court could address the partial summary judgment motion which they filed late Friday afternoon. (The judgment requested by the motion would be only "partial" because it would not resolve all of the claims in the complaint, but only the claim for declaratory relief.) The plaintiffs argued, rather inconsistently in this observer's opinion, that the Court could resolve the matter of their authority to bring the lawsuit by deciding the partial summary judgment motion as a matter of law, while it would take a lengthy factual hearing to resolve the defendants' motion challenging their authority.
The Court denied their motion for a continuance -- that is the important news in this announcement. It means that the plaintiffs will have to put on their case for their authority to file suit now, and that the court will make a decision without looking at the plaintiffs' summary adjudication papers. They argued the matter for and hour and a half this morning, when the judge had to take up a scheduled jury trial. So the hearing on the motion challenging the attorneys' authority to sue will be continued next Wednesday afternoon.
I will have much more to post on this case after next Wednesday.
[UPDATE 09/09/09: The plaintiffs have corroborated the account given above in a brief post at their Website, and given one additional detail about briefs being filed next week in response to "questions from the judge":
Attorneys for the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and the Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth presented arguments today in the 141st District Court of Tarrant County, Texas in opposition to two motions filed by former diocesan leaders challenging the authority of the attorneys and leaders of reorganized Diocese. The hearing was continued until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, September 16, at which time both sides will present short briefs on questions from the judge, the Hon. John P. Chupp.
It is always a good sign that a judge asks questions. In my view, there are a lot of them in this case -- see my previous posts.]
[UPDATE 09/10/09: ENS has now chimed in with its own story on the proceedings here. Note that its account makes no mention of the crucial denial of the plaintiffs' motion for a continuance, with the consequences for their partial summary judgment motion as discussed above. It now appears that the Court will squarely address ECUSA's contentions as to whether a diocese may withdraw when it takes up the matter again on September 16. The briefs which the Court has requested before the hearing, as I understand it, are specifically to address those contentions.]
Posted by A. S. Haley at 11:25 AM
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The following is a statement just received from Bishop Iker's office (I have added the bold for emphasis):
In a hearing this morning before Judge John Chupp in the 141st District Court in Tarrant County, our attorney filed a motion that requires the lawyers who have brought litigation against us to prove that they had the legal authority to bring the suit. They moved for a continuance, which the Judge denied.
At 10 a.m. Judge Chupp adjourned the hearing due to the fact that a jury trial in another case was scheduled to resume in his court. The hearing on our Rule 12 motion will reconvene at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, Sept. 16.
Please continue to keep this situation in your daily prayers, and pray for Judge Chupp and attorney Shelby Sharpe by name. As you did last Sunday, please pray during worship this week. For those who are able, fasting as well as prayer will be appropriate and appreciated on the 16th.
Bishop Iker
The plaintiffs in the Fort Worth litigation claim to be the authentic "Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth" and the "Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth." The defendants are given different designations in the lawsuit, but the fact is that they are the true and continuing Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and its associated Corporation. The District Court is thus faced with the spectacle of two entities, each of whom as plaintiff is suing itself and the other as defendants. (That is the plaintiffs' chosen strategy, as I explained in an earlier post.)
The defendant entities filed a motion under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure which challenged the authority of the plaintiffs' attorneys to bring a lawsuit in their names. The attorneys had requested a continuance so that the court could address the partial summary judgment motion which they filed late Friday afternoon. (The judgment requested by the motion would be only "partial" because it would not resolve all of the claims in the complaint, but only the claim for declaratory relief.) The plaintiffs argued, rather inconsistently in this observer's opinion, that the Court could resolve the matter of their authority to bring the lawsuit by deciding the partial summary judgment motion as a matter of law, while it would take a lengthy factual hearing to resolve the defendants' motion challenging their authority.
The Court denied their motion for a continuance -- that is the important news in this announcement. It means that the plaintiffs will have to put on their case for their authority to file suit now, and that the court will make a decision without looking at the plaintiffs' summary adjudication papers. They argued the matter for and hour and a half this morning, when the judge had to take up a scheduled jury trial. So the hearing on the motion challenging the attorneys' authority to sue will be continued next Wednesday afternoon.
I will have much more to post on this case after next Wednesday.
