Read it all.

http://www.pghanglican.org/news/local/filesforposting/3.28.08%20Lewis%20Letter.PDF

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori made it clear Friday night that she will direct The Episcopal Church to move ahead to reconstitute the Diocese of San Joaquin and to establish control over church property swiftly. In addition, she said, she intends to begin the process of revising the denomination’s canons to allow it to deal more expeditiously with breakaway bishops.

“I expect to see revisions to the canons to deal with situations like the one that you have been living with in San Joaquin for several years,” she said.

Read it all and make sure to reread Mike Lumpkin’s letter in the light of this.

Now what is my point? Am I stating that congregations should violate the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church? No, emphatically not. While I think that the Dennis Canon is a legally enacted injustice and ought to be changed by legal or democratic means, I am not suggesting that it be violated.

But I do believe that a church that claims the freedom to change something as fundamentally Christian as the definition of marriage ought to admit that it is sailing off into a Brave New World and have the grace and humility to release amicably those congregations and dioceses that cannot, in all Christian conscience, go there. And church leaders who are so fundamentally anarchic as to throw off the contraint of historic Christian teaching ought to drop the pretense that they have an authority that is, in any sense, hierarchical.

Read it all.

In response to a question about the status of church property in the diocese, Jefferts Schori said that one of the first tasks of the diocese’s new leadership will be “to recover the corporate sole” of the diocese. This process will involve removing control of the property from deposed San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield.

“We believe since John-David Schofield has been deposed, he has no right to claim the property of the diocese as the corporate sole,” she said.

The Presiding Bishop said that the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church say that parish and diocesan property is held in trust for the entire church. “We believe those properties are a legacy” given by generations of Episcopalians for the use of generations yet to come, she said.

“We don’t have the fiduciary or moral responsibility to simply walk away,” Jefferts Schori told the audience. “They’re meant for mission and we’ll do what we can to recover them.”

Answering a question about reports of problems with the March 12 consent by the House of Bishops to her request for authority to depose or remove Schofield from his diocesan position, Jefferts Schori said that the vote was conducted in the same way that other such deposition requests have been done.

While the applicable canon (Canon IV.9.2) may have “varieties of interpretation,” the Presiding Bishop said that her chancellor and the House’s parliamentarian ruled that the canon called for approval by the majority of those bishops present at the meeting. She added that the canon does not allow for a poll by mail of all bishops eligible to vote, as some have suggested ought to have been done.

“We believe that we did the right thing,” she said, adding that the consent came from “a clear majority of those present.”

Read it all.

I found myself troubled and profoundly conflicted. As many of you know, I served in the Diocese of San Joaquin for fourteen years before coming to Northern Indiana. Thus Bishop Schofield ”“ and many of the leaders of the diocese ”“ have been part of my life for a long time. Bishop Cox, too, is revered and respected, with an important place in the church’s recovery of the ministry of healing. Both bishops acted in accordance with their consciences. Yet I believe that their actions are disordered, theologically and canonically. Nothing good ever comes from schism. When Christians separate from one another, the gospel is hampered and our ability to offer Jesus to a needy world severely compromised. In the days leading up to the vote on the two bishops, I found myself torn between conflicting responsibilities: to the unity and canonical integrity of the church on the one hand, and to honoring conscience in the midst of conflict on the other.

As a matter of theological and pastoral conviction, I am committed to the ministry of reconciliation. This season in the church’s life challenges us, I believe, to find ways of living together in Christian community when we find ourselves caught in conscience-driven conflict. Is it possible for Christians of good will who have come to very different convictions on (for example) painful issues of human sexuality to flourish together in the same institution? I believe that we can; but in our own church we are struggling to discover ways of making that happen.

In the end, I voted No on the resolutions to depose Bishops Schofield and Cox, one of a very small number of bishops to do so. (Since the resolutions passed on voice votes, there’s no specific count.) During the debate over the resolution to depose Bishop Schofield, I spoke to the House and said something like this: that Bishop Schofield is guilty as charged, and his actions have unleashed chaos upon his diocese and on the church. And yet, I said, I would vote against the resolution to depose him. Why? Because a deposition is the canonical equivalent of the “death penalty”; it effectively closes the door to the possibility of future reconciliation. And so, I said, it would be better to find a way of accomplishing the same end (removing Bishop Schofield from his position as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin) without the negative overtones of a deposition. A cord gently cut can be more easily re-tied. If we allow our friends to depart peacefully, we are more likely in God’s time to welcome them home.

What troubles me most deeply is that we are finding it easier and easier to resort to canonical solutions in matters which are at their core theological, spiritual, pastoral, and relational. While I have no doubt that these bishops violated the canons, the issues before us are not purely canonical, and they do not lend themselves to a canonical solution. They touch the heart of what it means to follow Jesus, to be called into community, and learn the complementary imperatives of mutual forbearance and forgiveness (Colossians 3:13). I’m concerned that, with each passing meeting of the House, we will repeat the scene that we experienced at Camp Allen; and each time, the debate will be less agonized and the result more assured.

Read it all.

However, as is now well-documented–on this blog and elsewhere–the four clerical members of the Standing Committee, and two of the lay members, almost immediately following the December convention, signaled their intention to not follow the majority to the Southern Cone. They did so by consenting to the election of a bishop by a diocese of the Episcopal Church, and transmitting that consent through normal channels. In mid-January, the President of the Standing Committee spoke on the phone with the Presiding Bishop and informed her that a majority of committee’s members did not intend to join in the secession, and wished to continue to operate under the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. A day after this phone conversation, Bishop Schofield, in effect, recognized this reality and effectively “fired” these six individuals, and reconstituted the Standing Committee of the Southern Cone Diocese of San Joaquin from the remaining two lay members. But for reasons at this point known only to her, the Presiding Bishop refused to recognize the loyalty of the six, despite clear knowledge of their intention to follow the canons, and publicly declared her judgment that there were in fact no continuing members of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. This was the first of three canonically questionable moves on her part that cast a shadow over the entire project of rebuilding the ministry of TEC in the central valley of California.

