Obtained via email; in wide circulation at present so important for blog readers to see; please read it all and follow all the links–KSH.

The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin
The Central Third of California
The Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb, Bishop
The Rev. Canon Mark H. Hall, Canon to the Ordinary

Dear Bishops and Standing Committee Members,

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin joins me in sending you this letter that outlines our grave concerns about the election of the Rev. Daniel Martins as the Bishop Diocesan of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois.

Our concern is not about the electing process, but about the suitability of Daniel Martins to be ordained a bishop in the Episcopal Church. We write to you now before the consent process is in full swing, so you will know of our concerns and have a chance to review pertinent information about Daniel Martins and his involvement in the attempted separation of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin from the Episcopal Church. We also request that you visit Daniel Martins’ website (http://cariocaconfessions.blogspot.com/) and review his comments about the startup of the Continuing Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin.
All of the material concerning Daniel Martins’ relationship to the Diocese of San Joaquin can be found on our diocesan website (www.diosanjoaquin.org) under “Updates” on the right sidebar or by direct link at http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/dioceseofspringfieldconsent.html.

Daniel Martins came to the Diocese of San Joaquin in 1994 when he was called to be the rector of St. John the Evangelist Episcopal Church in Stockton. He remained at St. John’s until August 2007 when he accepted a call to St. Anne’s Episcopal Church in Warsaw, Diocese of Northern Indiana. St. John’s is the oldest Episcopal Church in Stockton (and was one of the leading parishes in the diocese.) Only months after Martins left St. John’s, the parish chose to follow John-David Schofield in the attempt to leave the Episcopal Church. It is our contention that Daniel Martins did not prepare this congregation to remain in the Episcopal Church, but did just the opposite. St. John’s, Stockton is one of the few incorporated parishes in the diocese, and we were forced to file suit to recover this property for the Episcopal Church.

While residing in the Diocese of San Joaquin, Daniel Martins was very active in diocesan affairs. He was elected a deputy to General Convention multiple times, the last time in 2006. The Diocesan Council meeting minutes on April 8, 2006 report on a discussion of the upcoming Diocesan Convention resolution regarding disassociation from the Episcopal Church. In response to a question as to why deputies to General Convention 2006 had questions about the timing of the resolution, the Rev James Snell is referenced: “Read e-mail from Dan Martins. Endorse substance of proposal but concerned that (1) language provocative, (2) timing is ill-advised (prior to GC 2006) – diverts attention, (3) resolution will be spun by Bps adversaries, (4) robs GC deputations of effectiveness and credibility at GC. If GC rejects Windsor Report, then it will be time to act and Dan will lead the charge.” (See http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/doc/CouncilMinutesApr2006)

In John-David Schofield’s address to convention in December 2006, when the first reading of the proposed change to the Constitution was made, he made the following statement, “Working independently of this Virginia meeting, three of our rural deans: Frs. Dan Martins, Jim Snell, and Richard James came up with a substitute for the original proposed changes to our diocesan constitution.” This substitute amendment became the very amendment that the disaffiliating parties attempted to use as their vehicle to leave the Church. (See http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/doc/SchofieldAddr2006)

When former Bishop Schofield called for a vote in 2006 on this constitutional change removing the accession clause (after rejecting the motion for a secret ballot) and called for a vote by delegates standing in favor, reliable witnesses noted that Daniel Martins voted in the affirmative.

The Standing Committee and I contend Daniel Martins was instrumental to the process that led to first and second votes by the diocese to change the Constitutions and Canons that resulted in the failed attempt to unilaterally leave the Episcopal Church. Further excerpts from Diocesan documents are available at our diocesan website. (See for example, email dated June17, 2007 from Martins to Standing Committee http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/doc/Email6172007, Standing Committee minutes from June 2007 http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/doc/SCMinutesJun2007, and email from Dan Martins in December 2006 http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/doc/Email12182006).

We also urge you to read excerpts from Daniel Martins’ blog entitled “Confessions of a Carioca.” (See http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/doc/DanMartinsBlogExcerpts) The following are examples from his blog.

3-5-2008: There’s a new group of Non-Jurors in the process of formation even as I write. They are former clergy and laity of the Diocese of San Joaquin. Their principled stand places them between the “rock” of their former bishop, whom they have loved and served loyally, but whom they cannot in good conscience follow to the Province of the Southern Cone, and the “hard place” of the noncanonical rump “remaining” Diocese of San Joaquin, which they cannot in good conscience join because it represents the raw exercise of naked illicit power by the Presiding Bishop, and because to do so would compromise their oath of loyalty to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.

7-13-2008: Now, aside from the … what shall we say? … ungenerous … tone of the missive, it raises some curious issues. It comes as no news that, for a number of substantive technical reasons, I recognize neither the constitutional foundation of the “Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin” nor the authority of Bishop Jerry Lamb. By any rational reading of the Constitution & Canons of the Episcopal Church, we’re talking about a bogus diocese with a bogus bishop, though they have some impressive-looking stationery. That they exist at all, and are able to maintain the chimera of legitimacy is a result only of the raw exercise of naked political power on the part of the Presiding Bishop. She is manifestly guilty of presentable offenses but it will never happen because the political calculus just isn’t there.

Out of concern for the Episcopal Church, we urge you to review the information in this letter, on our website (http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/dioceseofspringfieldconsent.html), and in Daniel Martins’ own blog.