[UPDATE 09/09/09: The plaintiffs have corroborated the account given above in a brief post at their Website, and given one additional detail about briefs being filed next week in response to "questions from the judge":
Attorneys for the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and the Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth presented arguments today in the 141st District Court of Tarrant County, Texas in opposition to two motions filed by former diocesan leaders challenging the authority of the attorneys and leaders of reorganized Diocese. The hearing was continued until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, September 16, at which time both sides will present short briefs on questions from the judge, the Hon. John P. Chupp.
It is always a good sign that a judge asks questions. In my view, there are a lot of them in this case -- see my previous posts.]
[UPDATE 09/10/09: ENS has now chimed in with its own story on the proceedings here. Note that its account makes no mention of the crucial denial of the plaintiffs' motion for a continuance, with the consequences for their partial summary judgment motion as discussed above. It now appears that the Court will squarely address ECUSA's contentions as to whether a diocese may withdraw when it takes up the matter again on September 16. The briefs which the Court has requested before the hearing, as I understand it, are specifically to address those contentions.]
Posted by A. S. Haley at 11:25 AM
Episcopalian leader hears tense crowd
From the Times-Union (Albany) via Stand Firm:
Bishop discusses church's future in light of gay ordinations, unions
By KENNETH C. CROWE II, Staff writer
First published in print: Wednesday, September 9, 2009
TROY -- Albany Episcopal Bishop William Love stood before 125 church members Tuesday night during an often tense give-and-take about the church's future.
"I realize emotions are high, feelings are high,'' said Love, standing at the edge of the altar in St. Paul's Church for nearly two hours.
The Episcopal Church is split by the ongoing debate over the ordination of gay and lesbians and the blessing of sex same unions.
"We are a divided church. There's no question we are a divided church,'' said Sheridan Biggs of St. Paul's Church in Schenectady, who indicated his uneasiness with the direction at the national level to support ordination and the blessing.
"What state we are in when we get through this, only God knows that,'' said Love, who is counted among the Episcopal Church's conservative bishops. He urged Biggs to stay in the church.
Members of Albany Via Media, a group of moderate to liberal Episcopalians, were in a distinct minority at the first of several regional meetings Love is holding to discuss the recent Episcopal General Convention.
Keith St. John, a local board member and Via Media USA liaison, questioned Love on what he's doing to hold the Episcopal Church together and said he was "bothered" by the bishop's references to the decision being "Satan driven."
Love stressed that Albany's orthodoxy has made placed it in a position where it remains in contact with all the Anglican communion and that this has prevented parishes from seeking affiliation with other parts of the church that have taken in other parishes.
"I'm aware that there are parishes that have considered leaving and looking elsewhere,'' Love said referring to as many as two parishes that he declined to identity.
Love stressed that Satan is sowing evil on both sides.
"I believe Satan has been instrumental in bringing confusion to our debates,'' Love said.
The Tuesday night gathering was the first of several regional meetings throughout the diocese Love is holding to discuss the recent Episcopal General Convention.
Love said the meeting he and six other conservative Episcopal bishops held last week with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams in London was to discuss the General Convention and the Anglican community.
Bishop discusses church's future in light of gay ordinations, unions
By KENNETH C. CROWE II, Staff writer
First published in print: Wednesday, September 9, 2009
TROY -- Albany Episcopal Bishop William Love stood before 125 church members Tuesday night during an often tense give-and-take about the church's future.
"I realize emotions are high, feelings are high,'' said Love, standing at the edge of the altar in St. Paul's Church for nearly two hours.
The Episcopal Church is split by the ongoing debate over the ordination of gay and lesbians and the blessing of sex same unions.
"We are a divided church. There's no question we are a divided church,'' said Sheridan Biggs of St. Paul's Church in Schenectady, who indicated his uneasiness with the direction at the national level to support ordination and the blessing.
"What state we are in when we get through this, only God knows that,'' said Love, who is counted among the Episcopal Church's conservative bishops. He urged Biggs to stay in the church.
Members of Albany Via Media, a group of moderate to liberal Episcopalians, were in a distinct minority at the first of several regional meetings Love is holding to discuss the recent Episcopal General Convention.
Keith St. John, a local board member and Via Media USA liaison, questioned Love on what he's doing to hold the Episcopal Church together and said he was "bothered" by the bishop's references to the decision being "Satan driven."
Love stressed that Albany's orthodoxy has made placed it in a position where it remains in contact with all the Anglican communion and that this has prevented parishes from seeking affiliation with other parts of the church that have taken in other parishes.
