Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Niagara Approve Blessings

Here is the resolution:

Whereas the Diocese of Niagara wishes to express to the House of Bishops and the Council of General Synod the conviction that we believe that God is calling us to move forward now; to wait before the faithful relationships of our gay and lesbian members are blessed by the Church would be unloving and cause further pain and suffering and

Whereas the Diocese of Niagara respects and honours those within our Diocese who, because of their theological position or as a matter of conscience, cannot agree with the blessings of same sex unions.

Be it resolved:
That this Synod request the Bishop to allow clergy, whose conscience permits, to bless the duly solemnized and registered civil marriages between same-sex couples, where at least one party is baptized, and to authorize rites for such blessings.

After much debate, the resolution passed by a wide margin:

CLERGY:
In favour: 82
Opposed:13
Abstained:

LAITY
In favour: 157
Opposed:40
Abstained: 2

Motion carried by 81% of combined houses with 18% opposed.

Niagara becomes the third diocese in the Anglican Church of Canada to pass such a resolution. Ottawa and Montreal approved similar resolutions in October.

J.

A Report to the Church From the Royal College of Psychiatrists

From Church Times:

THE Royal College of Psychiatrists has challenged Anglican bishops to support gay clergy and laity as an example to parents struggling to come to terms with having gay or lesbian children.

“The Church has a wonderful opportunity to lead rather than to be dragged along kicking and screaming. Christianity is such an inclusive religion,” said Professor Michael King, an executive committee member of the College’s special-interest group of 200 to 300 psychiatrists who work with lesbians, gay men, and bisexual and transsexual people.

His committee has submitted a report to the Church’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality, to inform a study guide for next year’s Lambeth Conference.

The report, endorsed by the full College “from the President down”, said that there were no scientific or rational grounds for treating lesbian, gay, and bisexual people differently, Professor King said on Monday.

If there were theological reasons for treating lesbian, gay, or bisexual people differently, that was for the Church to decide; but the Church had already changed its mind over slavery and the position of women in society. “It is odd to see why this should be a sticking point.”

Professor King said that he no longer attended church because of its “disappointing attitude” to this issue (and to that of women bishops), which had contributed to social exclusion...

From the Report:

...There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. However, the experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others, such as employers, means that some LGB people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health and substance misuse problems. Although there have been claims by conservative political groups in the USA that this higher prevalence of mental health difficulties is confirmation that homosexuality is itself a mental disorder, there is no evidence whatever to substantiate such a claim...

...A large part of the instability in gay and lesbian partnerships arises from lack of support within society, the church or the family for such relationships. Since the introduction of the first civil partnership law in 1989 in Denmark, legal recognition of same-sex relationships has been debated around the world. Civil partnership agreements were conceived out of a concern that same-sex couples have no protection in law in circumstances of death or break-up of the relationship. There is already good evidence that marriage confers health benefits on heterosexual men and women and similar benefits could accrue from same-sex civil unions. Legal and social recognition of same-sex relationships is likely to reduce discrimination, increase the stability of same sex relationships and lead to better physical and mental health for gay and lesbian people. It is difficult to understand opposition to civil partnerships for a group of socially marginalised people who cannot marry and who as a consequence may experience more unstable partnerships. It cannot offer a threat to the stability of heterosexual marriage...

...Although there is now a number of therapists and organisation in the USA and in the UK that claim that therapy can help homosexuals to become heterosexual, there is no evidence that such change is possible. The best evidence for efficacy of any
treatment comes from randomised clinical trials and no such trial has been carried out in this field. There are however at least two studies that have followed up LGB people who have undergone therapy with the aim of becoming heterosexual. Neither attempted to assess the patients before receiving therapy and both relied on the subjective accounts of people, who were asked to volunteer by the therapy organisations themselves or who were recruited via the Internet. The first study claimed that change was possible for a small minority (13%) of LGB people, most of whom could be regarded as bisexual at the outset of therapy. The second showed little effect as well as considerable harm. Meanwhile, we know from historical evidence that treatments to change sexual orientation that were common in the 1960s and 1970s were very damaging to those patients who underwent them and affected no change in their sexual orientation.

In conclusion the evidence would suggest that there is no scientific or rational reason for treating LGB people any differently to their heterosexual counterparts. People are happiest and are likely to reach their potential when they are able to integrate the various aspects of the self as fully as possible. Socially inclusive, nonjudgemental attitudes to LGB people who attend places of worship or who are religious leaders themselves will have positive consequences for LGB people as well as for the wider society in which they live.

Now the question is; will the Church listen?

J.

Interventions Unwelcome in Canada

From the Anglican Journal:

The retired bishop of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador, Don Harvey, has left the Anglican Church of Canada to become a bishop in the South American province of the Southern Cone, a decision that the primate of the Canadian church acknowledged would pose “complications” for the already fragile unity within the local church and the worldwide Anglican Communion...

Thinking Anglicans brings us a response from the Council of General Synod. Here's part of it:

...To this end we wish to make clear that interventions in the life of our church, such as ordinations or other episcopal acts by any other jurisdictions, are inappropriate and unwelcome. In particular, we cannot recognize the legitimacy of recent actions by the Province of the Southern Cone in purporting to extend its jurisdiction beyond its own borders. We call upon the Archbishop of Canterbury to make clear that such actions are not a valid expression of Anglicanism and are in contravention of the ancient and continuing traditions of the Church. They aggravate the current tensions in the Anglican Communion...

J.

Bp. Schofield of San Joaquin Headed for the Southern Cone

From the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin's website:

The Diocese of San Joaquin today announced that the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of South America has extended an invitation to offer the Diocese membership on an emergency and pastoral basis.

The announcement comes three weeks before the Diocese is scheduled hear the second and final reading of Constitutional changes first adopted on December 2, 2006. Should the second reading of the Constitutional changes be approved at the Diocesan Convention on December 8, 2007, the Diocese is free to accept the invitation to align with the Province of the Southern Cone and remain a diocese with full membership within the Anglican Communion.

According to the Rt. Rev. John-David M. Schofield, Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, “We welcome the invitation extended by the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone. The invitation assures the Diocese’s place in the Anglican Communion and full communion with the See of Canterbury”...

We previously discussed this uninvited intervention by Gregory Venables, Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone, here.

A discussion of the changes to San Joaquin's Constitution and Canons from a year ago, and an announcement at that time of their intention to "realign" with "an Anglican diocese from Argentina" can be found here.

If you are unfamiliar with "the Southern Cone," the best description I have found is offered by Dave Walker here.

J.

Fort Worth Convention Commences

The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth's Convention begins this afternoon and concludes sometime tomorrow. Among matters to be considered is this resolution:

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT D
Presented to the Twenty-fifth Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.

Right Reverend Sir:
On behalf of the Committee on Constitution and Canons, we present the following amendment to Article 1 of the Constitution of this Diocese, as proposed by the Standing Committee:

Existing text:

ARTICLE 1
AUTHORITY OF GENERAL CONVENTION

The Church in this Diocese accedes to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, and recognizes the authority of the General Convention of said Church provided that no action of General Convention which is contrary to Holy Scripture and the Apostolic Teaching of the Church shall be of any force or effect in this Diocese.

Proposed text:

ARTICLE 1
ANGLICAN IDENTITY
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, consisting of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces and regional churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.

The Committee on Constitution and Canons unanimously recommends adoption.

A recently proposed resolution will also be considered by this Convention:

A Response to the Invitation of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone
Whereas, it is the resolve of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth to remain within the family of the Anglican Communion while dissociating itself from the moral, theological, and disciplinary innovations of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America;

And whereas, the Synod of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, meeting Nov. 5-7, 2007, voted to "welcome into membership of our Province on an emergency and pastoral basis" those dioceses of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America who share this resolve;

Therefore, be it resolved, that the 25th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth extend its sincere thanks to the Synod of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, and to its Primate, the Most Reverend Gregory J. Venables, for the generous and fraternal invitation to join their Province;

And, be it further resolved, that the Bishop and Standing Committee prepare a report for this diocese on the constitutional and canonical implications and means of accepting this invitation.