The second such canonically questionable (and this is a charitable description) move took place barely two weeks ago at the meeting of the House of Bishops. The question before the house was the canonical deposition of two bishops–Schofield of San Joaquin and Cox, retired Assistant of Oklahoma. In the case of Bishop Cox, the entire process (under the so-called “abandonment of communion” canon, which calls for summary judgment without trial) was botched, as he was never inhibited and the Presiding Bishop held the “indictment” (from the Title IV Review Committee) back when she was canonically required to have presented it to last September’s meeting of the HOB. But in the case of both bishops, the deposition failed on a technicality, though this was not noticed at the time. Within it couple of days, however, outside sources pointed out that the required number of votes to depose needs to be not just a majority of a quorum, but a majority of the “whole number” entitled to vote. As I write, at least one member of the HOB has demanded that this irregularity be investigated, and we can be sure the dust is far from settling.

Now the final ingredient in the Perfect Storm recipe–the one that will act as a catalyst, joining with the others to ignite a cataclysm in the Anglican world. In less than two days’ time, the Presiding Bishop is intending to call to order a special convention of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin in the city of Lodi. While it is arguably her duty to facilitate the reconfiguration and reinvigoration of TEC’s ministry in that area, the way she has gone about doing so seems to ignore, if not flout, the very Constitution and Canons of the Church she serves. This is where the canonical cloud over the deposition of Bishop Schofield becomes extremely relevant. Only in the absence of a bishop can the Presiding Bishop step in to a situation, and then only under strictly limited circumstances. But there is plausible doubt whether Bishop Schofield has in fact been properly deposed, and this calls into question any action that the special convention on Saturday will take. Of course, Bishop Schofield has no desire to be the Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin, and he has in fact submitted his resignation to the Presiding Bishop. The problem is, neither she nor the House of Bishops bothered to accept that resignation! So, do we indeed have a vacancy in the office of Bishop of San Joaquin? Practically, we do. But technically, we do not. And with as much at stake as there is in these times, with the level of trust in our leadership eroding at every turn, this is one occasion when it is imperative to be excruciatingly correct technically, to bend over backwards to avoid even the whiff of an impression of the subversion of due process.

But wait…there’s more! The “unrecognized” Standing Committee–that is, the duly and canonically elected Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin–made it clear to the Presiding Bishop on several occasions that, in the event of Bishop Schofield’s lawful deposition, they stood ready to perform their duty and become the Ecclesiastical Authority of the diocese, cooperating with her office as appropriate under the constitution and canons. As recently as two weeks ago, they expected to shortly be called to act in accordance with the polity of “this Church.” But because of the technical glitch, they cannot recognize the See of San Joaquin as vacant, and are therefore unable to lawfully step in.

So what we will have Saturday is a Perfect Storm–an institution going rogue on itself, ignoring its own polity, its own rules . . . just because it can. The harm that this will do to the commonweal of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion is untellable. If we can’t trust ourselves to live by our own laws, if the ends are seen as justifying the means, if a mistake in the past is used as a justifying precedent for repeating the same mistake, then the confidence of the minority that the protections afforded them under our polity will indeed be effective evaporates like morning mist under the desert sun. We are left to be drowned by the tyranny of the majority. If that is the offering we must make, then so be it. No such costly oblation will, in the redemptive economy of God, go wasted. But on the Last Day, I do not anticipate being envious of whose who, buoyed by a perception of power made invincible by righteousness, are in these days the instruments of such an unholy wrath.

Read it all.

The Rev. James Snell, president of the San Joaquin Standing Committee, has previously raised the possibility that Bishop Jefferts Schori might be liable for a presentment complaint under the canons which prohibit bishops from entering another bishop’s territory without permission. Under the canons to be considered for adoption by the special convention, the standing committee is the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese. The special convention is scheduled to begin in a few hours.

“Bishop Lawrence and the South Carolina Standing Committee have really gone out on a limb in respectfully calling for a second vote on the depositions and for postponement of the special convention,” the Rev. John Burwell, president of the standing committee told a reporter from The Living Church. “I am hoping that other diocesan bishops and standing committees will join me in respectfully calling for the consistent application of our canons.” Fr. Burwell, who also serves as rector of Holy Cross Church, Sullivans Island, also confirmed that the diocese had informed Bishop Jefferts Schori of their intent to make public the letter ahead of time and waited for confirmation that she had received it before doing so.

Read it all.

March 27, 2008

The Most Reverend Katherine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop
The Episcopal Church Center
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017

Dear Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori:

We, as the Standing Committee and Bishop of South Carolina, write this letter to strongly protest what we recognize as a failure to follow the Canons of our Episcopal Church in the recent depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox. We respectfully request that you and the House of Bishops revisit those decisions, refrain from the planned selection of a new bishop for the Diocese of San Joaquin, and make every effort to follow our Church Canons in all future House of Bishops decisions.

We believe that deposition is the most severe sanction that can be applied against a bishop.. Consequently, it is most important that both the letter and the spirit of the Canons be followed. In this instance, it is clear that the canonical safeguards in place were not followed.

Under Canon IV.9.2, the House of Bishops must give its consent to depose a bishop under the “abandonment of communion” canon. “. . . by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.” The Constitution of the Episcopal Church, Article I.2, states in pertinent part that “Each Bishop of this Church having jurisdiction, every Bishop Coadjutor, every Suffragan Bishop, every Assistant Bishop, and every Bishop who by reason of advanced age or bodily infirmity . . . has resigned a jurisdiction, shall have a seat and vote in the House of Bishops.”

Due to amendment, Canon IV.9.2, at various times, required consent under these circumstances consisting of ” . . . a majority of the House of Bishops,” “. .. . a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled . . . to seats in the House of Bishops . . . ” and ” . . . by a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote.” The language of the Canon has consistently required that a majority of all bishops entitled to vote, and not just a majority of those present at a meeting, must give their consent to the deposition of a bishop. Although the language itself is clear, the definition contained in Title IV is even more specific. Canon IV.15 specifically provides that “All the Members shall mean the total number of members of the Body provided for by Constitution or Canon without regard to absences, excused members, abstentions or vacancies.”