"I'm aware that there are parishes that have considered leaving and looking elsewhere,'' Love said referring to as many as two parishes that he declined to identity.
Love stressed that Satan is sowing evil on both sides.
"I believe Satan has been instrumental in bringing confusion to our debates,'' Love said.
The Tuesday night gathering was the first of several regional meetings throughout the diocese Love is holding to discuss the recent Episcopal General Convention.
Love said the meeting he and six other conservative Episcopal bishops held last week with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams in London was to discuss the General Convention and the Anglican community.
Mt. Pleasant Rector: “You Never Know What God Might Say”
The beginning of the third wave? From The Living Church via Fr. Dick Kim:
Posted on: September 10, 2009
One of the largest congregations in The Episcopal Church, St. Andrew’s Church of Mt. Pleasant, S.C., may by December become one of the largest congregations to renounce its Episcopal ties.
On Oct. 11, St. Andrew’s will begin a 40 Days of Discernment program to discuss whether it should sever ties with The Episcopal Church. The congregation will vote on Dec. 9-16, after spending a week in prayer and fasting.
The Rev. Steve Wood, rector of St. Andrew’s since 2000, wrote to all members of the parish on September 4 to announce the program. The letter included the signatures of 36 other congregational leaders, including all current staff and nine senior wardens whose service dates back to 1989.
“Since 2003 I have felt compromised by continued association with a denomination that I consider to be apostate,” Fr. Wood told The Living Church.
He said he does not know of any significant group in St. Andrew’s that wants to remain affiliated with The Episcopal Church. When he interviewed to become rector, Fr. Wood said, both the search committee and the vestry asked he was open to separation from The Episcopal Church.
Fr. Wood's predecessor was the Rev. Terrell Glenn, who is now a bishop of the Anglican Church in the Americas and rector of AMiA’s mother church, All Saints’, Pawleys Island, S.C.
“We’re going into this with as open a mind as we can,” Fr. Wood said. “There's a little risk in there. You never know what God might say.”
On its most recent parochial report, St. Andrew’s listed 2,698 baptized members, 2,520 members in good standing and an average Sunday attendance of 1,515. Fr. Wood says another 500 to 700 people are active givers who will not join the church formally because of its affiliation with The Episcopal Church.
Fr. Wood was one of three nominees when the diocese elected the Rt. Rev. Mark J. Lawrence as its 14th bishop in September 2006. Fr. Wood said he gave advance notice of the program to Bishop Lawrence, and will keep lines of communication open.
Fr. Wood said the founding of the Anglican Church in North America was a significant factor in the church's decision to begin the 40 Days of Discernment program.
“We have a home port we can sail into now,” he said.
Fr. Wood praised the 40 Days of Discernment curriculum because sections of it reflect the writing style of the Rev. John Yates, rector of The Falls Church in Virginia.
“The material has a very Yatesian feel to it,” he said. “It's gentle, straightforward and non-accusatory. The material itself will be very appropriate for the people of St. Andrew’s.”
Douglas LeBlanc
Posted on: September 10, 2009
One of the largest congregations in The Episcopal Church, St. Andrew’s Church of Mt. Pleasant, S.C., may by December become one of the largest congregations to renounce its Episcopal ties.
On Oct. 11, St. Andrew’s will begin a 40 Days of Discernment program to discuss whether it should sever ties with The Episcopal Church. The congregation will vote on Dec. 9-16, after spending a week in prayer and fasting.
The Rev. Steve Wood, rector of St. Andrew’s since 2000, wrote to all members of the parish on September 4 to announce the program. The letter included the signatures of 36 other congregational leaders, including all current staff and nine senior wardens whose service dates back to 1989.
“Since 2003 I have felt compromised by continued association with a denomination that I consider to be apostate,” Fr. Wood told The Living Church.
He said he does not know of any significant group in St. Andrew’s that wants to remain affiliated with The Episcopal Church. When he interviewed to become rector, Fr. Wood said, both the search committee and the vestry asked he was open to separation from The Episcopal Church.
Fr. Wood's predecessor was the Rev. Terrell Glenn, who is now a bishop of the Anglican Church in the Americas and rector of AMiA’s mother church, All Saints’, Pawleys Island, S.C.
“We’re going into this with as open a mind as we can,” Fr. Wood said. “There's a little risk in there. You never know what God might say.”