Tobias Haller offers some thoughts on the consequences if these resolutions are approved:

We have a Canon (IV.9) in The Episcopal Church concerning abandonment of the communion of this church by a bishop. This Canon came into being as an ad hoc reaction to the departure of a bishop to the Roman Catholic Church. Over the years, the Canon has been amended to cover various other forms of departure. The crucial factor in this Canon is that it concerns renunciation, not mere violation, of the discipline, doctrine, or worship of TEC — which is covered by other canonical regulations. It is a form of saying, “Your rules no longer apply to me"...

...The Diocese of Fort Worth is in the process of considering a resolution that includes a clause “dissociating itself from the moral, theological, and disciplinary innovations of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.” What form this dissociation might take remains unknown, although there has been a move afoot to realign the diocese with the Church of the Southern Cone.

There is a procedure for clergy to transfer their membership to other provinces of the Anglican Communion. Many have made use of this in recent times. There is also a procedure for a priest or deacon or bishop to renounce the Ministry of The Episcopal Church. There is no procedure for a diocese to do so. It appears that the intent of the Bishop and some of the clergy of the Diocese of Fort Worth is to separate the diocese itself from the discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church. This has all of the appearance of renunciation and abandonment on their part — not of the faith of the Church, but, as the Canon says, “the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church”; that is, The Episcopal Church. Two out of three appear to be at play in this current proposed action.

The Bishop and Clergy of Fort Worth cannot have it both ways. They are either under the discipline of TEC, or they reject it; and rejection, in this case, constitutes abandonment...

For those whose blood pressure can handle it, tomorrow's proceedings in Fort Worth will be streamed live here.

Pray for the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.

Pray for the Church.

J.

Bp. Robinson's Invitation to Southwest Florida Withdrawn

Susan Russell points us to some sad news. Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire accepted an invitation to be guest and speaker at Saint Boniface Episcopal Church, Sarasota, Florida on January 16-20, 2008. Bishop Dabney Smith of Southwest Florida gave permission for Bishop Robinson to visit, and even described it as "an important part of the listening process which is key to the Windsor and Lambeth recommendations for the Anglican Communion."

Yesterday, the following memo was released:

Bishop Dabney Smith just called to tell me that he has contacted Bishop Gene Robinson again and asked him to decline the invitation to speak here in January. Bishop Smith said he took this action because of all the heat he is getting. Previously Bishop Smith had given his permission for the visit and said it was not a problem for him although he anticipated a reaction. He told me that it has been more of a reaction than he anticipated. Bishop Robinson is on sabbatical and is out of the country (he was in New Zealand when they talked). I anticipate that we will hear from his office in New Hampshire to confirm this.

Many people will be disappointed about this but we can choose to see this as an opportunity to continue the conversation about what it means to be the Episcopal Church in the 21st century. I believe it may be important for Bishop Smith to hear from people who thought that Bishop Robinson's visit would have furthered the conversation called for throughout the Anglican Communion.

Louie Crew offers this response to Bp. Robinson being un-invited by Bp. Smith:

You know opposition is losing when opposition resorts to the tyranny of ideas, afraid to allow anyone even to listen to a point of view not approved by the one in power.

This country was built on strong advocacy for the right -- even the obligation -- of persons to expose themselves to all points of view before holding a point of view themselves.

Probably Bishop Smith is thoroughly within his rights as a bishop to cancel any presentation if doing so helps him save his skin. I hope that he can sleep in that skin.

When you want to know why most young people don't give the church the time of day, you need look no farther. Bishop Smith's cowardice gives me the creeps and makes me embarrassed to be an Episcopalian.

The Rt. Rev. Dabney T. Smith can be contacted at:

7313 Merchant Court
Sarasota, FL 34240
(941) 556-0315
Toll-free: (800) 992-7699
Fax: (941) 556-0321

dsmith(at)episcopalswfl(dot)org

Remember to show respect for the office by being courteous.

And for your efforts, here's a new button to add to your collection.

J.

The Virginia Lawsuit Game

From the Charlottsville Daily Press:

An obscure Virginia law from the Civil War era might play a deciding role in whether two of the Episcopal Church's largest and most prominent congregations will be permitted to leave the flock amid a standoff over sexual morality and other theological issues.

A two-week trial began Tuesday in Fairfax County Circuit Court that will determine whether the 1867 law governs the dispute between 11 Virginia congregations that voted to leave the church and Episcopal leaders who reject the validity of those votes...

This has prompted Pisco Sours to propose The Episcopal Lawsuit Drinking Game:

When an opinion in In re Multi-Circuit Episcopal Church Property Litigation comes in, go to your conservative Anglican blog of choice and read through the comments dealing with the decision. (Conservatives, feel free to come up with your own drinking game to play should TEC and the Diocese of Virginia lose.) With your favorite Tasty Beverage in hand, drink at the following mentions or events:

“Activist judge[s]”: 1 drink.

“You [have] hit the nail on the [proverbial] head!”: 1 drink for the first 5 mentions in a single thread. 2 drinks thereafter.

“Mrs. Schori”, “Vicki Gene”, or anything involving squid: 1 drink...

Commenter states he will take up his sword: 1 drink.

Commenter states he will load his gun: 2 drink.

Commenter states he will take a weapon and go after a specific person: sober up and call the authorities...

Another option is to donate $1 per drink to TEC’s legal defense fund.

Go visit ePiscoSours and propose your own "rules" for this game.

J.

The Cost of "Saddling Up" in Fort Worth

Last September, Bonnie Anderson, President of the House of Deputies, addressed Episcopalians in the Diocese of Fort Worth. Here is part of what she had to say:

...Anderson advised Episcopalians to "saddle your own horse" if they wanted to see changes in their diocese. She advised them to pay attention to the issue of governance, reminding them that parishes and dioceses remain a part of the Episcopal Church even if some members decide to leave...

Katie Sherrod offers us an example of what happens in Fort Worth when faithful Episcopalians "saddle up":

By way of introduction, my name is Marvin Long, a parishioner of Christ The King Episcopal Church in Fort Worth Texas since 1992. I am 67 and was confirmed an Episcopalian in 1963. I have served on the vestry and as Senior Warden and as Lay Minister. Until last week I edited Celebration, the church news letter. I would like to recount what happens in the diocese of Fort Worth when one `saddles up his own horse and stands up for ECUSA.'

On October 2, 2007, the diocesan office released the amendments to the diocesan constitution and canons that would "begin the process of affiliating with another Province of the World Wide Anglican Communion." Subsequently, my wife and I wrote the vestry of Christ the King parish and requested that they pass a resolution stating their intention to remain with ECUSA and withdrawing the congregation from the Anglican Communion Network.

On Sunday morning Oct. 21 at both services our interim priest preached a sermon maliciously attacking ECUSA. The senior warden attended the vestry meeting that day and handed out the old attack on ECUSA by Bishop Harold Miller of the Church of Ireland with a cover letter from Bp. Jack Iker.

I decided to include four polite articles in the November issue of Celebration that support ECUSA. For my efforts, I was removed by the interim priest as editor of the newsletter and from all other church functions. My lay minister's license was revoked (an act reserved for the bishop) and I was forced to shut down the church's web site. The small weekly healing service I and a few other liberals regularly attended was cancelled until further notice.

On Sunday, Nov. 4, I was publicly excoriated for the Celebration in both church services by the priest and the Sr. Warden. So there you have it: what happens when you saddle up your horse in Ft. Worth.

The bright side is that there is support for ECUSA here. Although I am saddened by the current state of affairs, I hopefully look for the national church to reassert itself. Come soon. I'm still on my horse.

J.

UPDATE: The issue of the Celebration newsletter that resulted in such a strong response from the priest and warden can be viewed here.

The Prince Bishop Responds with Great Pomposity

Last week, Bp. Katharine sent a letter to Bp. Iker of Fort Worth in which she alerted him of some of the possible consequences if he moved forward with his plans to try to take the Diocese of Fort Worth out of the Episcopal Church. Bp. Iker has issued a response:

I have received your letter of November 8th and am rather surprised by your suggestion that I have somehow abandoned the communion of the church and may be subject to ecclesiastical discipline. Such a charge is baseless. I have abandoned nothing, and I have violated no canons...