As we understand the decision by Chancellor Beers, he interprets the language ” ”¦ the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” to mean the consent of a majority of those bishops who are present and voting. Yet if the drafters of Canon 9 had wanted to allow for the deposition of a bishop on a vote by a majority of the Bishops at a meeting, as distinguished from a vote by a majority of the whole, they clearly knew how to say that.

The Constitution, Canons and Rules of Order are replete with other instances in which the drafters knew how to articulate something other than ” ”¦ the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.”. The Constitution Article I 3, dealing with the election of a Presiding Bishop, requires that such a vote be “by a vote . . . of a majority of all Bishops, excluding retired Bishops not present, except that whenever two-thirds of the House of Bishops are present, a majority vote shall suffice . . . ” Unlike Canon IV.9, other Canons refer to a vote ” . . . by a three-fourths of the members present” or some other “super-majority. In the Rules of Order of the House of Bishops, Rule V speaks of a vote “. . . by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting.” That same language appears in Rules XV, XVIII (a) and XXIX. In short, where the drafters meant “those present and voting,” they knew how to say so, and did so on a number of occasions.

It is only logical that a greater majority of Bishops should be required for involuntary separation by way of deposition than for voluntary separation by resignation. Canon III.12.8 (d), dealing with resignation by a Bishops, provides that the House of Bishops may accept or refuse a resignation of a Bishop ” ”¦ by a majority of those present.” Under Chancellor Beers’ interpretation, it is possible for a smaller number of Bishops to consent to the deposition of a Bishop than the number required to consent to resignation of a Bishop.

Not only is this distinction of critical importance under the present circumstances, but also the question may arise again. Accordingly, and with all due respect to you and Chancellor Beers, we must respectfully request that you and the House of Bishops re-visit your decision and allow for a canonically correct vote on the depositions of Bishops Cox and Schofield and on any future possible depositions. Additionally, for the good of our Church, we ask you not to proceed with the planned election of a replacement for Bishop Schofield until the matter of his deposition can be legally and canonically resolved.

The Diocese of South Carolina demonstrated our commitment to the proper observance of The Episcopal Church Canons with two election conventions and eighteen months of Standing Committee and Bishop confirmations. Because we feel so strongly that the Canons were not followed in the depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox, we must respectfully refuse to recognize the depositions, and we will not recognize any new bishop who may be elected to replace Bishop Schofield, unless and until the canons are followed.

Yours in Christ,

The Very Reverend John B. Burwell
President, Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina

The Right Reverend Mark J. Lawrence
Bishop, Diocese of South Carolina

WHLIII/fnr

cc: David Booth Beers, Esquire

The procedures laid out in Title IV, Canon 9, sections 1 and 2 (the abandonment canon) to depose a bishop state that after the Title IV review committee issues a certificate of abandonment the Presiding Bishop “shall” “forthwith” notify the accused. The Presiding Bishop then “shall” seek the consent of the three senior bishops with jurisdiction to inhibit the accused bishop, and trial “shall” take place at the “next” meeting of the House of Bishops.

At a March 12 press conference Bishop Schori outlined the procedural history surrounding the Cox case. She said the Title IV review committee had “certified [Bishop Cox] several years ago. … before her time.” She added, however, that “it was never brought to the House of Bishops for action.”

She then said she “did not send it to the three senior bishops” and the House of Bishops “did not consider it in September” at their meeting in New Orleans with the Archbishop of Canterbury due to the “the press of other business.” Several minutes later, Bishop Schori said she wanted to “clarify” her earlier statements. She said she had been “unable to get the consent of the three senior bishops last spring. That’s why we didn’t bring it to the September meeting” of the House of Bishops.

Contacted after the press conference, one of the three senior bishops, who declined to be named, stated he had never been asked by Bishop Schori to consent to Bishop Cox’s suspension. The Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor, Mr David Booth Beers, declined to address the issues surrounding Bishop Cox’s case in a March 15 statement released through the Episcopal Church’s press office. However, he stated that his “position” was that there had been a legal quorum to depose the two bishops on March 12.

Canon lawyer, retired Bishop William Wantland of Eau Claire told CEN the deposition of Bishop Cox was “void” for failing to achieve the required “majority vote of all bishops entitled to vote” and because the “canonical procedure was simply not followed.”

Read it all.

The Rev. James Snell, rector of St. Columba Church, Frenso, Calif., and president of the standing committee in the Diocese of San Joaquin, said he is concerned that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and the Rt. Rev. Jerry Lamb, retired Bishop of Northern California, may be violating canon law and may be liable for presentment if they make good on plans to convene a special convention scheduled to be held at St. John-the-Baptist Church in Lodi on March 29.

“It’s one thing for her not to ‘recognize’ us,” Fr. Snell said. “Acting contrary to the canons of this diocese and of The Episcopal Church is another matter. The Presiding Bishop is not the ecclesiastical authority of this diocese and the canons of this diocese and the national church do not grant her the authority to call a diocesan convention or nominate someone for election as bishop.”

At the conclusion of the House of Bishops spring retreat on March 12, Bishop Jefferts Schori announced that she had nominated Bishop Lamb to stand for election as provisional Bishop of San Joaquin. She also said she would personally convene the March 29 special convention at which Bishop Lamb’s nomination was to be ratified. The agenda for the special convention also calls for undoing the constitutional changes approved during the annual convention last December. The constitutional amendments were used at the convention in December as legal justification to leave The Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone.

Read it all.

Title IV, Canon 9 section 2 of the Episcopal Church’s Constitution and Canons requires that the House of Bishops “by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” must give its consent to depose a bishop under the abandonment of communion canon.

Eligible voters are defined as both active and retired bishops. Of the 294 bishops eligible to vote, less than a third were present for the trial. To lawfully depose Bishop Schofield, 148 votes would have to have been cast in favor of deposition.

As of breakfast on the last day of the House of Bishop’s March 7-12 meeting, 115 active and retired bishops were present. However, by the start of the trial only 68 active bishops answered the roll call, as did an undisclosed number of retired bishops.

The two hour trial in absentia began with a reading of the charges, followed by prayers from the chaplain. The bishops then broke apart into small groups and then gathered in a plenary session for debate.