On its most recent parochial report, St. Andrew’s listed 2,698 baptized members, 2,520 members in good standing and an average Sunday attendance of 1,515. Fr. Wood says another 500 to 700 people are active givers who will not join the church formally because of its affiliation with The Episcopal Church.
Fr. Wood was one of three nominees when the diocese elected the Rt. Rev. Mark J. Lawrence as its 14th bishop in September 2006. Fr. Wood said he gave advance notice of the program to Bishop Lawrence, and will keep lines of communication open.
Fr. Wood said the founding of the Anglican Church in North America was a significant factor in the church's decision to begin the 40 Days of Discernment program.
“We have a home port we can sail into now,” he said.
Fr. Wood praised the 40 Days of Discernment curriculum because sections of it reflect the writing style of the Rev. John Yates, rector of The Falls Church in Virginia.
“The material has a very Yatesian feel to it,” he said. “It's gentle, straightforward and non-accusatory. The material itself will be very appropriate for the people of St. Andrew’s.”
Douglas LeBlanc
Marriage, Morality, and Culture
From First Things via Fr. Dick Kim:
Sep 9, 2009
R.R. Reno
The tide is going out. Words like fornication have a musty, antiquated ring. Unwed mothers no longer suffer social stigma. Divorce has become common. The large, complicated human reality of sexual desire, mating, romance, and childrearing no longer finds itself ruled by elaborate and widely accepted social norms. And now, of course, we are in the midst of a drive toward same-sex marriage.
I’m not surprised by the latest development. In my years as an Episcopalian, I came to see that homosexuality plays in important role in the much larger phenomenon of changed social mores in the area of sex, family, and marriage. The image of two men or two women kissing gives a dramatic immediacy to the many aspects of sexual revolution: real people, genuinely felt desires, new possibilities, the courage to transgress old norms, and the hope for the lasting happiness based on love’s unifying power.
In other words, homosexuality richly suggests freedom from an old, restrictive moral order, freedom from the inhibiting power of shame, freedom from the burdens of judgment, censure, and condemnation. And it evokes the promise of existential freedom, the inner release from inhibition and fear of social censure.
The allure of existential freedom is not new. In 1859, John Stuart Mill published On Liberty, an argument for expanding the scope of human freedom beyond the realm of the political narrowly understood. In order to undertake what Mill famously called “experiments in living,” we need to be able to escape from “the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling.”
Mill was correct. We are social animals. Hardwired to want to fit in, all of us feel the soft coercion of cultural norms. As a result, a deep freedom to live as we please requires more than political rights. We need something like “social rights” that give us leverage over and against inherited culture.
To a very great extent, the cultural history of the twentieth century can be understood as the gradual acceptance of “social rights.” In America, a long dominant Protestant and bourgeois ethos eroded—and then in the 1960s collapsed. In a short decade, divorce went from something dangerously shameful to socially acceptable. Premarital sex and cohabitation followed the same trajectory. Acceptance of out-of-wedlock childbearing came more slowly, as did same-sex relationships. But the end result is now the same. Gay couples now have a social right to live their personal lives free from social censure.
Our courts tend to reflect social reality. In 1965, the Supreme Court was faced with a case (Griswold v. Connecticut) that challenged a law against contraceptives. In its majority decision, the Court identified a right to privacy. As a legal right narrowly understood, it means that the government has no business policing bedrooms. However, it has become more expansive, most notoriously to include right to abortion. Today, the right to privacy pretty much accords with Mill’s notion of freedom from “prevailing opinion and feeling.” It amounts to a right to conduct one’s personal life as one wishes, unhindered by other people’s ideas of right and wrong.
This expansive legal right has been reinforced by a new social consensus. Today, it is singularly gauche to announce that you regard someone’s marital, sexual, or parental choices to be “wrong” or “immoral.” Indeed, the very fact that I put scare quotes around “wrong” and “immoral” is telling. We are now heavily socialized to be tolerant and non-judgmental—with the exception, of course, of refusing to tolerate the intolerant and quick to judge the judgmental. But there is no contradiction. Both the tolerance and intolerance serve to provide and reinforce the now dominant culture, one that believes we should be able to live as we wish.
The controversial question of same-sex marriage is so interesting and important because it marks decisive new phase in our cultural drive toward an every deeper freedom to live as one pleases. Freedom from censure is no longer sufficient. Today, we see an emerging right to cultural approval and endorsement.