Bp. Iker has advocated for removing any reference to the Episcopal Church from the Constitutions and Canons of the diocese. In public statements he has said that it is his intention to "realign" the diocese with another Province (the recent FiF address comes to mind as but one example...I'll add a link later). Bp. Iker has met with Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone to plan his break with the Episcopal Church. Those are just a few examples off the top of my head of actions by this bishop that can clearly be identified as "abandonment" of the Church (clearly identified in the Constitution and Canons as referring to "the Episcopal Church") and his ordination vows.

...It is highly inappropriate for you to attempt to interfere in the internal life of this diocese as we prayerfully prepare to gather in Convention. The threatening tone of your open letter makes no attempt to promote reconciliation, mediation, or even dialogue about our profound theological differences. Instead, it appears designed to intimidate our delegates and me, in an attempt to deter us from taking any action that opposes the direction in which you are leading our Church...It grieves me that as the Presiding Bishop you would misuse your office in an attempt to intimidate and manipulate this diocese...

Bp. Katharine has fulfilled her responsibilities as our leader by informing Bp. Iker of the consequences of his actions. That Bp. Iker doesn't like it, or finds it "inappropriate" or "intimidating" has nothing to do with Bp. Katharine's decision to do her duty.

...While I do not wish to meet antagonism with antagonism, I must remind you that 25 years ago this month, the newly formed Diocese of Fort Worth voluntarily voted to enter into union with the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. If circumstances warrant it, we can likewise, by voluntary vote, terminate that relationship...

Not according to the Constitutions and Canons, which is part of the "discipline" of this Church, if Bp. Iker wishes to acknowledge that reality or not. There is no process by which a diocese can leave the Episcopal Church. Such an attempt will not be recognized, just as it was not recognized during the Civil War.

...In closing, let me be very clear. While your threats deeply sadden us, they do not frighten us...

It would seem to me that it might be a good idea for Bp. Iker drop the machismo stance and hear the clear message being offered to him from the leadership of TEC. If he continues on the path he is on, he will be deposed, a new standing committee will call for the election of a new bishop, and lawsuits will be filed against those who attempt to retain Episcopal Church property.

This is no threat. This is a promise. And nothing that PB Venables, Dr. Williams or the Primates might do is going to change that response.

So continue to swagger into the future if you must, Bp. Iker. But do note that your continued arrogance is going to become increasingly costly to you, and to those placed under your care, in the months to come.

J.

UPDATE: Episcopal Life provides us with a quote from Bp. Iker made at the recent Forward in Faith meeting:

...In an October 20, 2007 address to the Forward in Faith International Assembly in London, a recording of which is available on the group's website, Iker stated that the three Forward in Faith dioceses -- Fort Worth, San Joaquin, and Quincy -- intend to leave the Episcopal Church by 2009.

"There are three Forward in Faith dioceses in the United States, and the three bishops of those dioceses have come to a common conclusion that we have no future in the Episcopal Church," Iker reported to the London meeting. "Our conventions in those three dioceses, Fort Worth, Quincy, and San Joaquin, will be taking constitutional action to separate officially from TEC. Because it is a constitutional change, it must be passed at two successive annual conventions."

On the recording, Iker continued: "…Our plan is not only to disassociate, then, from the Episcopal Church, but to officially, constitutionally re-affiliate with an existing orthodox province of the communion that does not ordain women to the priesthood. These conversations are very far along but cannot be announced until the province that is considering our appeal has made their final decision public."

What did the bishop say in his letter?

...(I am) surprised by your suggestion that I have somehow abandoned the communion of the church and may be subject to ecclesiastical discipline. Such a charge is baseless. I have abandoned nothing, and I have violated no canons...

I think the bishop needs to ponder his own words before feigning such great indignation in the future.

From Colorado Springs

I received the following press release by email:

November 10, 2007, Colorado Springs, Colorado — Grace and St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church and the Bishop and Diocese of Colorado today announced that the parish and the Episcopal Diocese are requesting permission from the court to add claims for repossession of the church property and monetary damages in their legal battle. The church’s property has been taken by a secessionist group led by Father Don Armstrong that left the Episcopal Church and affiliated with a Nigerian church faction (The Convocation of Anglicans in North America or CANA).

In its response to the suit filed last spring by the secessionist group, the diocese has made it clear that its primary objective is to regain rightful possession of property now wrongfully occupied by the secessionists. Bishop Robert O’Neill has stated from the beginning that the diocese will pursue all necessary and appropriate legal means to regain rightful possession of the Church’s property. This filing is another step in that process. Colorado law is clear that all Episcopal churches hold their property for the diocese and the Episcopal Church. Time after time, in Colorado and other states, courts have ruled that while individuals can leave the church, they may not take church property with them.

In accordance with Colorado law, which requires that all essential persons be included in a suit, the Episcopal parish and diocese are requesting that the court add as parties those individuals who have led the secessionist group in taking the property. These include the Rev. Donald Armstrong III, Jon Wroblewski, Chad Friese, Robert C. Balink, Charles C. Brown, Dareleen Schaffer, Alan Crippen II, Jack Gloriod, Craig Whitney, Keith Stampher MD, Marge Goss, Susan Spencer, Kevin Dibble, Edwin J. Montgomery, Jason Huntley, Rip Hollister MD, Michael Barber MD and Emily Kline.

According to Clelia deMoraes, Senior Warden for Grace Episcopal Church, “Colorado law is clear that when a faction of a parish leaves the Episcopal Church it cannot take the property with it.” DeMoraes added, “People need to understand that the only victims here are the people whose property was stolen.”

Background regarding Don Armstrong, who was recently deposed by the Diocese of Colorado, can be found here.

Background on Alan Crippen, listed among those being added to the suit, can be found here.

The Rocky Mountain News is running this story regarding this new development.

Thanks to S. for sending me this and to Thinking Anglicans for pointing to the story in the RMN.

J.

A Conservative Speaks Out Against Schism

The Post Gazette brings us an essay by Jerry Bowyer, who is a conservative activist, Episcopal vestry member and financial journalist residing in the Diocese of Pittsburgh:

...This past summer, Bishop Duncan instructed my wife and hundreds of other readers in the diocese to omit the prayer for Katharine. Katharine Jefferts Schori has been a frequent target for conservatives in the U.S. church ever since she was elected presiding bishop last year. Coming on the heels of the installation of an active and outspoken homosexual bishop, the elevation of a woman of liberal sympathies seemed a bridge too far for many conservatives.

It appeared at the time that omitting the prayer for Katharine was a steppingstone to where the bishop was really trying to take us -- outside of the Episcopal Church. You see, to include Katharine in the prayers was to acknowledge her office, and to acknowledge her office was to acknowledge our obligation to her...

...Secession is not the biblical pattern of resistance to flawed authority. Young David served under a tyrannical and apostate King named Saul. David submitted to Saul's authority and he resisted the urge to revolt or secede. He remained faithful to Israel and Saul until the end, and then, because of his patience, became king himself.

David's great (28 times) grandson, Jesus, was a reader in the synagogue despite its shortcomings. He worshipped in the temple despite its corruption and oppression. King Herod was a murderous crook and the temple priesthood were his hired cronies and yet Mary and Joseph and Jesus were there year after year, making offerings, saying prayers, talking with rabbis.

When St. Paul was beaten by the high priest he showed him deference, not contempt. "You salute the rank," as they say in the military, "not the man."

That's because the authority of a priest or bishop doesn't come from him; it comes from God. The failings of the man, or woman, don't erase that authority. Saul would regularly try to murder David. He disregarded God and took on the responsibility to offer sacrifices himself. He murdered faithful priests. Through all of this, David saluted the office long after the man had outlived his merit.

On Oct. 31., the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church USA sent a letter to the bishop of Pittsburgh, directing him not to split the diocese from the denomination. Bishop Duncan replied by quoting Martin Luther, "Here I stand. I can do no other."

It's a powerful quote, but a misuse of history. Martin Luther didn't leave the Roman Catholic Church; he was kicked out. He decided to "stand" and fight. It's ironic that Bishop Duncan quoted Luther's pledge to "stand" in order to justify his intention to "walk"...

...Yes, there are times when it's necessary to leave one authority for another. When the New Testament writers were forced to deal with this issue, they concluded that they were compelled to obey higher authority at all times, except when it commanded them to disobey God. Roman Emperors were monstrous beasts. The church preached against them and prayed for them to repent, but Christians still obeyed the law. It wasn't until Rome ordered them to stop preaching the gospel and to offer sacrifices to Caesar that the early church was forced to disobey.