A voice vote was held, first for Bishop Schofield and then for Bishop Cox, and both were declared to have been deposed. Questioned about the canonical inconsistencies at a post-meeting press conference, North Carolina Bishop Michael Curry defended the proceedings but admitted that there had been no discussion of its legality. “We have acted in recommendation to our canonical advisers,” he said. ”We acted in accordance with the canons.”

Read it all.

Barring a tidal wave of negative letters being sent to the task force charged with rewriting The Episcopal Church’s “misconduct canons,” clergy and lay leaders may have to stop and ask themselves whether anyone might be offended before publishing a critical opinion piece or posting an edgy blog entry on the internet.

That’s because among the changes being proposed by the “Title IV Task Force II” are those that would expand the definition of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy to include virtually any public criticism of the church and its policies, and others permitting misconduct complaints to be filed “in any manner and in any form.” The task force recently released a draft of its work. Public comment on the 40-page document concludes June 30. The task force’s final report will be submitted for consideration to the 76th General Convention in 2009.

In an interview with Episcopal News Service, Steve Hutchinson of Utah, chairman of the task force, said the group sought to move away from a criminal justice model. He said the group recognized “that a reconciliation model is more consistent with our theology,” and that it should consider other professional-misconduct models, such as the American Medical Association’s code. There is “an emphasis on pastoral resolution” at all stages, Mr. Hutchinson told ENS, yet there is also a requirement that any pastoral resolution between a bishop and priest or deacon be reviewed and approved “so that there’s not the appearance of fair or unfair allegations or sweetheart deals.”

Read it all.

Mark Harris made an unimpressive and unconvincing argument that the canons do not mean what the words on the page indicate that they mean.

To this, Nathaniel Pierce responded as follows:

Mark:

Using the you cite figures from 2006, it really boils down to this: do you need a vote by 32 Bishops in order to depose a Bishop who is alleged to have abandonned the Communion of this church, or do you need 142?

If a Priest is charged with abandonment, a vote of at least 75% of “All the Members” of the Standing Committee is required (capital letters are in the text). Here, however, you argue that a mere 11% of the House can depose a Bishop on the same charge (based on the definition of a quorum as found in I.2 as of 2006).

Furthermore, you confuse two issues in your analysis. There is a difference between a “quorum” and “the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.” This is clearly conveyed by the fact that I.2 defines these terms separately, distinctly, and clearly. In almost all circumstances the presence of a quorum enables the House to conduct its business. However, on this issue, deposing a Bishop for abandonment, the number of votes required by the canon is a majority of the whole number which in turn is clearly defined in I.2. To simply equate a quorum with the whole number, ie to claim that these two separate terms are interchangeable even though they are defined very differently in I.2, is ludicrous.

–The Rev. Nathaniel Pierce lives in Trappe, Maryland

Bishop Price told The Living Church he was not consulted on the number of votes needed for a deposition and he does not recall the resolutions approving the depositions of bishops Schofield and Cox being “singled out” as requiring a higher threshold of consent prior to enactment.

Title 4, canon 9, section 2 states that the vote requires “a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote,” a higher threshold than that necessary to conduct business. There were 116 bishops registered at the meeting at 6 a.m. on March 12. The total number of bishops eligible to vote is 294, according to online sources.

“None of the votes taken were unanimous, each having both negative votes and abstentions,” Bishop Price said. “However, the affirmative votes were so overwhelming that the Presiding Bishop declared them as having passed and no one challenged her ruling.”

Read it all.

In this case, a central clue as to what is going on was given by Bp. Schofield’s March 12 Statement in response to the vote to depose him on the basis of his having “abandoned the Communion of the Church” (Canon IV.9.2): “I have not abandoned the Faith,” Schofield stated; “I resigned from the American House of Bishops and have been received into the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone. Both Houses are members of the Anglican Communion. They are not ”“ or should not be ”“ two separate Churches.” Bp. Schofield’s point is straightforward: if the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone is not a “separate church” from TEC, how can he have “abandoned” the “Communion” of TEC’s own ecclesial existence? Does in fact TEC “recognize” the Southern Cone as an Anglican Church with which she is in communion? In what sense, then, is “abandonment” taken?

The basic ecclesial issue, then, is one of recognizability. Yet this is just the issue that is at stake in the Anglican Communion’s current struggles. Archbishop Rowan Williams himself spoke to it straightforwardly last December in his Advent Letter to the Primates. The Anglican Communion’s “unity”, he wrote, “depends not on a canon law that can be enforced but on the ability of each part of the family to recognise that other local churches have received the same faith from the apostles and are faithfully holding to it in loyalty to the One Lord incarnate who speaks in Scripture and bestows his grace in the sacraments. To put it in slightly different terms, local churches acknowledge the same ‘constitutive elements’ in one another. This means in turn that each local church receives from others and recognises in others the same good news and the same structure of ministry, and seeks to engage in mutual service for the sake of our common mission.” The issue of “recognisability”, of course, is more than a matter of Anglican Communion concern; it has become a central feature of ecumenical discernment. And therefore, the fact that the Presiding Bishop, her advisors, and the House of Bishops as a whole can determine that Bishops Schofield and Cox are worthy of deposition under Canon IV.9.2 would seem to indicate that they believe that both bishops and the Province of the Southern Cone do not share with TEC in the “constitutive elements” of “church” in the fundamental ways that provide “communion”.

Read it all.

According to an e-mail sent this week from David Booth Beers, the chancellor to the presiding bishop, to about two dozen Pittsburgh Episcopalians representing a spectrum of the diocese, he wrote that the Rev. Jefferts Schori would “poll the House of Bishops in April to see when the House would next like to meet to discuss, among other things, the certification respecting Bishop Duncan. It is not accurate to say that she is seeking approval to proceed; rather, she seeks the mind of the House as to when to proceed.”

The next scheduled meeting of the roughly 300-member House of Bishops is in September.

In January, the Rev. Jefferts Schori warned Bishop Duncan he could be removed from office because of his realignment efforts. His response to her will be made public Monday.

Read it all.