Upon reviewing the materials, we believe that it is clear that Daniel Martins not only actively supported and voted to attempt to remove the Diocese from the Episcopal Church. Furthermore, it is implicit in his writings and actions that he clearly holds the belief that a Diocese may leave this Church unilaterally, which is contrary to our understanding of Anglicanism and the polity of the Episcopal Church.

In closing, the consent process, as mandated by our canons, is the only way the wider Church can respond to the election of a person to be a bishop. Accordingly, we would ask you to join us in withholding consent for Daniel Martins to become the Bishop of Springfield.

Peace,

–(The Rt. Rev.) Jerry A. Lamb is Bishop of San Joaquin [the TEC Affiliated Diocese]

Members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin

How do you come up with an extra $10 million in a budget which you are already slashing by $2.1 million? “Voodoo economics” is a term which Episcopalians may have to revive to apply to the solution for the hurting Diocese of Haiti which the Executive Council finds in this particular situation. Once again, I am somehow certain that whatever that solution turns out to be, it will not involve the settling of any pending lawsuits . . .

And then today, we have ENS’s next item about the Executive Council Meeting, which reports — among other things — the opening address to it given by the Presiding Bishop. I hesitate to criticize the ENS reporter, who is an experienced professional, and has always has done her job superlatively. Therefore, in copying that reporter’s exact words in what follows, I leave it to the reader to determine whether what is reported is, shall we say, more or less coherent:

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori challenged the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council Oct. 24 to avoid “committing suicide by governance.”

Jefferts Schori said that the council and the church face a “life-or-death decision,” describing life as “a renewed and continually renewing focus on mission” and death as “an appeal to old ways and to internal focus” which devotes ever-greater resources to the institution and its internal conflicts.

Does anyone else besides this Curmudgeon perceive in these words a certain parallel — not exact, I grant you, but close enough to be exceedingly troubling — with a certain situation involving a sinking ocean liner, whose Captain is urging everyone, while facing a “life-or-death decision,” not to spend too much more time rearranging the deck chairs, and instead to scramble for the lifeboats?

Read it carefully and read it all.

…the first dean of St. Matthew’s Cathedral, the Very Rev. Hudson Stuck, was well versed in the precedents of church history. “For consider that every organized diocese is essentially an independent, autonomous portion of the church, having all that is necessary for a church,” he wrote in 1895. Statements like this were not made to defeat a “national church,” as none existed then on the terms we now see being proposed. They were made out of enthusiasm for spreading the gospel, because Dallas was complete as a diocese and so suited for the challenge. To quote the Rt. Rev. James Stanton, sixth Bishop of Dallas, sovereignty in the context that Stuck and Garrett used it did not mean going it alone. Garrett made this clear when he said that the “fullness of the apostolic power, to which I have referred again and again as the great deposit of authority, resides not in each individual bishop, but in the complete apostolic college. It resides in the whole body of bishops.”

The revisions to Title IV enacted by General Convention at Anaheim in 2009 turn the principles of the founders of the Diocese of Dallas and those of the entire Episcopal Church on their head. As neatly summarized in the excellent article on this subject written by Alan Runyan and Mark McCall, these amendments inflict a broad range of damage that should be of grave concern to Episcopalians across the entire political spectrum. They enable a bishop (and the presiding bishop) not only to serve as policeman writing the citation, but also to sit as a member of the three-person board (or grand jury) that will be appointed to replace a duly elected standing committee.

Any resemblance to due process as we understand it in this country has been eliminated from Title IV, including protection of ordained clergy against self-incrimination. Clergy must now “testify and cooperate”; they must “self-report” an offense; and they will no longer hear Miranda warnings. As rewritten, Title IV works to the advantage of those who currently hold authority within TEC. With a change in regime, however, it could easily become an instrument of control by those they oppose. Good law should serve all parties, not simply whichever group may be in power.

Read it all.

The Diocese of South Carolina synod has revised its bylaws in a bid to protect itself from legal predations from the national Episcopal Church. Meeting on Oct 15, at St Paul’s Church in Summerville, South Carolina adopted six resolutions that ended the diocese’s automatic accession to the national church’s canons.

At the close of its March meeting, Bishop Mark Lawrence postponed the 219th annual meeting of the diocesan convention, after US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori engaged an attorney to represent the Episcopal Church in South Carolina. The diocese requested an explanation for what it saw as an unlawful usurpation of authority by the presiding bishop, and postponed the adjournment of its synod pending a response.

The presiding bishop declined to respond, but as it waited the diocesan leadership began a review of the national church canons enacted at the 2009 General Convention covering clergy discipline.

“What we found was shocking,” Canon Kendall Harmon told Anglican TV, as it “violates due process” and natural justice.

Read it all.

“Whether a target’s on my back or not on my back is not my chief concern,” [Bishop Mark Lawrence] said. “I believe we should get on with the mission to which God has called us in the Anglican Communion.”

The bishop said that energy for mission is moving away from institutions, whether the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion’s Instruments of Unity, and toward more direct relationships, such as the diocese’s new arrangement to welcome the Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, the retired Bishop of Rochester, England, as “visiting bishop in South Carolina for Anglican Communion Development.”

“Out of these relationships, I believe, the solutions will emerge,” Bishop Lawrence said. “We’re living in a world in which inhibitions and depositions can intrude into a vision.”

Lawrence added that he does not see himself as violating his ordination vows to conform to the doctrine and discipline of the church. Instead, he said, bishops who approve unconstitutional canons or who revise church teaching on sexual morality have violated their vows.

“We’re increasingly in a world in which people expect a bishop to swear fealty to every resolution of General Convention, regardless of its theological foundations,” he said.