By analogy, New Hampshire can install a whole pride of gay bishops, but we don't break our oath of loyalty to the Episcopal Church until they order us to start installing them here.

Until then, the pattern of David and Jesus holds: Be faithful. Be patient. Be active in good works. And be in prayer for all in authority ... "for Katharine, our presiding bishop; Robert and Henry, our bishops; and Jay, our priest, I pray. Lord, hear our prayer."

The above thoughts are quite similar to those I have heard from many conservatives within the Episcopal Church. All are disturbed to some degree by various aspects of our current unpleasantness. Some are quite upset, as sometimes becomes evident when I voice my disagreement with them. But the only conservatives that I know that believe their only option is to leave the church are the ones I meet on the internet.

I think it is important to point out this false image of conservatives that is displayed online. Those who insist they must leave to remain pure are a strange new breed, which we have yet to define by an appropriate term.

I often refer to this new breed as "extreme conservatives" or "extremists" for short. Others use the terms "neo-cons" or "ultra conservatives," and even "neo-Calvinists." None of those descriptions seem quite right.

Let us avoid the temptation to lump all those who disagree with us into one camp. This new breed has many identifying characteristics that might suggest a myriad of labels, but, out of respect for those who are willing to agree to disagree without breaking fellowship, don't call them conservatives.

J.

Blaming Bp. Robinson is the Problem

The Lead points us to an interesting article from the Concord Monitor:

Is the Episcopal Church's impending schism really about the theological rift that sprung up after the consecration of its first openly gay bishop, the Rev. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire?

Or is the brouhaha really about a church in battle with itself about how to be financially solvent and theologically relevant in today's competitive religious marketplace?

Last weekend, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh voted in favor of separating from the national church over theological beliefs on homosexuality. "What we're trying to do is state clearly in the United States for the authority of Scripture," Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh said after the vote.

But "authority of Scripture" doesn't hold weight here because the Episcopal Church has always been challenged on this issue.

In the 1970s, the argument for authority of Scripture came up with the ordination of women - and so, too, did the threat of a schism. But in 1989, the church consecrated its first female bishop, Barbara Harris.

Conservatives like Duncan were not only theologically outraged but also racially challenged because Harris is African-American.

Just last year, gasps of exhilaration and exasperation reverberated throughout the Anglican Communion when it was announced that Katharine Jefferts Schori would be the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church USA. Schori not only supports gay unions, but she also backed the holy consecration of Robinson.

All this is no surprise, however, since the Episcopal Church has a history of taking the moral high ground on social justice issues...

...With the changing demographics of this ecclesial body, the church's former "Frozen Chosen" leaders, whose anti-gay initiatives had a stranglehold on the church's governing future, find that their efforts to maintain a respected voice among its constituents is like that of today's Republican Party - dead on arrival.

While many would like to believe that the financial crisis in the Episcopal Church is brought on by secessionist congregations battling with liberal bishops endorsing sodomy, the church's coffers were bare prior to Robinson's consecration. The reason? Decline in its membership over four decades; the rise of its Third World bishops from countries in Africa, South America, and Asia; and its egregious act of inhospitality and exclusion of its lesbian and gay population.

Using Robinson as the reason for the church's problem is the problem.

J.

Canterbury Sends Diwali Greeting to Hindu Community

You may recall that a few months ago we had a discussion regarding Christians in a pluralistic world. Specifically, we were exploring how we might interact with other faith traditions without compromising our own tradition.

In that discussion, I noted the work of Terry Holmes and John Westerhoff, Christian Believing, which offers these guidelines for interfaith interactions:

We need not enter into a dialogue with a Buddhist or a member of Islam to win or lose. Our intention ought to be that we will both win. It is highly doubtful, given the cultural context in which Buddhism exists, that such a dialogue will result in the baptism of many who were previously Buddhists. It is improbable that it will result in theological agreement between the representatives of two very disparate systems of belief. It is altogether possible, however, that in our point of contact we will find enrichment which will flow over into the beliefs of each religion...

Holmes and Westerhoff list these "points of contact" between the major world religions, as identified by Friedrich Heiler, a German historian of religion. The following are common beliefs held by Judaism, Islam, Zorastrianism Mazdianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Christianity:

1. A belief in the reality of the transcendent; the "holy other."
2. That the transcendent is immanent in human hearts.
3. This transcendent and immanent reality is the highest good.
4. The reality of the divine is ultimate love.
5. The way to God is through sacrifice.
6. In loving one's neighbor, one is loving God.
7. It is the love of God that leads to union with God.

An example of how to highlight these "points of contact" without compromising our own beliefs was recently offered by Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury in a greeting he offered to the Hindu community:

...The desire and the ability to celebrate is a profound part of the human personality and is a gift of God in creation. When celebration is from a perspective of love of God and is in thanksgiving for the blessings that we receive from God, then it is all the more to be welcomed and encouraged. I congratulate you on the way in which you have brought the celebration of the festival of Diwali to the communities of this country and have enabled the perspective of faith to be more widely appreciated.

The Hindu communities have brought so much to the life of this country, and in so many different aspects. In business, education, culture and religion, Hindus have led the way in demonstrating what it means to be a lively, integrated and distinctive community to the great benefit of all. It is my hope that especially at this time of year, this contribution should be more widely recognised and acknowledged.

Each of our festivals has its own distinctive character and meaning and is rooted in our respective understandings of the nature of God. But Diwali, coming as it does when Christians are approaching the season of Advent and Christmas, provides an opportunity to celebrate those things that we hold in common. It is my hope that Christians and Hindus should renew and further develop the local and national frameworks within which we can explore and appreciate both our common and our distinctive characteristics...

The five day Hindu festival of Diwali, also known as "The Festival of Lights" includes some customs that are quite similar to our Christmas traditions, such as the exchange of gifts and festive meals. You can learn more about Diwali here.

J.

Guess the Date of Depositions

Now that the destination of Bbs. Iker, Schofield and Duncan has been made public, it may be appropriate to review what will happen next:

...If the Presiding Bishop were to present materials to the Review Committee regarding potential abandonment by the bishops in question, and if the Committee were to agree that abandonment had taken place, the bishops would have two months to recant their positions. If they failed to do so, the matter would go to the full House of Bishops.

If the House concurred, the Presiding Bishop would depose the bishops and declare the episcopates of those dioceses vacant. Those remaining in the Episcopal Church would be gathered to organize a new diocesan convention and elect a replacement Standing Committee, if necessary...

There is little doubt that there is already enough evidence to depose these three bishops. Now it is simply a matter of time until the slow wheels of ecclesiastical discipline roll forward.

While we wait, I propose that we hold a contest. I'll ask a question. The one who comes closest to answering it correctly will win a prize. Here's the question:

On what date will one or all of these bishops will be deposed?

Please give month, day and year.

Do keep in mind that the question is when the depositions will be officially announced...when the see will be declared vacant.

As described by the Episcopal Life article, that will require a review of the Title IV Committee, two months for the bishops to recant, and then a vote of the entire House of Bishops.

The prize will be one of the t-shirts pictured at the right (thanks to MadPriest for pointing the shirts out to me some months ago).

Let the game begin.

J.

The Southern Cone Spreads North

From the Telegraph:

The worldwide Anglican Church suffered a dramatic new split last night when a leading conservative archbishop approved plans to adopt breakaway American dioceses, the Daily Telegraph has learned.

Archbishop Gregory Venables is to allow conservative dioceses that are defecting from the pro-gay American branch of Anglicanism to affiliate with his South American province thousands of miles away...

I hope this is not a surprise to anyone. We were told about this last year by Bp. Schofield of San Joaquin in a letter he wrote to the diocese:

...Is Our Place In The Anglican Communion Assured? Yes. First, we have a commitment from the Southern Cone (Archbishop Greg Venebles) that the bishops of his dioceses are open to our joining their Province...

Gregory James Venables is the Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone and also bishop of the diocese of Argentina. One of his most recent notorious actions was reinstating the deposed bishop of Recife. This deposed bishop is the same one who scooped up two parishes of TEC the day after the Windsor Report was released. The Bishop of Bolivia, who has plundered a few congregations that belong to TEC, is one of his lieutenants.