I return again to my theme. Who interprets our ecclesiastical law? It is extraordinary to be told that the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor assures us that the Canons were observed in the matter of the deposition of two bishops this week. In secular society the equivalent would be for the prosecution to assure the court that all was being done in accordance with the law. I leave aside the undoubtedly canonical business of getting, or not getting, the three longest serving bishops to approve of a bill of attainder or of a committee meeting in private signing off on the alleged guilt of the accused.

That there is an overwhelming desire on the part of our bishops to shoot as many admirals as possible on their quarterdecks “for the encouragement of others” is respectably British but questionably Christian. I am often told nowadays that our doctrine and much of our tradition is the fruit of victory. “Winners write history.” Well it would seem obvious that we are in the hands of “winners” now and the history they are writing -may I become modern and wax anecdotal? – is that we make examples of at least one very old man whose wife is in the grips of a terminal disease, look as if we are after another elderly bishop, all in an attempt to “discipline” a bishop who has attempted to run off with the family silver, and perhaps warn two or more others not to do the same or else?

The “or else” is that without any form of trial or judicial hearing a group of persons will vote to declare that such persons have been deposed from the Sacred Ministry, our canonic version of a Bill of Attainder. The wretched bishops are obviously guilty and so “Off with their heads. ” Ah! we say but that means “our” sacred ministry rather than that of the Church Catholic. Yet we are not prepared to say “from the ministry ofthis jurisdiction”. It’s OK to imply it, or merely suggest that we don’t mean that which the language states.

Read it all.

The rationale presented in the ENS article would appear to be in error on two counts:

1) Canon IV.9.2 clearly states “by a majority of the whole number of
Bishops entitled to vote.” The “whole number” (currently 294) is
defined in Article I, Sec.2 of the Constitution. Mr. Beers somehow
construes “whole number” in IV.9.2 to mean “by a majority of those
Bishops present at the meeting during which the matter was
presented” (see #2).

2) Canon IV.9.2 only requires the PB “to present the matter to the
House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the
House.” There is no requirement or even implication that the
vote “by the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” must be
taken during said meeting.

In addition, the article states that the Secretary of the House of Bishops
determined that a quorum was present. A quorum is defined (Article I.2)
as a majority of Bishops with jurisdiction. For this meeting 52 Bishops
constituted a quorum. Under Mr. Beers interpretation, therefore, only
27 votes for deposition would be required in a worst case scenario.
That is 9% of “the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.” Or to
put the point another way, there really is a difference between requiring
a minimum of 148 votes for deposing a Bishop and interpeting that to
mean that only 27 votes to consent are required. For those who have
difficulty with counting, the difference is 121 votes.

For some this is nit picking. For me the Constitution and Canons of our
church state the mutually agreed upon understandings of how we will live
together in this community called the Episcopal Church. When these
mutually agreed upon understandings are trashed and/or ignored, then
the community itself is also trashed. When such an endeavor is led by
our Bishops, the harm done becomes egregious.

How hypocritical that we should seek to discipline those accused of
ignoring our C&C by employing a process which ignored our C&C.

–The Rev. Nathaniel Pierce lives in Trappe, Maryland

The Presiding Bishop’s chancellor has confirmed the validity of votes taken in the House of Bishops on March 12, correcting an erroneous report published online March 14 by The Living Church News Service.

Chancellor David Booth Beers said votes consenting to the deposition of bishops John-David Schofield and William Cox conformed to the canons.

“In consultation with the House of Bishops’ parliamentarian prior to the vote,” Beers said, “we both agreed that the canon meant a majority of all those present and entitled to vote, because it is clear from the canon that the vote had to be taken at a meeting, unlike the situation where you poll the whole House of Bishops by mail. Therefore, it is our position that the vote was in order.”

A quorum had been determined at the meeting by the House of Bishops’ secretary, Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of Southern Ohio.

From here:

Forward in Faith UK deplores the recent actions against the retired Bishop of Quincy, the Right Revd Ed MacBurney, by the House of Bishops of TEC as both pastorally and politically inept: pastorally on account of Bishop MacBurney’s age and tragic family circumstances; politically because of the certainty that it will alienate others across the Communion who have not yet grasped the extent of the graceless and totalitarian mindset which now dominates the Episcopal Church.

We are at a loss to understand why it is an offence for a bishop in good standing in one province of the Communion to offer episcopal ministry (at the request of its bishop) to a parish in another.

The Living Church has posted a major breaking story this evening. Their servers are currently down (“too many connections” says the message!) and so for the time being, we’re posting the full text.

The original story is here.

Deposition Votes Failed to Achieve Canonically Required Majority

Posted on: March 14, 2008

Slightly more than one-third of all bishops eligible voted to depose bishops John-David Schofield and William J. Cox during the House of Bishops’ spring retreat, far fewer than the 51 percent required by the canons.

The exact number is impossible to know, because both resolutions were approved by voice vote. Only 131 bishops registered for the meeting March 7-12 at Camp Allen, and at least 15 of them left before the business session began on Wednesday. There were 294 members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote on March 12.

When questioned about canonical inconsistencies during a telephone press conference at the conclusion of the meeting, Bishop Michael Curry of North Carolina said the bishops had relied on advice provided to them by canonical experts, and did not examine canonical procedure during plenary debate prior to the votes to depose bishops Schofield and Cox.

Bishop Schofield was consecrated Bishop of San Joaquin in 1989. Last December, he presided over a diocesan convention at which clergy and lay delegates voted overwhelmingly to leave The Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone. Bishop Cox was consecrated Bishop Suffragan of Maryland in 1972. He resigned in 1980, later serving as Assisting Bishop of Oklahoma from 1980 to 1988. In 2005, Bishop Cox ordained two priests and a deacon at Christ Church, Overland Park, Kan. Christ Church affiliated with the Anglican Church of Uganda after purchasing its property from the Diocese of Kansas.