Read it all.

In the hierarchy of church law, the Constitution is at the top. Then comes the Book of Common Prayer, with its rubrics and liturgies which require two successive meetings of General Convention to be changed. Last come the Canons, or bylaws, which may be adopted by vote of a single General Convention.

If Canons (bylaws) are enacted which are contrary to the Constitution or the Book of Common Prayer, what is one to do? How can one follow canons which are contrary to the Church’s higher law, and still claim to “accede” to the Constitution of the Church?

This is the constitutional dilemma which now, thanks to the misguided zeal of General Convention 2009 and its predecessors, confronts every diocese in the Church, and not just the Diocese of South Carolina. The latest General Convention adopted far-ranging changes to the Title IV disciplinary canons of the Church. There is no rational way in which any sane person, viewing the changes as a whole, can conclude that all of the changes so made are consistent with the provisions in ECUSA’s Constitution.

Read it all.

While the expectation of visitation is referenced in a canonical change since Dawley’s work, the Constitution nowhere authorizes such action. Furthermore, the lack of juridical powers remains directly and unambiguously supported by our Constitution. Thus the constitutional and polity concerns, among others, I had upon discovering that the presiding bishop’s chancellor had retained in South Carolina an attorney who presented himself as “South Carolina counsel for the Episcopal Church.” Her lack of juridical powers within an independent diocese made the hiring of an attorney without my permission an unconstitutional act. The stated defense for this incursion was the protection of church property to the point of choosing the coercive power of civil courts as the best way to resolve challenges TEC faces over profound questions of doctrine, morality and discipline, regardless of local issues or the decisions of the diocesan ecclesiastical authority.

This is a profound overreach of the presiding bishop’s authority. Though certainly there are many within TEC who strongly disagree with my theological commitments, or my vigorous statements of how TEC continues to tear the fabric of the Anglican Communion, the thing we are confronting now is of a different nature. It is a challenge to our polity: Of how for 200 years the Episcopal Church has carried out its mission and ministry. It is one of the ironies of this time that the Diocese of South Carolina, which has been one of the more serious critics of the “national” church, should be among those defending the polity of TEC and its Constitution. But history is full of such paradoxes.

In protecting our independence as a diocese in TEC, in protecting the diocesan bishop’s authority to shepherd the parishes and missions of the diocese, and in defending the bishop and, in his absence, the standing committee as the ecclesiastical authority, we are in fact defending how TEC has done its work since its conception.

Read it all.

Two things are striking about these vows. First, there is no reference to General Convention or any central body. Obedience is pledged to the bishop. Second, the inclusion of a vow of obedience in the rite for the ordination of priests only confirms further the intentional omission of any such vow in the ordination of bishops. Priests make the same declaration of conformity as do bishops, but added to this is a promise of obedience to a hierarchical authority. And that authority is the bishop.

To conclude, it is erroneous to suggest any violation of the ordination vows in the context of the diocese of South Carolina’s proposed resolutions. When these vows are properly understood, it is apparent that bishops have not only the right but the duty to protect the constitutional integrity of TEC and oppose unconstitutional acts by General Convention.

Read it all.

The revisions to the disciplinary section of the Canons (“Title IV”) proposed at Anaheim in 2009 lived up to Bishop Jefferts Schori’s prediction: with very little time to consider their sweeping nature, and with no line-by-line comparison of what was being changed made available to them (contrary to what the Canons themselves require), the deputies enacted changes the full scope of which no one — not even those who had labored for years to draft them — grasped. The extent of the disciplinary powers over other bishops alone which the new Canons give to the Presiding Bishop transform her — in contrast to what tradition and ECUSA’s Constitution say — into a full-fledged metropolitan. Consider just these points (see this paper for the full details):

* Currently, if the Presiding Bishop wants to bring charges against another bishop, she has to send a written presentation of just the facts, without any editorializing, to an independent “Title IV Review Committee” consisting of bishops, clergy and laity. Under the new Canons, the Presiding Bishop is empowered to refer, “in any form”, information about any offense she thinks “may” have been committed to an “Intake Officer”, whom she alone appoints.
* Currently, the Title IV Review Committee screens and evaluates each potential charge against a bishop. Under the new Title IV, the Presiding Bishop, along with her appointed “Intake Officer”, have two out of the three votes on the “Review Committee” which now screens the charges.
* Currently, the Presiding Bishop may inhibit a bishop only if the Title IV Review Committee decides to present charges, and only if a majority of all the members of the affected diocesan Standing Committee consent. Under the new Title IV, the Presiding Bishop may act alone, and out of the blue, to inhibit a fellow bishop (the word “inhibit” has been replaced by the term “place restrictions on the exercise of the ministry” of a bishop).
* Currently, any inhibition is “temporary”, and is “an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly and limited to preventing immediate and irreparable harm to individuals or to the good order of the Church.” Under the new Title IV there are no such limitations on its use — restrictions may be imposed for any duration, and for any reason(s) the Presiding Bishop, in her sole judgment, thinks are sufficient.

Please read it carefully, follow all the links, and read it all.

“We wish to call to your attention the recent actions … which we believe are accelerating the process of alienation and disassociation of the Diocese of South Carolina from the Episcopal Church,” the [Episcopal] Forum [of South Carolina] wrote in a letter to the Executive Council and House of Bishops.

Diocese officials say the resolutions, if approved, would assert the authority of Scripture and be a step toward realizing a vision of “Making Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age.”

Bishop Mark Lawrence said the Forum was resorting to fear tactics.