The Southern Cone allows women to be ordained to the Diaconate only. I understand that the Province is considered to lean towards the more Evangelical side of things, but the Bishop of Bolivia is a Son of the House (Nashotah grad), so obviously Anglo-Catholics are welcome. Seems like as good a fit as Fort Worth, San Joaquin and Pittsburgh are going to find.

It appears PB Venables has no problem with plundering parishes from TEC. Here's part of a statement the Southern Cone made last year:

...we renew our conviction that the Province of the Southern Cone of the Americas remains in impaired communion with the Episcopal Church; and given that their continuing position results in an extremely difficult situation for churches and Christians that do hold Anglican doctrine, and in the spirit of Kigali, we support our Primate and other Primates who are overseeing the development of a new ecclesial structure in the United States.

There is another factor that needs to be considered here. PB Venables oversees the dioceses of Argentina, Northern Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. From what I could find, Argentina, Paraguay and Uraguay have about 12 churches each. Bolivia has 4. Until 1981, these were all missionary dioceses. I recognize that the number of actual structures does not necessarily represent the number of Anglicans within this part of the world. It is not unusual for there to be a congregation without a church, who gather when the priest arrives in the village. The Southern Cone has about 20,000 communicants. My point is that the lack of churches suggests that this is a very poor Province. I cannot help but wonder if the temptation to pick up a few wealthy congregations, and now entire Dioceses, to the north is not fueling some of the outrage we are hearing from PB Venables. If the bishop of Bolivia and former bishop of Recife are examples of the makeup of his House of Bishops, one is inclined to begin wondering what kind of crew he is assembling and for what purpose.

If the breakaway groups within TEC are looking for a "Windsor compliant" leader, I suggest they keep on looking. PB Venables not only seems to ignore the recommendations regarding border crossings in that document, but seems to sanction such raids, and even encourages them.

J.

Nigeria Rejects the Windsor Report and the Council of Nicea

From Abp. Akinola of Nigeria:

...The Church of Nigeria is not interested in territorial expansion. The failure to resolve these dual crises has been at the heart of the decision by our Church and a number of other Global South Provinces to offer encouragement and oversight to a growing number of clergy and congregations in the USA. These pastoral initiatives are not and should not be seen as the cause of the crises.

Although they have variously been described as “interventions” “boundary crossing” or “incursions” -- they are a direct and natural consequence of the decision by The Episcopal Church (TEC) to follow the path that it has now chosen.

These pastoral initiatives undertaken to keep faithful Anglicans within our Anglican family has been at a considerable cost of crucial resources to our province. There is no moral equivalence between them and the actions taken by TEC. They are a heartfelt response to cries for help. We acted in accordance with the Gospel mandate. Had TEC, against all godly warnings, not taken actions that tore the fabric of our beloved Communion there would be no need for hundreds indeed, thousands of its members to seek pastoral, episcopal and now primatial care elsewhere.

It has been suggested that our actions violate historic Anglican polity and early church tradition with particular reference made to the Council of Nicea. This assertion is both hollow and made in bad faith since those who make it are more than willing to ignore historic biblical teaching on the uniqueness of Christ, the authority of the Scriptures and the call to moral obedience. With regard to Nicea - while there was concern for proper order there was even greater commitment to maintaining right teaching. This can be seen by the provision of godly bishops and clergy in places where the incumbents were proponents of false teaching...

From the Windsor Report:

...We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:

to express regret for the consequences of their actions

to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and

to effect a moratorium on any further interventions.

We also call upon these archbishops and bishops to seek an accommodation with the bishops of the dioceses whose parishes they have taken into their own care...

From the Council of Nicea:

CANON XV.
ON account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the Canon, must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. And if any one, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or continue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the Church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter.

CANON L.
There shall be but one bishop of one city, and one parochus of one town; also the incumbent, whether bishop or parish priest, shall not be removed in favour of a successor desired by some of the people unless he has been convicted of manifest crime.

More from the Windsor Report:

...We remind all in the Communion that Lambeth Resolution 1.10 calls for an ongoing process of listening and discernment, and that Christians of good will need to be prepared to engage honestly and frankly with each other on issues relating to human sexuality. It is vital that the Communion establish processes and structures to facilitate ongoing discussion. One of the deepest realities that the Communion faces is continuing difference on the presenting issue of ministry by and to persons who openly engage in sexually active homosexual relationships. Whilst this report criticises those who have propagated change without sufficient regard to the common life of the Communion, it has to be recognised that debate on this issue cannot be closed whilst sincerely but radically different positions continue to be held across the Communion. The later sections of Lambeth Resolution 1.10 cannot be ignored any more than the first section, as the primates have noted[102]. Moreover, any demonising of homosexual persons, or their ill treatment, is totally against Christian charity and basic principles of pastoral care. We urge provinces to be pro-active in support of the call of Lambeth Resolution 64 (1988) for them to “reassess, in the light of … study and because of our concern for human rights, its care for and attitude toward persons of homosexual orientation”...

From a report on the progress of the "listening process" in Nigeria:

...In Nigerian traditional culture homosexuality is seen as taboo. Homosexuals are thought of as threatening the divinely ordained order of the community. The Western idea of human rights is subservient to the service of the common good. The so called ‘right’ to homosexual orientation threatens the order of society because the continuation of the race is threatened by gay practice. Children are treasured as fruits of marriage and any union, as a gay union, that prevents the propagation of the community's growth is a personal shame to be openly censured.

The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) has therefore strongly opposed the developments in the Episcopal Church (USA), the Church of Canada and the Church of England. The Primate has called for the Church of England to be disciplined within the Anglican Communion for its response to the Civil Partnership Act.

In Nigeria the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act 2006 is passing through the legislature. The House of Bishops has supported it because we understand that it is designed to strengthen traditional marriage and family life and to prevent wholesale importation of currently damaging Western values. It bans same sex unions, all homosexual acts and the formation of any gay groups. The Standing Committee of the Church of Nigeria has twice commended the act in their Message to the Nation...

J.

Pittsburgh's Bizarre Scenarios

We have previously discussed the recent actions of the Convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh:

...To join another Province, according to the new Section 2, Article I of the Constitution, would no longer require a constitutional change (and two Conventions), but a simple canonical change (which, according to the current Canons, does not require the approval of two Conventions). At the same time, as long as the new proposed Canon that identifies the Province as TEC is in place, it is probably assumed that they will be protected from charges of abandoning the Church.

Which means at next year's Convention, they can vote on the constitutional changes for the second time, and then also vote to remove TEC from the new canon and insert the name of the Province of their choice. They will make the jump in one day; protected from ecclesiastical discipline the day before, and be able to claim TEC has no jurisdiction over them the day after...

What we did not discuss was some of the more bizarre assumptions being made by the leadership of Pittsburgh.

Joan R. Gundersen, President of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, helps us identify some of these strange ideas. In a report regarding a Diocesan Council meeting in Pittsburgh held prior to Convention, Joan notes the following:

...When asked what would happen, should these constitutional amendments be passed in 2007 and 2008, to those parishes that wish to maintain a relationship with The Episcopal Church, the bishop informed us that there is a process for parishes to leave the diocese spelled out in the settlement of the Calvary lawsuit. In other words, he continues to insist that those of us who are staying in The Episcopal Church are the ones who are leaving, and the ones leaving the church get to take everything with them. The bishop is claiming that he gets to claim the property of the loyal parishes, and he expects us to have to negotiate with him to keep our property! This misreads the settlement, which specifies that property remains with “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America”...

You can find more details about Calvary's litigation here.

After Convention, Joan made the following observation regarding statements made by Bp. Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh:

...Bishop Duncan continued to assert his unique theory of diocesan independence, reversing the generally accepted understanding of Episcopal Church polity. Once again, he asserted that those wishing to remain in TEC would have to leave the diocese to do so, seemingly denying that it is he and his supporters who want out of TEC. The bishop then suggested that property currently held in common, including Trinity Cathedral and Calvary Camp, should, after a split, be administered for the benefit of all. It became clear, in other words, that he expects both to leave TEC and remain in control of its assets, which he would then generously offer to share with those he had dispossessed...