Some months ago, the Supreme Court of Connecticut handed down a decision that required the state legislature to make provisions for same sex marriage. The most interesting part of the opinion concerns the alternative of civil unions. As the Court recognizes, the artifice of “civil union” is a bloodless affair designed to remove the legal disadvantages that adhere to the private choices of same-sex lovers: matters of inheritance, health coverage, and so forth. The Connecticut judges deemed civil unions separate but unequal, and their reasoning is telling. Civil unions are unsatisfactory, because they lack the “transcendent historical, cultural, and social significance” of traditional marriage.
Gays and lesbians, by this way of thinking, have a right to a full range of cultural resources for defining their lives together, including the rich symbolic legacy of traditional norms for marriage. Privacy is not enough. It is unfair to deny public endorsement and quasi-sacred sanction to personal choices.
Therein lies the final act of the sexual revolution that has defined Western culture for the last fifty years. A traditional culture constrains and limits desire, especially the volatile complexities of sexual desire. The reasoning behind the drive toward same-sex marriage reverses the direction of authority. Our secular elite culture believes that desires—as long as they do not directly harm others—should command and shape culture. We should be able to make of marriage what we wish.
Result: the emerging postmodern Empire of Desire. In the past, the instruments of political power (e.g., the right to privacy) have been used to tear down official forms of limitation and censure so that desires can find their satisfactions. The soft power of culture has followed the same path. Our present and widespread social censure of moral censure inculcates and reinforces a non-judgmental ethos. Now we are embarking on a much more aggressive program. Everybody should have access to the cultural symbols of affirmation. Everybody has a right to feel normal.
This right to normalcy is very different from the right to privacy. Indeed, they can seem antithetical, since the former requires mobilizing the power of the state to redesign social institutions that we all must live with, while the later is focused on minimizing the role of government in people’s personal lives. Yet I think the right to normalcy follows from the logic of John Stuart Mill’s insights.
As social animals we don’t just want to be free from censure. We are not rugged individualists. We want to feel like we are part of the pack, and as everybody knows, feeling marginal can be very painful, even if everybody is smiling and nodding and uttering reassuring platitudes of acceptance. Therefore, if we really believe that human beings are most happy when they design their own lives, then eventually we will come around to the view that culture as a whole should be turned over to serve our desires. Moral traditions must be available for personal tailoring.
Thus, whatever one thinks of homosexuality, one can see that the judges in Connecticut framed the issue clearly. Same-sex marriage is about achieving a social or cultural equality for everyone, regardless of their experiments in living. It’s about our need to feel normal, and it’s about giving everybody access to institutions that confer feelings of normalcy and legitimacy. In the Empire of Desire, everybody gets ceremonies and ribbons and prizes and their fifteen minutes of fame.
But we cannot turn culture into the equivalent of a public access channel. As Aristotle explained in his account of moral formation and human flourishing, culture humanizes us by demanding our obedience. Happiness does not come from living according to your desires. It comes from desiring to live according to demanding and disciplining social norms that transcend individual desires.
The judges in Connecticut and elsewhere, as well as the larger same-sex marriage movement, are entertaining a fantasy. It is sociologically incoherent to imagine that we can both radically redefine marriage and transfer its “transcendent, cultural, and social significance” to same-sex couples, as if the former does not alter and undermine the later.
We cannot make culture serve our desires—or our ideals for that matter. We cannot turn traditional modes of moral discipline such as marriage into a ready resource for conferring feelings of normalcy or equality. To consciously modify the moral norms of moral institutions such as marriage turns them into something else: existential decoration, imaginary seriousness, or an engineered garment of meaning that cannot help but feel plastic and artificial. A bespoke “transcendent, cultural, and social significance” is ephemeral and short lived.
R.R. Reno is features editor of First Things and professor of theology at Creighton University.
Sep 9, 2009
R.R. Reno
The tide is going out. Words like fornication have a musty, antiquated ring. Unwed mothers no longer suffer social stigma. Divorce has become common. The large, complicated human reality of sexual desire, mating, romance, and childrearing no longer finds itself ruled by elaborate and widely accepted social norms. And now, of course, we are in the midst of a drive toward same-sex marriage.
I’m not surprised by the latest development. In my years as an Episcopalian, I came to see that homosexuality plays in important role in the much larger phenomenon of changed social mores in the area of sex, family, and marriage. The image of two men or two women kissing gives a dramatic immediacy to the many aspects of sexual revolution: real people, genuinely felt desires, new possibilities, the courage to transgress old norms, and the hope for the lasting happiness based on love’s unifying power.