“With this latest attack, the Episcopal Forum continues its weary institutional approach to God, as if you can keep people in a church by fear.” Lawrence said. “What we are seeking to do in the Diocese of South Carolina is to hold fast to the best of our Episcopal heritage while sharing Christ’s transforming freedom to the needs of people today.”

Read it all.

f) With the support of the Ecclesiastical Authority a special Diocesan Convention held in October 2009 modified the declaration of conformity, signed by ordinands to the Priesthood or Deaconate, as specified in the Book of Common Prayer and the TEC Constitution”¦.

This is just a wrong understanding of what the Diocesan Convention approved. There has been no modification of the Declaration of Conformity. The ordinands sign only the Declaration as it appears in the Constitution & Canons of TEC and the Book of Common Prayer. The statement referenced is read as clarification of the teaching of this Church for the edification of the faithful in the midst of the many controversies today. I would ask those in the Forum which of the expressions of our heritage they find so offensive””what is expressed in the Creeds, the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral or the theology of the historic prayer books?
(For an intriguing discussion of this matter I suggest members of the Episcopal Forum or other interested persons read a scholarly article in the Journal of Episcopal Canon Law by Jonathan Michael Gray, an assistant Professor of Church History at the Virginia Seminary http://www.vts.edu/canonlaw )

g) With the support of the Bishop, the Standing Committee of the Diocese proposed six Resolutions for the Reconvened Convention to be held on October 15, 2010”¦..

In March we recessed the Diocesan Convention with the constitutional question still pending: The ability of a diocese to govern its common life in a manner that is obedient to the teaching of Holy Scripture (to which every ordained person in this Church has given his or her verbal and written assent), the received heritage of The Episcopal Church, and in accordance with the Constitution of TEC. This has remained unresolved or, more accurately stated, entirely unaddressed by the Presiding Bishop; therein leaving in question our ability to pursue our mission, free from unauthorized intrusions.

Read it all.

At the Clergy Conference held at St. Paul’s, Summerville, on September 2, Mr. Alan Runyan, legal counsel for the Diocese, presented a report detailing revisions to the Title IV Canons of the Episcopal Church, which were approved at the 2009 General Convention. These Canons deal directly with issues of clergy discipline, both for priests and bishops. The impact of these changes is profound. It is our assessment that these changes contradict the Constitution of The Episcopal Church and make unacceptable changes in our polity, elevating the role of bishops, particularly the Presiding Bishop, and removing the duly elected Standing Committee of a Diocese from its current role in most of the disciplinary process. The changes also result in the removal of much of the due process and legal safeguards for accused clergy that are provided under the current Canons. For a detailed explanation of these concerns, members of the diocese are encouraged to review the paper co-authored by Mr. Runyan and found on the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI) website.

In response, the Standing Committee is offering five resolutions to address the concerns we have with these changes. View the resolutions. Each represents an essential element of how we protect the diocese from any attempt at un-Constitutional intrusions into our corporate life in South Carolina. In the coming weeks these resolutions, along with an explanation of the Title IV changes, will be discussed in the Deanery Convocations for delegates, as we prepare for Convention to reconvene on October 15th. By these resolutions, we will continue to stand for the Gospel in South Carolina and pursue our vision of “Making Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age.”

Please follow both links and read all the material carefully–KSH.

You can find it here.

* “The revisions certainly will change the character of the disciplinary process making the disciplinary landscape appear less formal, speedier and more pastoral. However, these goals mask other very unsettling realities of the new disciplinary process, more suggestive of another pastoral analogy: a wolf in sheep’s clothing. (“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” Matthew 7:15 (ESV).”

* “The increased scope of Clergy offenses is breathtaking.”

* “There is no better encapsulation of the sweeping nature of the changes than the wholesale introduction of new terminology. Indeed, many of the most profound changes are introduced by re-defining terms, a practice rightly criticized for its lack of transparency in the corporate legal world.”

* “No longer must the accuser have some knowledge with a reasonable basis ”“ anyone can and must report anything that “may” constitute an offense.”

* “The Bishop has gone from virtual exclusion to virtual control of the initial Clergy charging process.”

* “However, what new Title IV gives the Bishop Diocesan with one hand, it effectively (and stealthily) takes away from him with the other.”

* “Given the breadth and substantive nature of these changes, one is forced to wonder how this could happen. Why was there no outcry from liberal, moderate or conservative Clergy about what can only be termed “excesses?”

* “The deafening silence about these revisions forces us to believe that the sheep’s clothing strategy has been successful.”

* “One cannot help but be both simultaneously saddened and angered by the extensive revisions masked with soothing rhetoric like “pastoral reconciliation.”

Read it all very carefully.

(This is an open letter, dated September 1, written in response to the August 20th open letter from witnesses at the trial of Bishop Charles Bennison; I tried to find a copy to link to on Ms. Anderson’s own website and failed–KSH).

September 1, 2010

To Bennison Trial Witnesses:
Julia Alexis, Episcopal Diocese of El Camino Real
Martha Alexis, Western Diocese, Anglican Church in North America
Andy Alexis, Catholic Diocese of Sacramento
Maggie Thompson, Episcopal Diocese of Vermont
Rev. Margo Maris, pastor, advocate and editor, Episcopal Diocese of Oregon

I was moved by your letter expressing your pain and frustration over the recent ruling by the Episcopal Church’s Court of Review which has made it possible for the Rt. Rev. Charles Bennison to resume the position of Bishop of Pennsylvania. Good people can disagree about how the court interpreted our canons. I believe that most Episcopalians who have followed this case agree that Bishop Bennison’s choice to resume his episcopacy presents significant problems for the Diocese of Pennsylvania and for the wider Church.