In conversations following Convention, Joan heard the most unusual theories being espoused as to how this would all work out:

...Informal discussions with diocesan leaders since convention have elicited revealing speculation about how events might play out in the diocese. For example, the possibility of having a single diocese with some parishes affiliated with TEC and others associated with a different province has been suggested. It has also been suggested that, should Bishop Duncan be inhibited or deposed, he could affiliate with a foreign Anglican Communion province and be hired by the Pittsburgh Standing Committee to provide episcopal services to the diocese. These bizarre scenarios can now be added to one Bishop Duncan offered on Friday. Apparently concerned that he will not be able to claim all the diocesan property free and clear, he suggested that certain assets might be shared among those of his flock and those wishing to remain in TEC. “Such claims on the property by those separating from The Episcopal Church are contrary to the canons of The Episcopal Church, contrary to the agreement signed in 2005 by Bishop Duncan as part of the settlement of the lawsuit brought against diocesan leaders by Calvary Episcopal Church, and contrary to the rulings on Episcopal Church property by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,” observed attorney and PEP vice president Kenneth Stiles...

It appears that someone needs to inform the leadership of Pittsburgh of exactly what will happen when they leave the Episcopal Church. It is no big secret. We discussed the canonical response by the leadership of TEC just last week. But, in case some in Pittsburgh missed it, here is a summary of the real scenario, as described in Episcopal Life:

...If the Presiding Bishop were to present materials to the Review Committee regarding potential abandonment by the bishops in question, and if the Committee were to agree that abandonment had taken place, the bishops would have two months to recant their positions. If they failed to do so, the matter would go to the full House of Bishops.

If the House concurred, the Presiding Bishop would depose the bishops and declare the episcopates of those dioceses vacant. Those remaining in the Episcopal Church would be gathered to organize a new diocesan convention and elect a replacement Standing Committee, if necessary.

An assisting bishop would be appointed to provide episcopal ministry until a new diocesan bishop search process could be initiated and a new bishop elected and consecrated.

A lawsuit would be filed against the departed leadership and a representative sample of departing congregations if they attempted to retain Episcopal Church property...

J.

The Episcopal Church: Confederal, Federal or Unitary?

The following is a summary of the 1959 dissertation by James Allen (Jim) Dator, Professor, and Director of the Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies, Department of Political Science, University of Hawaii at Manoa. The entire essay can be seen here. The summary is reprinted here with Dr. Dator's permission (thanks, Paul).

_______________________________

The title of my dissertation is The Government of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America: Confederal, Federal, or Unitary?

It was accepted by the Faculty of the Graduate School (School of Government) of The American University, Washington, DC, in 1959 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

As the introduction to my dissertation clearly states, I wrote this dissertation to resolve a constitutional conundrum that personally perplexed and interested me, and not because I had any a priori preference for one outcome over others. Moreover I was not involved in any actual controversy in the Church, and I don't recall that it was in fact an especially hot topic at the time, though the matter has always been in dispute. It was just that, as a political scientist (and Anglican) who had to write a doctoral dissertation about something I decided to write it on this issue since I wanted to know what the fundamental structure of the PECUSA was, having read so many conflicting statements about it. I was also interested in the emerging topic of "private governance" and saw this dissertation as a contribution to that field.

I started my dissertation out by reviewing the extensive history of differences of opinion (and strident conflicts) within PECUSA about whether the government is confederal, federal or unitary (and these terms were often specifically used over the history of the controversies).

I then did what I believed no one had done before--carefully defined what the three terms (confederal, federal, or unitary) actually meant, so that I could determine what the case truly was (important in part because historically people often used the terms very loosely, as I showed, and thus misleadingly for people reading the
comments later).

Then, on page 53 and 54, after carefully reviewing the various drafts of a constitution for PECUSA, and the Church's Constitution as adopted on October 2, 1789, I conclude two things:

(1) The Church's constitution was NOT made in imitation of the US Constitution. Thus, while the US Constitution is a federal system, giving the states certain rights and the central government other rights, "there is not explicit in the Church's Constitution of 1789 any definition of a division of powers [between the dioceses and the General Convention], even though the framers of that Constitution had models of both the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution before them" (p. 53).

(2) PECUSA was created as a unitary and not a federal government: "In summary, neither Bishop White's "Case", nor the "Fundamental Principles" of 1784, nor the "General Ecclesiastical Constitution" of 1785, nor the "General Constitution of 1786," nor the Constitution of 1789 provided explicitly for a constitutional division of powers. Such a division of powers is an essential manifestation of both federal and confederal governments. Neither is there any other evidence to indicate that the Constitution is one of a confederation. Indeed, as far as the written Constitution is explicitly concerned, the Church's government is unitary" (p. 54).

This was not changed subsequently: "An examination of the constitutional amendments accepted by the General Convention [from 1789-1959] shows that no section has been added to the Constitution either for the specific or incidental purpose of affirming or denying the federal or confederal (p. 54) structure of the Church or of a division of powers between the central and diocesan governments" (p. 55). The original unitary structure still stands.

Concerning the Canons of the Church, I wrote on p. 57ff, "The [first] canons were concerned only with establishing the qualifications of candidates to Holy Orders throughout the Church. Consequently it was clearly determined that while candidates were required to have the approval of and guarantee of support from the ecclesiastical authorities in their dioceses, General Convention was competent to set any qualifications supplementing or obliterating those of the dioceses." "These first canons also showed that General Convention could significantly control the internal instruments of government of the dioceses even though the Constitution did not give them specific authority to do so." "Thus, the first General Convention not only presumed competence for controlling diocesan governments and the qualifications of ministers, but for the operation of parochial (p. 58) government as well. Such far-reaching authority is more typical of a unitary than of a federal or confederal government, especially inasmuch as the Constitution did not specifically or by reasonable inference give General Convention these powers" [ie., they were not "given" because they were assumed naturally to exist]. "There is little of significance about which the dioceses possess exclusive jurisdiction--and.even this may at any time be removed by General Convention through canonical legislation or constitutional amendment" (p. 59).

Since the way a constitution is amended is a strong indicator as to whether it is unitary, federal, or confederal, I devoted thirty-four mind-numbing pages to this issue and said, "It must be concluded that there is no evidence to lead to the conclusion that a federal or confederal government was intended in the adoption of the 1789 Constitution, as far as the process of enactment itself is concerned. The debate on the reconstitution of the Episcopal Church in both Diocesan and General Conventions was at no time concerned with the question of a distribution of powers and the protection of diocesan rights." "The amending process, also, is neither federal nor confederal, but, rather, unitary" (p. 95).

Similarly, after a lengthy consideration of who attends and participates in meetings of the General Convention I concluded, "Consequently, there is no evidence sufficiently strong to lead to the conclusion that members of General Convention are representatives of the dioceses of the Church. While membership in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies is apportioned on an equal basis to the dioceses, and on a reduced but proportionate basis to missionary districts, members of the House of Deputies are representatives of the Church 'in' the dioceses, not 'of' the dioceses. It is the Church, in two orders, which is being represented in the House of
Deputies, not the dioceses.

"In the House of Bishops there is no problem about representation. Since all Bishops of the Church are permitted full privileges in the House of Bishops, there is no question of whom they represent. The House of Bishops represents nothing, It is composed of all the Bishops of the Church, holding their membership virtute officii" (p. 122).

Voting procedures in General Convention also are not those of a federal or confederal system: "Voting normally proceeds in the House of Deputies on the basis of majority rule in the House--regardless of orders or dioceses. The Vote by Orders procedure may be requested by the members of either order of a dioceses' delegates or may be constitutionally or canonically required on special measures. There is no requirement for a vote to be taken by dioceses in the House of Bishops. Consequently, while the vote by orders does appear federal or confederal, it is not a mandatory method in all instances, and the alternate voting procedures are not essentially connected with the federal, confederal, or unitary question"(p. 128).

"The bicameralism of General Convention, as such, appears in no way to have been meant to emphasize a federal structure" (p. 129).

"There appears to be no limit to the power of General Convention but its own self-limitations. Specifically, there is no evidence in the Constitution that the power of the General Convention was to be in any way limited in favor of diocesan conventions, nor that the two were to have mutually exclusive powers in any particular area" as would be the case were the Church federal or confederal (p.131f).