In other words, homosexuality richly suggests freedom from an old, restrictive moral order, freedom from the inhibiting power of shame, freedom from the burdens of judgment, censure, and condemnation. And it evokes the promise of existential freedom, the inner release from inhibition and fear of social censure.
The allure of existential freedom is not new. In 1859, John Stuart Mill published On Liberty, an argument for expanding the scope of human freedom beyond the realm of the political narrowly understood. In order to undertake what Mill famously called “experiments in living,” we need to be able to escape from “the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling.”
Mill was correct. We are social animals. Hardwired to want to fit in, all of us feel the soft coercion of cultural norms. As a result, a deep freedom to live as we please requires more than political rights. We need something like “social rights” that give us leverage over and against inherited culture.
To a very great extent, the cultural history of the twentieth century can be understood as the gradual acceptance of “social rights.” In America, a long dominant Protestant and bourgeois ethos eroded—and then in the 1960s collapsed. In a short decade, divorce went from something dangerously shameful to socially acceptable. Premarital sex and cohabitation followed the same trajectory. Acceptance of out-of-wedlock childbearing came more slowly, as did same-sex relationships. But the end result is now the same. Gay couples now have a social right to live their personal lives free from social censure.
Our courts tend to reflect social reality. In 1965, the Supreme Court was faced with a case (Griswold v. Connecticut) that challenged a law against contraceptives. In its majority decision, the Court identified a right to privacy. As a legal right narrowly understood, it means that the government has no business policing bedrooms. However, it has become more expansive, most notoriously to include right to abortion. Today, the right to privacy pretty much accords with Mill’s notion of freedom from “prevailing opinion and feeling.” It amounts to a right to conduct one’s personal life as one wishes, unhindered by other people’s ideas of right and wrong.
This expansive legal right has been reinforced by a new social consensus. Today, it is singularly gauche to announce that you regard someone’s marital, sexual, or parental choices to be “wrong” or “immoral.” Indeed, the very fact that I put scare quotes around “wrong” and “immoral” is telling. We are now heavily socialized to be tolerant and non-judgmental—with the exception, of course, of refusing to tolerate the intolerant and quick to judge the judgmental. But there is no contradiction. Both the tolerance and intolerance serve to provide and reinforce the now dominant culture, one that believes we should be able to live as we wish.
The controversial question of same-sex marriage is so interesting and important because it marks decisive new phase in our cultural drive toward an every deeper freedom to live as one pleases. Freedom from censure is no longer sufficient. Today, we see an emerging right to cultural approval and endorsement.
Some months ago, the Supreme Court of Connecticut handed down a decision that required the state legislature to make provisions for same sex marriage. The most interesting part of the opinion concerns the alternative of civil unions. As the Court recognizes, the artifice of “civil union” is a bloodless affair designed to remove the legal disadvantages that adhere to the private choices of same-sex lovers: matters of inheritance, health coverage, and so forth. The Connecticut judges deemed civil unions separate but unequal, and their reasoning is telling. Civil unions are unsatisfactory, because they lack the “transcendent historical, cultural, and social significance” of traditional marriage.
Gays and lesbians, by this way of thinking, have a right to a full range of cultural resources for defining their lives together, including the rich symbolic legacy of traditional norms for marriage. Privacy is not enough. It is unfair to deny public endorsement and quasi-sacred sanction to personal choices.
Therein lies the final act of the sexual revolution that has defined Western culture for the last fifty years. A traditional culture constrains and limits desire, especially the volatile complexities of sexual desire. The reasoning behind the drive toward same-sex marriage reverses the direction of authority. Our secular elite culture believes that desires—as long as they do not directly harm others—should command and shape culture. We should be able to make of marriage what we wish.
Result: the emerging postmodern Empire of Desire. In the past, the instruments of political power (e.g., the right to privacy) have been used to tear down official forms of limitation and censure so that desires can find their satisfactions. The soft power of culture has followed the same path. Our present and widespread social censure of moral censure inculcates and reinforces a non-judgmental ethos. Now we are embarking on a much more aggressive program. Everybody should have access to the cultural symbols of affirmation. Everybody has a right to feel normal.