I want you to know that I share your hope that the Episcopal Church can be, “a guiding beacon to all people everywhere who are affected in some way by clergy sexual abuse.” I also share your frustration that in your case, and in others, our churches were not “safe sanctuaries” for vulnerable people. And I share your outrage that individuals in positions of authority have been complicit in maintaining a climate of silence and denial that has inhibited our efforts to end sexual abuse within our church.

Like the Diocese of Pennsylvania’s Standing Committee, and many diocesan clergy and laity, I wish that Bishop Bennison had the wisdom and generosity of spirit to resign. As bishop he is more likely to deepen divisions and discredit the church than he is to bring healing or advance our common mission. I join the Court of Review in its assessment that Charles Bennison’s handling of the sexual abuse charges against his brother John was “totally wrong.” Bishop Bennison’s lack of remorse about his handling of this situation, and his solipsistic view of what is at stake, concern me deeply.

I have spoken recently with Bishop Bennison, whom I have known for many years. I have also spoken with members of the Standing Committee. I wish I could say that I can imagine a just and speedy resolution to this situation, or for that matter, a satisfying outcome following a protracted campaign, but I do not. It is my prayer that the Bishops of The Episcopal Church, when they are together this month in Arizona, will prayerfully consider this matter and either prevail upon Bishop Bennison to resign, or undertake other measures that lead to Bishop Bennison’s removal from office.

As a result of your letter and those of numerous others, I have turned my attention to considering the steps that our Church might take to prevent this kind of injustice from happening again. In the wake of this decision, it seems essential to address a deficiency in the structures of our Church, namely that there is no means of dissolving the relationship between a bishop and a diocese that find themselves in untenable circumstances. I am also considering the calls coming from many Episcopalians to amend our canons to include clergy and laity on the Court of Review.

In preparation for General Convention, a review of the canons relevant to these concerns is in order. I am presently in consultation with members of my council of advice, deputies and others with particular interest and knowledge in these matters to determine the most expedient and efficient way to proceed in this review.

I wish there were more that I could offer you in gratitude for your bravery in the face of all that you have endured at the hands of our Church. It grieves me to be another person telling you that my hands are tied, and I know the potential remedies that I am proposing may serve the church in the long-term but do nothing to right the wrongs inflicted upon you.

But within our polity, this is what is within my power to do. Please know that I will pursue these issues seriously and actively, and with the support and counsel of others in the church who also find this situation unacceptable.

All of you, and all the people of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, remain in my prayers.

Peace,

Bonnie Anderson, D.D.
President, The House of Deputies

cc: The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Deputies and First Alternates
The Standing Committee, Diocese of Pennsylvania
The Rt. Rev. Charles Bennison

Update: An ENS story about this appears there.

From here:

Bishop Lawrence has called for a meeting of all parochial clergy of the diocese who have seat, voice and vote at the Convention for Thursday, September 2, 2010. The meeting will begin at 10:30 a.m. at St. Paul’s in Summerville. In preparation for the meeting clergy are asked to review a copy of the Title IV canon changes passed at the last General Convention. This will be central to tomorrow’s discussions. View the document. Clergy are encouraged to bring a printed copy of the document with them to the meeting.

The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina cleared the way Wednesday for Trinity Episcopal Cathedral to dissolve its 11-year relationship with the Very Rev. Philip C. Linder, the dean who was suspended in July.

Bishop W. Andrew Waldo lifted the original suspension ”” for violating a pastoral directive not to speak to members about a growing leadership conflict ”” and indicated he would not file formal disciplinary charges against Linder.

But Waldo insisted Linder remain “constrained” from ministry at the city’s oldest and most prominent Episcopal congregation. The Rev. Charles M. Davis Jr. remains acting dean.

Read it all.

A controversial ruling to reinstate a Pennsylvanian bishop includes a tie to Saginaw.

Bishop Todd Ousley of the Episcopal Diocese of Eastern Michigan, which includes land east of Interstate 75 from Genesse to Alpena counties, was a member of the church’s court of review that, earlier this month, reversed a 2008 decision by a lower court that removed Pennsylvania Bishop Charles Bennison as bishop.

Bennison’s brother, John Bennison, was youth pastor of the church where Charles Bennison was a priest in the 1970s in California. John Bennison, who later became a priest, is accused of sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl in the parish. John Bennison was forced to renounce his priesthood in 2006 when accusations became public. His brother was removed as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania in 2008 for his inaction in the 1970s.

Read it all.

We conclude with these observations about the fundamental facts of our polity:

1. The Presiding Bishop’s office is regulated by the constitution and canons and exists historically for the good order of the church. It is not a metropolitical office. The title ”˜presiding Bishop’ was chosen with care and inheres with the notion of good order when the wider church gathers. It is not an office with independent political authority.
2. The existence of diocesan canons in The Episcopal Church is a departure from the model typically followed in the polity of other provinces of the Anglican Communion. The existence of these canons goes hand in hand with the history and sovereignty of the diocese in The Episcopal Church as the basic ecclesial unit of catholic Anglicanism.
3. That no mandate exists that can be enforced by canon law for dioceses to pay assessments beyond the good operating of their own affairs is likewise evidence of the catholic and missionary integrity of the dioceses of this church.
4. Diocesan Chancellors exist to assist the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese in maintaining the legal good operating of the Diocese and the undertaking of its internal affairs.
5. General Convention resolutions as such have no canonical force. They represent the mind of those gathered and are not legislative in character.
6. As a province, The Episcopal Church has no single authoritative voice, but exists with a dispersed character at the provincial level, involving individual diocesan Bishops, diocesan conventions, a triennial General Convention, House of Bishops meetings, and the office of Presiding Bishop.