"The General Convention exhibits two structural characteristics that are reminiscent of federal, and especially confederal, governments in its basis of apportionment to, and vote by orders provision in, the House of Deputies of the General Convention. However, these features are placed within a legislative framework that otherwise appears to be unitary in design and intent." "Most importantly, the governing powers of General Convention are not fundamentally limited by the Constitution"(132).

Concerning the episcopate, I said "Thus the conclusion must be reached on the basis both of precedent and the analysis of the written Constitutions and Canon, that, while in the absence of legislation by General Convention to the contrary the dioceses may define the roles of their bishops, there is no legal basis upon which General Convention can be kept from enacting its own all-inclusive canons for the election and conduct of the episcopate and from overriding all diocesan Canons to the contrary.

"[I]t seems that there is no legal barrier, within the Church's polity itself as defined by the Constitution and Canons, to prevent legislation on the episcopate" (p. 156).

Concerning the office of the Presiding Bishop, the National Council, the method of financing the Church, I concluded, "The Presiding Bishop, the Church's 'chief executive,' has never been (p. 171) in any way governmentally responsible to the dioceses. Instead he was originally responsible (if at all) only to the House of Bishops, and especially more recently to the General Convention as a whole. The dioceses do not participate in his selection at all."

"The same is also true of the National Council, an agency wholly extra-constitutional.." "The National Council remains very considerably under the control of General Convention, and in the execution of its programs, upon the pleasure of dioceses and parishes. But this political (p. 172) weakness should not be interpreted as evidence of federalism or confederalism".

It was in its reliance on diocesan courts and the absence of any courts of the national church alone that the government of the Church most appeared confederal. There was not even a national final court of appeals from diocesan and provincial decisions. The authority was given in 1901 to the General Convention to create a "final court of appeals on matters of doctrine, faith or worship"--thus indicating that the system is fundamentally unitary--though the Convention had not created such a court by the time I wrote the dissertation (p. 180f). I also discussed the role of the civil courts in Church disputes (pp. 181-186).

And then, in a chapter on the provinces and dioceses, I discuss whether it is legal for a diocese to nullify an act of General Convention and/or to secede from the PECUSA:

"THE PROBLEM OF NULLIFICATION AND SECESSION. Do the dioceses posses the right to nullify or otherwise declare of no effect (and make their declaration effective) legislation by General Convention? May any diocese secede from the Church for cause or at will?

"There has never been anything in the Constitution of the Church which allowed, or reasonably could be inferred to allow, a diocese either to nullify acts of General Convention or to secede from the Church against General Convention's will, either to become an independent Church itself or to join with other dioceses to form a separate Church, or to unite with an existing church.

"As to the matter of practice, there appears to have been no instance in the Church's history when a diocese has declared at [sic] act of General Convention of no effect within that diocese's boundaries. Therefore it seems that no diocese has ever acted (p. 200) to nullify an act of General Convention. Thus, in answer to the first question raised above, it may be stated that dioceses do not possess the right of nullification over General Conventions' actions, but, rather, must obey them. There being no other body within the Church to interpret the Church's Constitution and Canons save the General Convention, a diocese disagreeing with these document legal can only seek to have remedial legislation passed by the Convention itself."

"In regard to the second question, however, the answer is more involved. While the Constitution and Canons do not allow for secession per se, there has been one major act of separation within the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. This act of separation was the result of the formation of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States of America" (p. 201).

The key word here is "in:" the Church IN the US or the Confederate States, not OF the US/Confederacy. Just as independence from England in 1776 had required a new governance system (but no doctrinal differences) for the former Church of England in the colonies, so many churchmen in the South made a similar argument when the South seceded from the North. However, even though many in the North were sympathetic to the logic of the Southern argument, at no time was the Southern church considered to be legitimate by PECUSA: at the only General Convention held during the Civil War/War Between the States, the names of each of the southern dioceses were called during roll call votes, recognizing that they were still part of PECUSA.

Moreover, the fact that the first General Convention was held immediately after the War was over, and before Reconstruction caused great bitterness between North and South, meant that the brief separation was quickly healed with all of the southern dioceses rejoining the Church and without any mention, must less sanction, of their separation being taken by the Church.

Thus, even the experience of the Church in the Confederate States "leads to the conclusion that a diocese can not secede without the permission of General Convention." (p. 213).

The substantive part of my dissertation concluded with a consideration of how new dioceses are admitted into the Church, "the governmental responsibility of missionary districts, and the question of whether membership in the Episcopal Church is determined by the parish, diocese, or National Church, particularly whether or not a person has dual membership in both the dioceses and National Church" (p. 214).

Here as in every other instance the conclusion was that the Church is unitary and not federal or confederal. "The absence of dual membership between the national Church and the dioceses, or the fact that the individual is member of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States alone, strengthens this conclusion" (p, 224).

The final chapter, Six, then carefully (pp. 225-246) compares the various aspects of Church governance described in the previous chapters, with the criteria for evaluation developed in the first chapter, and concludes: "The Episcopal Church is unitary in structure, but it is highly decentralized, both the dioceses and the parishes participating fully and extensively in the confederal-like decentralization" (p. 245).

In the appendix I briefly considered several other matters, some not directly related to the subject of the dissertation (eg, the name of the Church, and the various "parties" within it), but some are (eg., various opinions on the role of the "Ancient Canons", the Constitution of the Confederate Church, and the attempt to create a "Reformed Episcopal Church" in 1873). An important point about the latter is that the split was not made on a diocesan basis, but on the basis of certain"low church" people who thought the Church was becoming too "high church" (296-299). Even more significantly for the point of my dissertation, both the Church in the Confederate States and the Reformed Church were created on a unitary basis! There are no rights, including secession, reserved for the dioceses in either splinter group.

Thus, in spite of a great deal of rhetoric and agitation to the contrary there is nothing in the history of PECUSA through 1959 that supports the right of a diocese or parish to secede from the Church.

James Allen Dator
_____________________________________________

Thank you, Dr. Dator. I especially appreciated the clarity you bring to the matter of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States of America.

What did you find noteworthy in this summary?

J.

UPDATE: Dr. Dator's summary first appeared at the Episcopal Cafe on November 3. I was not aware of this when I republished it here.

When is an Apology Not an Apology?

When it is "qualified."

Greg Griffith accused an Episcopal Bishop of showing solidarity with terrorists. You can read the post, and the ugly comments that followed, here.

The bishop in question, the Rt. Rev. Barbara Harris, was contacted. It appears Greg got it wrong.

He issued an "apology," with this qualification:

...I allowed past shows of support of Yassir Arafat and the Palestinians by Bishop Harris, like this, to influence my thinking...

In other words, since Bp. Harris is supportive of the plight of the Palestinians, he is justified in accusing her of being in solidarity with Hamas terrorists. He apologizes for the mistaken identity, but stands by his accusation. That is an apology?

If this was an isolated case, one might be able to say forgive and forget. Unfortunately, this reveals a pattern of troubling behavior by the manager of Stand Firm.

I am not alone in suggesting that Greg and the site he manages have given us good reasons to be concerned. From Mark Harris:

...At the close of his hate article, Greg Griffith says this :
"Presentment and defrocking would be too good for you. I'll restrain myself from describing what I think an appropriate punishment would be, but it would start with shipping you to Gaza or the West Bank and seeing how things go for a woman who tries to preach the Christian faith."

What does he think folk there might do? It doesn't matter, he wants it to be bad and fulfill some fantasy of punishing women, or women preachers. Hate takes many forms.

I have always been a believer in paying for services rendered. I once sent a small contribution to Stand Firm for the work they did in bringing several reports through Anglican TV that were useful and several bits of information that backed up what was being reported elsewhere. There are occasions when I have to read Stand Firm just as I have to read Titus One Nine and BabyBlue. But Stand Firm has to clean house soon. They might start by removing this piece of crap, apologizing and sending Greg for some serious counseling.

From Katie Sherrod:

...Greg Griffith apologized in his usual style, taking more swipes at Bp. Harris along the way. And the commentors managed to insult her several more times while commenting on the apology. Geesh, these people are amazing...

...So why write about all this? It just calls attention to them.
I do so because violence is a disturbing theme on Stand Firm, and a subtext to much of the swaggering rhetoric of the 'traditionalist" camp...