This right to normalcy is very different from the right to privacy. Indeed, they can seem antithetical, since the former requires mobilizing the power of the state to redesign social institutions that we all must live with, while the later is focused on minimizing the role of government in people’s personal lives. Yet I think the right to normalcy follows from the logic of John Stuart Mill’s insights.
As social animals we don’t just want to be free from censure. We are not rugged individualists. We want to feel like we are part of the pack, and as everybody knows, feeling marginal can be very painful, even if everybody is smiling and nodding and uttering reassuring platitudes of acceptance. Therefore, if we really believe that human beings are most happy when they design their own lives, then eventually we will come around to the view that culture as a whole should be turned over to serve our desires. Moral traditions must be available for personal tailoring.
Thus, whatever one thinks of homosexuality, one can see that the judges in Connecticut framed the issue clearly. Same-sex marriage is about achieving a social or cultural equality for everyone, regardless of their experiments in living. It’s about our need to feel normal, and it’s about giving everybody access to institutions that confer feelings of normalcy and legitimacy. In the Empire of Desire, everybody gets ceremonies and ribbons and prizes and their fifteen minutes of fame.
But we cannot turn culture into the equivalent of a public access channel. As Aristotle explained in his account of moral formation and human flourishing, culture humanizes us by demanding our obedience. Happiness does not come from living according to your desires. It comes from desiring to live according to demanding and disciplining social norms that transcend individual desires.
The judges in Connecticut and elsewhere, as well as the larger same-sex marriage movement, are entertaining a fantasy. It is sociologically incoherent to imagine that we can both radically redefine marriage and transfer its “transcendent, cultural, and social significance” to same-sex couples, as if the former does not alter and undermine the later.
We cannot make culture serve our desires—or our ideals for that matter. We cannot turn traditional modes of moral discipline such as marriage into a ready resource for conferring feelings of normalcy or equality. To consciously modify the moral norms of moral institutions such as marriage turns them into something else: existential decoration, imaginary seriousness, or an engineered garment of meaning that cannot help but feel plastic and artificial. A bespoke “transcendent, cultural, and social significance” is ephemeral and short lived.
R.R. Reno is features editor of First Things and professor of theology at Creighton University.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
ACNA vision to plant 1,000 new churches
Ed Stetzer on the Anglican Mission in the Americas & the ACNA vision
Wednesday August 19, 2009
This morning, I am meeting with some leaders from The Anglican Mission in the Americas. I have a great appreciation of the AMiA folks and am glad they have come in so we could spend the morning talking about church planting and evangelism.
I had the opportunity to keynote one of the early Anglican Mission in America meetings. It was an amazing thing to see hundreds of Anglicans, gathered under the Bishop of Rwanda, worshiping together and talking about God's global mission. And, it has been good to keep in touch with a few of the bishops and pastors.
Today, we are talking about the new Anglican organization in North America, called The Anglican Church in North America, and their plan to start 1000 new churches in the next five years. That is a VERY robust goal for such a new (and relatively small) denomination.
For those of you who do not follow the drama of "all things Anglican," the Anglican journey has been a challenging one over the last few decades.
Wikipedia has a helpful article on the Anglican realignment. Be sure to visit the Wikipedia article for much more information, but here is an introduction:
Anglican realignment is a movement among some Anglicans to align themselves under different oversight within the Anglican Communion. The movement is primarily active in provinces traditionally part of
Wednesday August 19, 2009
This morning, I am meeting with some leaders from The Anglican Mission in the Americas. I have a great appreciation of the AMiA folks and am glad they have come in so we could spend the morning talking about church planting and evangelism.
I had the opportunity to keynote one of the early Anglican Mission in America meetings. It was an amazing thing to see hundreds of Anglicans, gathered under the Bishop of Rwanda, worshiping together and talking about God's global mission. And, it has been good to keep in touch with a few of the bishops and pastors.
Today, we are talking about the new Anglican organization in North America, called The Anglican Church in North America, and their plan to start 1000 new churches in the next five years. That is a VERY robust goal for such a new (and relatively small) denomination.
For those of you who do not follow the drama of "all things Anglican," the Anglican journey has been a challenging one over the last few decades.
Wikipedia has a helpful article on the Anglican realignment. Be sure to visit the Wikipedia article for much more information, but here is an introduction:
Anglican realignment is a movement among some Anglicans to align themselves under different oversight within the Anglican Communion. The movement is primarily active in provinces traditionally part of