We fully support Bishop Lawrence and the diocese of South Carolina in their defense of these principles.

Read it all.

(The above is my title, you can see his by going to the link below–KSH)

The Christian churches in the United States are in trouble for all the usual reasons ”” human sinfulness and selfishness, the temptations of life in an affluent society, doctrinal and moral controversies and uncertainties and on and on and on ”” but also and to a surprisingly large degree they are in trouble because they are trying to address the problems of the twenty first century with a business model and a set of tools that date from the middle of the twentieth. The mainline churches in particular are organized like General Motors was organized in the 1950s: they have cost structures and operating procedures that simply don’t work today. They are organized around what I’ve been calling the blue social model, built by rules that don’t work anymore, and oriented to a set of ideas that are well past their sell-by date.

Without even questioning it, most churchgoers assume that a successful church has its own building and a full-time staff including one or more professionally trained leaders (ordained or not depending on the denomination). Perhaps no more than half of all congregations across the country can afford this at all; most manage only by neglecting maintenance on their buildings or otherwise by cutting corners. And even when they manage to make the payroll and keep the roof in repair, congregations spend most of their energy just keeping the show going from year to year. The life of the community centers around the attempt to maintain a model of congregational life that doesn’t work, can’t work, won’t work no matter how hard they try. People who don’t like futile tasks have a tendency to wander off and do other things and little by little the life and vitality (and the rising generations) drift away.
At the next level up, there is another level of ecclesiastical bureaucrats and officials staffing regional offices. When my dad was a young priest in the Episcopal diocese of North Carolina back in the late 1950s the bishop had a secretary and that was pretty much it for diocesan staff. These days the Episcopal church is in decline, with perhaps a third to a half or more of its parishes unable to meet their basic expenses and with members dying off or drifting away much faster than new people come through the door ”” but no respectable bishop would be caught dead with the pathetic staff with which Bishop Baker ran a healthy and growing diocese in North Carolina back in the 1950s. (Bishop Baker was impressive in another way; he could tie his handkerchief into the shape of a bunny rabbit, put it flat on the palm of his hand, and have it hop off. I was only six when he showed me this trick, but it was clear to me that this man had something special to offer. Since that time I’ve traveled all over the world and met bishops, archbishops, cardinals and even a pope ”” but none of them made quite the impression on me that Bishop Baker and his jumping handkerchief did.)

Bishops today in their sinking, decaying dioceses surround themselves with large staffs who hold frequent meetings and no doubt accomplish many wonderful things, although nobody outside the office ever quite knows what these are. And it isn’t just Anglicans. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, UCC, the whole crowd has pretty much the same story to tell. Staffs grow; procedures flourish and become ever more complex; more and more years of school are required from an increasingly ”˜professional’ church staff: everything gets better and better every year ”” except somehow the churches keep shrinking. Inside, the professionals are pretty busy jumping through hoops and writing memos to each other and grand sweeping statements of support for raising the minimum wage and other noble causes ”” but outside the regional headquarters and away from the hum of the computers and printers, local congregations lose members, watch their buildings fall year by year into greater disrepair, and in the end they close their doors.

Read it all.

The creation of …[the Anglican Consultative Council] required no canonical change in the Episcopal Church’s Constitution and Canons, but it did have implications nonetheless, for someone needed to appoint the three representatives to the ACC, and someone needed to respond to the request for approval of the ACC’s constitution. The special session of the General Convention in 1969 “acceded and subscribed to the Proposed Constitution of the said Anglican Consultative Council,” and took responsibility for election of representatives to that body.34 Subsequent General Conventions approved later changes in the ACC constitution.35 The convention’s Joint Committee on Nominations initially proposed names of ACC representatives for election by convention, but in 1982 the Executive Council (the name adopted in 1967 for what had been called the National Council since 1922) took over the responsibility for selection of ACC representatives.

An additional development in the Anglican Communion had taken place in 1960, which would also bring the Episcopal Church into closer relationship with the Anglican Communion. In that year Stephen Bayne, former Bishop of Olympia in the U.S., had accepted a position as the first Executive Officer or the Anglican Communion, a position later renamed as “Secretary General.” Bayne served until 1964. The fourth person to hold the position (Samuel Van Culin, Secretary General,1983-94), was also an American.

The General Conventions of 1964 and 1967 responded to the call of the Anglican Congress in Toronto that it was time for “the rebirth of the Anglican Communion, which means the death of many old things but””infinitely more””the birth of entirely new relationships.” The Presiding Bishop set up a Committee on Mutual Responsibility, which reported to both conventions. The 1964 Convention adopted a resolution proposed by the committee that resolved

That this Church, speaking through its episcopate and its duly elected representative in the lay and clerical orders in General Convention assembled, accept the message of the Primates and Metropolitans of the Anglican Communion entitled, “Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence in the Body of Christ”, as a declaration of God’s judgment upon our insularity, complacency, and defective obedience to Mission; and be it further

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That this Church undertake without delay that evaluation and reformation of our corporate life, our priorities, and our response to Mission, which is called for by the leaders of the Anglican Communion”¦.

Read it all.