...the underlying reason for the deep rage -- and violence -- simmering just below the surface in so many of the men AND women in the "traditional Anglican" camp. White men aren't in charge anymore, at least not they way they think they are entitled to be. They are being challenged by women, minorities, and --worst of all -- gay men!...

I think most folks will agree that the manager of Stand Firm is in need of professional help. Let's hope he gets it soon.

This does bring up another concern. It appears that Greg Griffith is also very involved in Kendall Harmon's new site. Since my experience is that Canon Harmon conducts himself as a gentleman at all times, one wonders why he continues to yoke his work with such an unstable person.

Such sharing of resources suggests the possibility that Mr. Griffith's violent and misogynist attacks represent a perspective within the ultra-conservative position that, if not directly sanctioned, is at least tolerated. I hope that I am mistaken.

J.

UPDATE: Don't miss Elizabeth Kaeton's contribution to this conversation: Bullies and Thugs for Jesus.

2nd UPDATE: Susan Russell offers Blessed Are You.

A New Low for Stand Firm

From the Stand Firm manager, the "pistol packing" Greg Griffith:

Just when you think Episcopalians can't embarrass you any more, something like this happens: Yet another San Francisco march against something-or-other, in which The Rev. Barbara Harris appeared wearing this stole...

...What's the problem?

The problem is that the stole is a take-off on the kaffiyeh with the trademark pattern of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. It was sported by Yassir Arafat, and more recently by Hugo Chavez as a show of support for Hamas...

...Barbara Harris, you have reached a new disgusting low. You have taken a sacred Christian garment and defiled it with the symbol of murderous Islamic thugs. Presentment and defrocking would be too good for you. I'll restrain myself from describing what I think an appropriate punishment would be, but it would start with shipping you to Gaza or the West Bank and seeing how things go for a woman who tries to preach the Christian faith.

I'd be very interested to hear from the rest of the Episcopal left about what they think of this.

Since you asked...

1. Did you verify who this is in this picture? Or is this just another one of your random attacks in which the facts are of little importance? Personally, I see little resemblance in the two pictures you offer as "evidence." But, even if you are correct, did you bother to find out the story of the scarf? Did you check to see if Bp. Harris does indeed support Hamas? Or did you just leap to make your point without any consideration of the possible damage you might cause to someone's reputation?

2. Are you assuming that the only "Christian" response is to side with Israel against the Palestinians? If so, you are mistaken. The only difference I see between the violence committed by both sides is that the Israelis use state-sponsored terrorism. Or are you going to suggest that the Israeli army has killed no innocent Palestinians?

Hamas is officially listed as a terrorist organization by Canada,the European Union, Israel, Japan, and the United States. However, Hamas was voted in by free elections in Palestine, at which time they declared the end of suicide bombers. That's the problem with democracy; sometimes it is not the good guys who get elected (a similar example of this problem exists in the US, from my perspective).

To support the plight of Palestinians is a valid Christian response to the tensions in the Middle East, as is support for those who suffer in Israel. Both are victims of violence.

Personally, I would not choose to support Hamas, due to their history of targeting innocent civilians. But, I cannot support the Israeli army for the same reason.

Greg, you have reached a new disgusting low with your harsh words to Bishop Harris, based on little evidence. You have once again defamed a person that you obviously know little about to make a political point.

Sadly, I am not surprised, however, in light of some of your other more recent postings.

Folks, keep this in mind the next time someone offers you "news" from Stand Firm. This is just one among many examples that should make it clear that as long as that site is managed by Greg Griffith, it can no longer be considered a reputable source for information.

J.

Pittsburgh Chooses Anglican Limbo

From Episcopal Life:

The annual convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh November 2 gave the first of two approvals needed to enact a constitutional change to remove language in the diocesan constitution stating that the diocese accedes to the Episcopal Church's Constitution and Canons as the church's constitution requires.
Deputies voted 118 to 58 with one abstention to approve Resolution One. Clergy voted 109 to 24 in favor.

An effort, labeled Resolution Two, to instead return the diocese to full "accession" to The Episcopal Church was defeated by voice vote.

"This vote does not change the diocese's current affiliation with The Episcopal Church. In fact, nothing at all changes until such a time as the next annual convention approves a second reading of the proposed amendment," Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan said in a news release...

He is correct; this changes nothing. But, it does place the Diocese of Pittsburgh in a rather strange transitional state in which they are still part of the Episcopal Church, but not fully. And since their connection to the Anglican Communion is through the Episcopal Church, they are also caught in an inbetween place in regards to their status within the Communion. They have chosen what might best be decribed as "Anglican Limbo," at least until next year.

Here is what Pittsburgh did that "changes nothing," yet sets up their planned jump out of TEC: There is this new Section 2 of Article I to be inserted in the Constitution:

The Diocese of Pittsburgh shall have membership in such Province of the Anglican Communion as is by diocesan Canon specified.

Then, at the end, a new Canon is proposed:

Canon _____ (number to be determined)
“Provincial Membership within the Anglican Communion.”

The Diocese of Pittsburgh shall be a member of that Province of the Anglican Communion known as The (Protestant) Episcopal Church in the United States of America.

Note that with the removal of the accession clause, there is now no reference to the Episcopal Church in the Constitution. The only reference to TEC is now within the Canons.

To join another Province, according to the new Section 2, Article I of the Constitution, would no longer require a constitutional change (and two Conventions), but a simple canonical change (which, according to the current Canons, does not require the approval of two Conventions). At the same time, as long as the new proposed Canon that identifies the Province as TEC is in place, it is probably assumed that they will be protected from charges of abandoning the Church.

Which means at next year's Convention, they can vote on the constitutional changes for the second time, and then also vote to remove TEC from the new canon and insert the name of the Province of their choice. They will make the jump in one day; protected from ecclesiastical discipline the day before, and be able to claim TEC has no jurisdiction over them the day after.

That's the plan, anyway. However, it is worth noting that roughly one-third of the lay delegation and one-fifth of the clergy voted against this maneuver. This is a large enough group of faithful Episcopalians to reform the day after next year's Convention. They now have a year to make their plans as well.

There's another change Pittsburgh made to their constitution today that has not gotten much notice, but I find quite noteworthy; the change to the existing Section 2 of Article I, which now becomes Section 3 of Article I. Before today's amendment, this section was as follows:

Section 2. The Diocese of Pittsburgh embraces all those counties of the State of Pennsylvania known as Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Cambria, Fayette, Greene, Indiana, Somerset, Washington and Westmoreland.

Today's amendment changes it to this:

The Diocese of Pittsburgh embraces all those counties of the State of Pennsylvania known as Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Cambria, Fayette, Greene, Indiana, Somerset, Washington and Westmoreland. Additionally, for reasons found satisfactory to any Convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, parishes outside of the boundaries of the aforementioned counties may be considered for admission into union with the Diocese of Pittsburgh, provided that they meet all other requirements set forth in the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for canonical admission.

Pittsburgh intends to be a non-geographical Diocese. In other words, they will be able to compete with CANA, AMiA, etc. to pick up parishes all over the country. I would think that this particular amendment should be the primary concern of our leaders in regards to what is being hatched in Pittsburgh.

Episcopal Life also offers us Bp. Duncan's response to the Presiding Bishop's recent letter:

The day before the start of the Pittsburgh convention Duncan declined Jefferts Schori's requests. His three-sentence letter dated November 1 said in full: "Here I stand. I can do no other. I will neither compromise the Faith once delivered to the saints, nor will I abandon the sheep who elected me to protect them."

Well, that at least answers the question as to with which body Bp. Duncan hopes to realign. Obviously he has become a Lutheran. No doubt he will shun the ELCA, as they are contaminated with Episcopal cooties through the full communion agreement. Missouri Synod would seem to be a good fit for him. And then, in a couple of years, he can break with them over some invented controversy and form the Pennsylvania Synod.

The leader of the P. S. Quite fitting. I suspect in future years that is what all this sturm und drang coming out of Pittsburgh will amount to; a postscript in the history of the Episcopal Church.

Mark's got some thoughts on all of this as well. Go take a look.

J.

Dave Reveals the Truth About Bishops' Meetings

Cartoon by Dave Walker.

J.