Both bishops were charged with abandonment of communion. The procedure for deposing a bishop under this charge is specified in Title IV, canon 9, sections 1-2. The canon stipulates that the vote requires “a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote,” not merely a majority of those present. At least a dozen bishops voted either not to depose Bishop Schofield or to abstain, according to several bishops. The number voting in favor of deposing Bishop Cox was reportedly slightly larger than the number in favor of deposing Bishop Schofield.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was questioned about the history of the canonical proceedings against Bishop Cox. At first she said during the press conference that she had not sought the canonically required consent of the three senior bishops of the church for permission to inhibit Bishop Cox pending his trial. However Title IV, Canon 9, sections 1-2 do not describe a procedure for deposing a bishop who has not first been inhibited.

Consent Never Sought

Later in the press conference, Bishop Jefferts Schori clarified and extended her remarks, saying she had been “unable to get the consent of the three senior bishops last spring. That’s why we didn’t bring it to the September meeting” of the House of Bishops. One of the three senior bishops with jurisdiction confirmed to The Living Church that his consent to inhibit Bishop Cox was never sought.

In 2007, Bishop Cox sent a written letter to Bishop Jefferts Schori, announcing his resignation from the House of Bishops. Since he was already retired, he did not have jurisdiction, and therefore unlike Bishop Schofield, his resignation did not require consent from a majority of the House of Bishops. A trial of Bishop Cox was not mandatory.

Bishop Cox also does not appear to have been granted due process with respect to a speedy trial. Once the disciplinary review committee formally certifies that a bishop has abandoned communion, the canons state “it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the house.” The review committee provided certification to Bishop Jefferts Schori on May 29, 2007. His case should have been heard during the fall meeting in New Orleans last September. When asked about the apparent inconsistency, Bishop Jefferts Schori said initially she did not include Bishop Cox’s case on the agenda for the New Orleans meeting “due to the press of business.”

Title IV, canon 9, section 1 requires the Presiding Bishop to inform the accused bishop “forthwith,” in other words immediately, after the review committee has provided a certificate of abandonment, but Bishop Jefferts Schori did not write to Bishop Cox until Jan. 8, 2008, more than seven months afterward.

The two-hour business session at which the deposition votes were taken ran slightly longer than originally scheduled. First a resolution was read followed by prayer from the chaplain. A period of silence followed the prayer. After the silence was broken, the bishops discussed the resolution in small table groups followed by plenary discussion. When it appeared that everyone who wanted to speak had done so, the voice vote was taken. Each resolution was read and voted on separately.

(The Rev.) George Conger and Steve Waring

On Oct 31 US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori suspended him after a review panel found there was prima facie evidence to proceed against him for his actions as a parish rector in the 1970’s.

Bishop Bennison is accused of covering up the sexual abuse of a 14 year old girl by his brother. The family of the victim brought charges against the bishop in 2006, accusing him of having knowledge of the offense, but taking no action. He is also accused of withholding information of the abuse from the Diocese of Los Angeles when his brother applied for ordination.

In May Bishop Bennison will answer charges before a civil court brought by the former president of Forward in Faith, USA, the Rt. Rev. David Moyer.

In a legal first, the Pennsylvania court will allow Bishop Moyer to test the legality of the use of the “abandonment canon” used to rid him of the Anglo-Catholic leader.

Read it all.

The Title IV Task Force II has proposed a complete revision of Title IV, the main clergy-discipline canons. The group also proposes adding to Canon 17 of Title I a process for disciplining lay leaders and a procedure for dealing with impaired clergy to the Title III ministry canons.

The release of the documents opens a comment period that runs until the end of June.

The task force’s proposed revision is available here.

The current version of Title IV is available here.

The proposed revision of Canon I.17.8 to set up a process for disciplining lay leaders is available here.

The proposal to add a new canon concerning impairment of clergy to Title III is available here.

Each document includes instructions on how to file comments on the drafts.

“We want to be as fully out there to the wider church as we can get with opportunity for people to read all three documents, to respond to us with their comments, concerns, criticisms, suggestions,” said Steve Hutchinson, who chairs the current task force.

Hutchinson, chancellor of the Episcopal Diocese of Utah who was a member of the first task force, said the current task force will meet in September to synthesize the responses into a proposal to include in its Blue Book report for the 76th General Convention.

Read it all.

VII. Seventh, there are difficult and maddeningly slow formal attempts unfolding, yet unfolding nonetheless, within the Anglican Communion as a whole to begin to identify a means of getting through this adjudicatory impasse. It involves a host of synods, including the Lambeth Conference, and a proposed “covenant”, among other things. Since no one has offered an agreeable alternative to these unfolding attempts, they remain the primary means, indeed the only means available to all parties in the dispute to move forward. They are, furthermore, in keeping with the long traditions of catholic order and deserve a presumptive respect. Yet because they are both slow, still imperfectly defined, and legally of untested strength, the ultimate usefulness of these unfolding attempts must depend on a host of other Christian realities that – most would agree – actually define the Church of Jesus Christ far more essentially, primarily, and profoundly than do simply the Constitution and Canons of this or that province or diocese (indeed, that latter are, in a Christian sense, legitimate only to the degree that they embody these prior realities). These realities touch upon the gifts and fruit of the Holy Spirit and the powers thereof that permit a clear following of the Lord Jesus Christ’s own straightforward calling to specific forms of relational behavior. They touch upon matters of humility, patience, longsuffering, honesty and transparency, self-control, and much more. That is, both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion of which it is still a part and which it has, rightly or wrongly, so disturbed through its executive actions, have been thrown upon a complete dependence upon these gifts and fruit, in a way that must transcend, even while respecting for the sake of the world’s order, particular rules and regulations.

Read it all.

There are proposals, of course, to make us either a federation or a confederation, or God forbid, a unitary governmental structure such as the Roman Catholic Church has. The draft Anglican Covenant is a serious concern in this regard, particularly because it abrogates the constitutional principles that make us Anglicans. It abrogates the principle of lay participation in the governance of the Church by placing disproportionate emphasis on the views of the highest ranking bishops. It abrogates the principle of toleration by imposing a standard, and more frighteningly a mechanism, for judging orthodoxy other than the idea of common worship. Most dangerously of all, it appears merely to compromise the principle of autonomy when, if fact, it virtually destroys it by vesting the right to determine what is a matter of common concern, what the common mind of the Communion is, and what punishment is appropriate for violations of the common mind in the Primates Meeting. It is as if the English Reformation, to say nothing either of the Elizabethan Settlement or the constitutional development over time of independent churches voluntarily cooperating on the basis of a shared heritage, never happened.