Historian Robert Prichard of Virginia Theological Seminary described General Convention’s call, in the early 20th century, for more business-like models of management, which led to organizing dioceses into provinces; changing the Presiding Bishop from the longest-serving bishop to an elected executive; and establishing a national council, now known as Executive Council.

Dr. Prichard noted that The Living Church was the first publication, in response to those changes, to apply the courtesy title “the Most Rev.,” normally reserved for archbishops, to the Presiding Bishop.

The 20th century also led to greater ties with the Anglican Communion, Dr. Prichard said, including the appointment of the Rt. Rev. Stephen Bayne as the first executive officer of what is now the Anglican Communion Office.

The Episcopal Church’s two major trends of the 20th century ”” greater centralization and stronger ties with the Anglican Communion ”” are now at odds with each other, Dr. Prichard said.

Read it all.

Be that as it may, TEC pleads for a right of dissent on a communion level but, by constitutional irregularity and canonical misuse, seeks to close out that possibility within its own ranks. With this point, I rest my case. A failure to pay attention to that wretched cat “Polity” has landed TEC and the Anglican Communion in a proper mess. Anglicans now have before them two accounts of the nature of communion, two accounts of hierarchy, and two accounts of the way in which the common life of the Communion ought to be ordered. For the thick account, hierarchy is of different sorts, each of which has a particular sphere of operation and each of which stands in the service of a thick view of communion. For the thin account, hierarchy is addressed only in its political guise and as such is limited in its sphere of operation to diocese and/or province. Within these spheres, it serves to order local and autonomous churches each of which is called to carry out the mission of the church in a particular locality.

I personally am delighted that both TEC and the Communion are at last paying attention to the wretched cat “Polity.” In doing so, however, the issue of dissent has presented itself with considerable urgency. At the moment, TEC finds itself in a dissenting position in respect to the covenant proposal now before the Communion; while those within TEC who support the covenant find themselves dissenters in relation to their own church. It would seem that everyone within TEC is in one way or another confronted with the issue of dissent.

When the normal processes of governance no longer provide effective means for objection, just what is the right way to express this dissent? For those within TEC, is the right way departure? For TEC itself, is the right way to seek, as now it does, to escape the consequences of its actions by means of a covenant that lacks both theological substance and any meaningful form of accountability? My own view is that the answer to this question is to be found in the well-tested tradition of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience seeks neither to bring down duly constituted authority nor to establish another altogether. Rather it seeks to express loyalty to governing authority by dissenting from actions that do not accord with the reasons for its existence. Further, in dissenting those who are civilly disobedient insist upon suffering the appointed penalties for disobedience. They insist upon consequences so as to express loyalty to duly constituted authority even as they oppose actions that do not accord with the common good that government exists to uphold and further.

Read it all.

…TEC is organized legally as a voluntary association of dioceses.

I want to break this point down into two parts: first, a voluntary association; and second, an association whose members are dioceses.

To begin, all sides of the current disputes agree that TEC is what the law has traditionally called a “voluntary association.” This kind of entity is sometimes referred to today as an unincorporated nonprofit association, but voluntary association is the traditional terminology. So, from a civil law perspective, that puts us immediately into the category of association law, which is different in important ways from that governing other forms of organization.

A church does not have to be an association. The Southern Baptist Convention””a church named by the way for its convention; TEC is named for the office of bishop””is a Georgia corporation. And after American independence, the largest of the state churches in the former colonies, the one in Virginia, was incorporated in that state by the Virginia legislature. But TEC itself has always been and remains a voluntary association. Everyone agrees.

This leads us to the question, “what are the essential legal characteristics of voluntary associations, the things that distinguish them from other forms of organization”? And the answer is “they’re not what they used to be.” Until fairly recently, the law did not recognize a voluntary association as a legal entity distinct from its members. In other words, when the law looked at a voluntary association, it only saw the members; the association itself was simply an aggregate of its members. The legal status of associations at the time TEC was organized is reflected in a case that arose ten years later in England. An association of Freemasons brought suit to recover some of its property, but the judge would not hear its claim. The judge, one of England’s law lords, concluded it was “singular that this Court should sit upon the concerns of an association, which in law has no existence.” (Emphasis added.) The suit could only be brought by the individual members of the association.

This rule was changed in the twentieth century in most, but not all states, typically by statute. Most states now recognize voluntary associations as legal entities and allow them to own property, enter into contracts, sue in their own names and enjoy the rights and responsibilities of legal personality. But that was not formerly the case.

Read it all.

No one has any difficulty in perceiving that the Anglican Consultative Council is a deliberative, but not a hierarchical, body. Then why does the fog descend upon them when they argue that General Convention is “hierarchical”? Because of its authority to enact canons, which are supposedly “binding” on each diocese?

Oh, yes: certainly Canon I.17.7 (“No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Church”) is an example of the binding authority of the Church’s canons on the many dioceses which allow communion for the unbaptized. And certainly Canon IV.9, which requires that a bishop be first inhibited with the consent of the Church’s three most senior bishops before he can be deposed, is binding on the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops — just look at the votes to depose Bishop Cox and Bishop Duncan.

The plain truth is that General Convention can enact canons, but it cannot enforce them. The reason is obvious: each General Convention, such as it is, exists for only ten days out of every 1095 (or 1096, when there is a leap year), and so it is incapable of enforcing any of its so-called “binding” canons. No, the reality is that the canons require bishops, standing committees and ecclesiastical courts to enforce them. (The recent changes in Title IV made by GC 2009 are but another example of its making changes which are left up to the several dioceses to implement.)

And has General Convention — this “highest authority” of the Episcopal Church (USA) — ever reigned in a Presiding Bishop, or called him or her to account for spending money it did not authorize, or for commencing unwarranted litigation in the name of the Church? Pray tell, when did that ever happen?

The hierarchical buzzword is just a shibboleth, invoked by those who want to get away with something which — if the Church were truly hierarchical — they could not do.

Read the whole piece.

According to Professor Mullin, there is this abstraction, which he calls “General Convention”, which does everything in the Church, from drafting the Church’s own Constitution, to selecting bishops and instructing on education, clerical responsibilities and rules for ordination. But just what is this “General Convention? It is made up of the delegations and bishops from individual member dioceses. It is no “supreme executive”, having a continuous existence and single mind that remains coherent and uniform over time, like an individual person. Instead, General Convention completely reconstitutes itself every three years — for a period of just ten days at most. The General Convention of the moment is not bound by any prior Convention, and cannot itself bind any future Convention.

Because General Convention can act only through its deputies and bishops, it is, correctly speaking, simply a collection of individuals. It “acts” or “decides” by taking votes. Usually they are simple voice votes, but on more important matters they are roll call votes by each order in each diocese. (Only the House of Bishops acts at all times by majority vote of its members, who constitute a single order in the Church.) Nevertheless, even when voting by orders, the overall concept of General Convention is that a concurrence by the majority of the member dioceses is necessary for any action or decision to be taken.

Professor Mullin’s analysis, by way of contrast, replaces the members of an unincorporated group with an abstract, impersonal entity that is supposedly superior to the group itself, and that supposedly exercises supreme powers over that group. But as we have just seen, this “entity” is nothing other than what you and I would call a “majority.”

Read it all.

(The paper to which this responds is here–KSH).

On February 2, 2010, the American Anglican Council (AAC) released an accounting of how The Episcopal Church (TEC) has spent millions of dollars in over 50 lawsuits, deposed or inhibited 12 bishops and more than 400 other clergy, and violated its own canons numerous times. The Rev. Phil Ashey, AAC Chief Operating Officer and practicing attorney, authored the paper at the request of several members of the Church of England’s General Synod in preparation for their vote regarding the nature of their relationship with the Anglican Church in North America. On February 4, Mr. Simon Sarmiento, member of the Church of England and founder of the blog Thinking Anglicans, published a rebuttal of what he called “factual inaccuracies” in the AAC’s paper. Mr. Sarmiento is not an attorney and admitted to having the help of, among others, The Episcopal Church’s lead lawyer, David Booth Beers, and the Presiding Bishop’s Special Council for property litigation, Mary E. Kostel.

Read it carefully and follow the links.

The American Anglican Council today made public an accounting of how The Episcopal Church (TEC) has spent millions of dollars in over 50 lawsuits, deposed or inhibited 12 bishops and more than 400 other clergy, and violated its own canons numerous times. The paper, titled “The Episcopal Church: Overbearing and Unjust Episcopal Acts,” chronicles each of these subjects and a number of other abuses or injustices committed against faithful Anglicans in the U.S.

“The Episcopal Church is systematically targeting, intimidating, suing, and ultimately persecuting orthodox Anglicans throughout the U.S.” said the Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, President and CEO of the American Anglican Council. “This paper illustrates the lengths to which TEC leaders will go to silence the voices of orthodox Christians in the Anglican Communion – Anglicans whose only offense was to stand for the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Anglican Communion teaching.”

Read it all and especially take the time to click the link at the bottom to the full paper itself.

…true encouragement comes from honesty before God and self and the strength of purpose to serve in the face of disappointment or uncertainty. Or so it should. I know a young person who sneered at the faith of an Episcopalian ”“ a more conservative person ”“ who chose to leave TEC for another set of ecclesial structures. “You would do such a thing”, this young person said to him: “yours is the generation, after all, who invented no-fault divorce”. In fact, in this case, the complaint was less directed at a purported hypocrite, than at what he perceived to be the witness of an impotent God, unable to garner the sacrificial steadiness of His adherents. But either way, faith is scandalized by those who do not have the strength, nor certainly seek the strength, to stand in the face of upheaval.

I will come back to this at the close of my remarks: honesty need be neither angry, miserable, nor defeatist. It should be the seed for hope, because it is the first and necessary turn to God who alone saves.

What is the difficult thing to speak, honestly? It is this: the Episcopal Church, as it has been known through the past two centuries, is no more, in any substantive sense. TEC is simply no longer the church filled with even the strength of purpose we saw only 10 years ago ”“ yes, even then, a church with a good deal of vital diversity and disagreement; but a seeming sense of restraint over pressing these in ways that overwhelmed witness and mission. And as a result, even then, it was church that was growing in outreach and faith. That church, shimmering still with some of the vibrancy of love spent for the Gospel seen140 years before, even 90 years before, is now gone. And TEC will not survive in any real continuity with this past and its gifts.

This is something we must face. To be sure, I am not speaking here of this or that diocese or bishop or congregation or clergy person within TEC: there are many through whose service the Gospel shines bright and the witness of the Kingdom flourishes. I am speaking of an institution as a whole ”“ not even in terms of its legal corporation, but in terms of its character and Christian substance given flesh in the Spirit’s mission.

Read it all carefully.

I want to stress, please, that people in the comments interact with what Ephraim is arguing for and actually saying. Comments not doing so will be dispacted into the ether. Many thanks–KSH.