I do not believe it is impossible to create an Anglican covenant that is constitutionally consistent with existing Anglican polity. The Inter-Anglican Commission on Mission and Evangelism has proposed one.(24) I do believe the current draft being considered, rather than being an expression of our constitutional identity, would be a complete replacement of it with something far less significant as an experiment in being the Church than is the Elizabethan Settlement.

In truth, the Anglican Communion does not exist with a governmental structure at all. It is, rather, a voluntary association of autonomous churches bound together by a shared heritage from the Church of England and enjoying cooperative relationships for the purpose of mission, nothing more. It is not at all unlike the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches in that regard, and they somehow manage to function reasonably well without a central government.
The term Anglican Communion arose, after all, not from an international constitutional convention but from the usage of Horatio Southgate, the American missionary bishop to Turkey in 1847.(25) Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as the Anglican Communion at all in an institutional sense. There are, instead, ways in which Anglican Christians affirm their heritage and further their missional ends by mutual respect for the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury and participation in the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates Meeting, as well as, probably more importantly, countless informal relationships that bring them together across racial, cultural, and geographic barriers for a common purpose in the service of the Gospel of Christ. What the Anglican Communion already is, I would suggest, is quite enough.

Read it all.

At the end of all this, it is American Ecclesia Anglicana that has asked the rest of the Anglican Communion to pay the steep price of breaking down Anglican Order worldwide just to save Anglican Faith in America. Yet it is American Ecclesia Anglicana that needs Anglican Order the least, and may not be able to appreciate the true cost many a province will pay for this great loss. Cognitively, I blame it all on a generational gap — that we have a generation for whom the values of laying down one’s “rights” for the other are fully beyond the cognitive horizon. This generation just cannot see it, no matter how much information is presented.

There is hope (there is always hope), that it will take the next decade for all the various pieces of Anglican Order to settle so that a new structure can be reconstituted in some form. It will also take that time period for many of the players that have been at the forefront of this fragmentation to retire from active ministry and thereby effect some change in the high levels of cathetic investment in the current state of intransigency. But a decade in a time of economic globalization is equivalent to a century during colonialism, and the impact of Anglican Order to mediate alternative terms and conditions of the rapacious ethics of globalization will be lost for millions. And that is the cost the rest of the Anglican Communion will have to pay for trying, and failing, to save Anglican Faith in America at the end of the day. Cognitively speaking, if colonialism was like a lion, a predator that devoured the globe economically but left in place global Anglican Faith and Order that delivered the gospel for millions, globalization is like an African Hyena. It is a different predator animal altogether- more rapacious. Let me explain. A lion usually kills its prey before it starts to feed on it. A hyena has no compunction about such niceties. Hyenas just start feeding while the prey is still alive. And economic globalization is one huge, hairy starving hungry hyena for those of us in Global South Anglicana.

An African proverb from my tribe says Empisi y’owanyu ekurya nekurundarunda -loosely translated to mean, “the hyena from your home village will eat you without scattering your bones too far, perchance your family might have a piece of you left to bury.” What we have lost is the unique infrastructure of global Anglican Order that would have effectively carried the new bold initiatives enshrined in the idea of the Global South Economic Empowerment Fund, which in turn would have rightly mediated those awesome Millennium Development Goals in our contexts, in a process that promised to us a new history of negotiating different (better) terms of engagement for us in the globalization dynamic. Our great Anglican Faith notwithstanding, globalization for us in the Global South, without Anglican Order to deliver the prophetic ethics of Anglican Faith, will be that other strange hyena from another village that will scatter our bones to the four winds. Sadly, this reality it also beyond the cognitive horizon of many in American Anglicanism who will continue to safely live off the benefits of their legal base, oblivious to the actual price paid by the rest of us for the breakdown of Anglican Order. As Winston Churchill put it, “Never was jeopardized so much for so many by so few for so little.”

And as the MasterCard commercial put it, “some things may cost so much by price, but some other things are priceless”. And as Anglicans facing Christian witness in the 21st Century, we have missed this point. The words of St. Paul to the Romans provide a fitting end to this essay:

Personally, I’ve been completely satisfied with who you are and what you are doing. You seem to me to be well-motivated and well-instructed, quite capable of guiding and advising one another. So, my dear friends, don’t take my rather bold and blunt language as criticism. It’s not criticism. I’m simply underlining how very much I need your help in carrying out this highly focused assignment God gave me, this priestly and gospel work of serving the spiritual needs of the non-Jewish outsiders so they can be presented as an acceptable offering to God, made whole and holy by God’s Holy Spirit. Looking back over what has been accomplished and what I have observed, I must say I am most pleased-in the context of Jesus, I’d even say proud, but only in that context. I have no interest in giving you a chatty account of my adventures, only the wondrously powerful and transformingly present words and deeds of Christ in me that triggered a believing response among the outsiders. In such ways I have trailblazed a preaching of the Message of Jesus all the way from Jerusalem far into northwestern Greece. This has all been pioneer work, bringing the Message only into those places where Jesus was not yet known and worshiped. My text has been,
Those who were never told of him-
they’ll see him!
Those who’ve never heard of him-
they’ll get the message!
Romans 15: 14-21 The Message

Read it all.

In November, the Diocese of Georgia filed a lawsuit to keep control of Christ Church’s assets, which include a $3 million historic building and an endowment estimated at $2 million to $3 million.

Its claim is based on a church law, adopted in the 1970s, called the Dennis Canon, which says that all parishes hold their property in trust for the diocese. But Christ Church, which was established in 1733, asserts that it has firm legal footing to keep control of its building and property because it existed before the Episcopal denomination, which was established in the United States in 1789.

“That would make the case a pure property case rather than a religious liberty case,” Mr. Witte said. “They will have to argue that their church is closer to the values of the late 18th century” than the Episcopal Church is today.

And that, he added, is “an argument that hasn’t been tested in federal courts.”

Read it all.

We reiterate that the Executive Council has no wish or intention to “level charges” or to “threaten litigation.” But we and the Presiding Officers have a responsibility to protect the assets of The Episcopal Church and to preserve its structure.

That structure, as set forth in the Constitution and Canons, confers on the General Convention the sole authority to make changes in the identity and responsibilities of Dioceses. Unilateral actions by Diocesan leadership that are contrary to the Constitution and Canons should not be tolerated by any active or retired Bishop. We hope and pray that such unilateral actions, and the litigation that these actions trigger, can come to a peaceful end.

Read it all.

I had high hopes for Katharine Jefferts Schori when she was elected Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA. Although she appeared to be on the extreme ”˜left’ of the Anglican spectrum in many of her actions and statements, it was clear that here was a person of great depth, and a hinterland beyond church politics. There was a possibility at one stage that she might even attempt to lead the Episcopal Church into a process of reconciliation internally and with the Anglican Communion, at least temporarily stalling the lemming-like dash of her Church into heterodox oblivion.

It seems I was mistaken. So far she has shown the same adaptability of her predecessor. Like Bishop Frank Griswold she’s signed statements at Primates’ Meetings and then gone on to reject them in every particular. It always struck me as the height of absurdity that Bishop Griswold could sign the Primates’ Communiqué from the October 2003 meeting of the Primates, warning his own Church that to consecrate Gene Robinson would result in the ”˜tearing of the fabric’ of the Communion and then to preside at the consecration of Robinson himself only a month or two later. His adaptability owed itself to his oft-expressed belief in ”˜pluriform truths’. Consequently, he could enter into the opposing truths of the Primates, and the Episcopal Church, simultaneously. Most people would call this duplicity, his defenders would probably call it ”˜postmodernism’.
Interestingly enough, while ditching the nauseating term ”˜pluriform’, Katharine Jefferts Schori has taken a similar trajectory. At the Primates’ Tanzania meeting she assented to a communiqué calling on the Episcopal Church to put in place moratoria on same-sex blessings and consecrations, to cease lawsuits, and to provide a system of ”˜alternative primatial oversight’ which reported to an international Anglican panel, of which she herself would be a member. Months later, it turns out, that she didn’t mean this at all. Sure, the American House of Bishops have promised some restraint over elections of practicing homosexual bishops, but they’ve said nothing meaningful about either samesex blessings or instituted any real changes to their system of ”˜extended’ Episcopal visitation which is rejected by the very people it is intended to serve. But the area in which she has most betrayed the very same statement which she once signed up to, is on the matter of lawsuits. It feels impossible to keep count of the number of priests deposed by dioceses, or the number of disputes over property throughout the Episcopal Church. The biggest, of course, will be over dioceses extricating themselves from the Episcopal Church and linking to other Anglican provinces. It seems clear that Southern Cone is preparing to take dioceses under their wing, but there may also be African provinces prepared to offer similar ”˜oversight’ to so-called ”˜network’ dioceses. These dioceses argue that to be part of the Episcopal Church is a voluntary agreement, and testify that the diocese is the fundamental unit of the Church and the Bishop’s link to the Anglicanism through the recognition of the Archbishop of Canterbury is unrelated to the Provincial structures. So far three dioceses: San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Pittsburgh have taken steps to remove clauses relating to unqualified accession to the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church from their own diocesan constitutions. These steps require votes at two diocesan conventions. It is by no means certain that these moves at the second convention will gain the required votes, but Presiding Bishop Schori is out to get them.
In recent open letters to the dioceses she has threatened the bishops with deposition, under the almost summary procedure of a canon on the abandonment of communion. The canon is a housekeeping exercise, a way of deposing priests, and bishops separately who have already departed the Episcopal Church to another church completely. There is no trial, no ecclesiastical court, just a determination of abandonment of communion by a communion, a period of two months to recant, a hearing at the House of Bishops and a vote by the bishops. Ordinarily this canon shouldn’t be used until a bishop has actually departed communion, but the Presiding Bishop intends to use this measure, rather than presentment and a trial of a bishop, in order to hasten matters along. She will then declare the dioceses vacant, gather the parishes which remain loyal and have them elect a new bishop. Furthermore, it is the intention of the Episcopal Church to make sure that no churches, or dioceses, align themselves to any other part of the Anglican Communion and take their property with them. So the path she has chosen is not to seek reconciliation and peace with priests and bishops opposed to the direction of the Episcopal Church but to threaten them – thereby alienating them further. There is no doubt that this will be read widely as a further abandonment of the Anglican Communion by the Episcopal Church. But it may also be a sign that at last their true colours are being revealed and the dominant liberal faction in the Episcopal Church is resigned to accepting the logic of their position and going it alone.

–This article appears in the Church of England Newspaper, November 16, 2007 edition, page 12

In the case of TEC, moreover, the issue is complicated by a polity that seeks to frustrate the maintenance of any stance which views women’s ordination in strict terms of reception, not done-and-dusted acceptance: that is, as an innovation being tested and received – or not. Because TEC has rejected this understanding, and because a PEV (provisional Episcopal visitor) scheme was not adopted, the traditional position has been maintained not across the geographical spectrum (as in the UK; or as in the Communion at large), but in specific dioceses of TEC: dioceses which now feel they have nowhere to go but into zones of special integrity and survivalism – and into the company, though they may not say it too loudly, of those who are chiefly friends of expedience and not of core ”˜catholic’ principle.

I mention this because in TEC, while there may be a general spirit abroad for carving out a special province in the light of theological innovations by ”˜the revisionist majority,’ the number of bishops actually seeking such a solution are relatively few at present (perhaps the three hard-pressed anglo-catholic dioceses; and Pittsburgh). This is because hope still exists on the part of a number of bishops, and of a large number of parishes outside their dioceses, that another way forward is possible. This may be due to not liking what they are seeing-legally, emotionally, morally, practically-when dioceses seek to move out of TEC or otherwise form a new province or structure; it may be for lack of having a clear sense of what to do, for godly or for less salutary reasons; it may have to do with belief in a communion accountability that simply will take more time, at a time when time feels short all the same.

Read it all