Read it all.

It is indeed a very serious thing in the life of the Church when a bishop or priest is inhibited from his ministry. Charles Bennison is in my prayers that this situation brings him to repentance, and back to the faith and order of the Church Catholic.

It is ironic that Charles Bennison will be put in trial before the Church for a pastoral failure to report his brother’s sexual misconduct and to protect a young teenage girl and others from his brother where Bishop Bennison denied me a Church trial as I sought to report his theological misconduct and protect my people and others from him.

The Presentment shows the same pattern of conduct of the concealing of evidence that my attorneys discovered occurred in his actions against me.

Whatever happens to Charles Bennison in church proceedings, my litigation will continue unless resolved with a satisfactory settlement.

Two senior Anglican bishops are facing legal actions from their own church in the US.

In Pennsylvania, the liberal diocesan bishop Charles Bennison has been suspended by the Primate, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, while accusations that he concealed a relative’s abuse of a teenage girl are investigated.

And in Pittsburgh, the conservative diocesan bishop Bob Duncan has been warned that he could face disciplinary procedures under Canon Law over proposals that his diocese seccede from the wider pro-gay Episcopal Church.

Both actions have stunned Episcopalians, who have been left in no doubt that their leader, a formidable woman who was formerly a marine biologist, is determined to take whatever steps necessary, both to stamp out abuse and also to maintain unity.

Read it all.

From the November, 2007 Central Florida Episcopalian [emphasis as in the original]. An excerpt:

How we move forward will necessarily differ from one case to another. If an overwhelming majority of the members of a given congregation were to decide to leave, we might face a situation in which disposal of the property would eventually have to be considered.

I have shared the following proposed protocol with the clergy at our annual Clergy Conference at Canterbury, and it will be presented to the Diocesan Board and Standing Committee later this month. It has not yet been adopted, but I believe that it ”“ or something very like it ”“ must ensure that the spiritual needs of all the members of the Diocese will be protected. (This is more detail than most of you will want, but for everyone concerned we need to be as clear as possible.)

Vestry Vote and Special Meeting of the Members

The vote of a Rector (or Church Planter) and Vestry cannot control whether or not a congregation disaffiliates. This will only be considered after a vote of the members of the congregation. However, if the Rector and Vestry determine to disaffiliate from the Diocese by at least a 75% majority vote they shall immediately notify the Bishop of that fact. They are to furnish to the Bishop a plan outlining how they intend to provide for the ongoing nurture of all people, whether they are disaffiliating or not, and whether they will seek to negotiate for the real and personal property of the Parish. A copy of the plan submitted to the Bishop shall be given to every member of the congregation and the Rector and Vestry shall certify to the Bishop that this has been done.

The Bishop will call a Special Meeting of the congregation giving at least 15 days notice of that meeting and he or his designee will preside at that meeting. The Bishop and the Parish will provide a joint notice of this meeting. The Bishop may require the Parish to hold informational meetings for the congregation prior to the Special Meeting where a pastoral team appointed by the Bishop may participate and answer questions concerning disaffiliation.

Prior to the meeting the Bishop will appoint a committee of three members of the congregation who will make a recommendation to the Bishop as to the eligibility of any member to vote should a challenge arise, the Bishop being the final arbiter. This decision shall be based upon the canonical definition of a member in good standing, eligible to vote.

Congregational Vote

At the Special Meeting of the Congregation, after a suitable time for discussion as determined by the Bishop or his designee, the question shall be put before the meeting: “Do you wish to disaffiliate from the Episcopal Church or not?” The vote tally shall be reported by the Bishop or his designee and the Bishop shall render within 7 days, on a case by case basis whether in his opinion a viable Episcopal congregation remains.

The Bishop will call a meeting of those members desiring to maintain their affiliation with The Episcopal Church in order to elect a new Vestry. The Bishop, or his designee, will preside at that meeting. Until a new Vestry is elected, the Bishop will appoint at least three of the members desiring to remain in The Episcopal Church as the Vestry and an interim Warden who shall take charge of the Parish and establish a plan for the future operation of the Parish.

Possible Sale of Real and Personal Property

If, in the judgment of the Bishop with the concurrence of the Diocesan Board and Standing Committee (if consecrated property is involved), the Parish and the Diocese are willing to sell the real and personal property held by the Parish, and the members desiring to disaffiliate with The Episcopal Church have formed a non-profit corporation, the Diocese will enter into negotiations with the new corporation to consider the purchase or lease of the property. A decision to sell parochial property is one that must be made by the continuing members of a congregation, not by those who have voted to leave it. The Diocese and the new corporation will select a qualified property appraiser to determine the fair market value of the real property. The cost of the property appraisal will be borne by the new corporation. The Diocese may require an audit of the financial affairs of the Parish by an independent accountant for the current year and the prior two years.

Upon receipt of the audit reports and the property appraisal, the Bishop, with the consent of the Diocesan Board and Standing Committee, shall be empowered to sell the real and personal property on behalf of the Parish on terms agreeable to the Bishop and the Board. These terms may include a mortgage amortized over a 30 year period with low (not to exceed prime) or no interest. The starting point for any such discussion will be the fair market value of the property for use as a church.

This is a very painful time for many of us. I feel a great sense of personal loss in contemplating these departures, but I want to reassure you that the Diocese of Central Florida remains steadfastly committed to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the authority and trustworthiness of God’s word written, and the anointing and empowering of the Holy Spirit. As your Bishop I am committed to proclaiming the Gospel, to strengthening existing churches and planting new ones, and to raising up the next generation as faithful followers of Christ. The painful loss of some of our brothers and sisters in Christ will not divert us from any of these commitments.

I have said repeatedly that it is my desire to remain both an Episcopalian and an Anglican. In that regard, let me share something with you that the Archbishop of Canterbury has written to me just this past month: “Any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such”¦. I should feel a great deal happier, I must say, if those who are most eloquent for a traditionalist view in the United States showed a fuller understanding of the need to regard the Bishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the ”˜National Church.’”

We have a great and faithful Diocese, and with the help of the Lord himself, I am committed to making it even better. During this time of transition, I urge all of us to treat each other with great care and compassion. I ask your prayers for wisdom for all who will be involved in these discussions.

With warmest regards in our Lord,

+ John W. Howe, Bishop

The full article is here.

In the early 1980s, a decision was made to carve a new Diocese ”“ the Diocese of Fort Worth ”“ from the old Diocese of Dallas. It would include Tarrant County and 23 other western and neighboring counties.

At this same time, there were discussions on how to retitle the property within the new diocese. Prior to this time the property had been held in the name of the Bishop of the Diocese of Dallas or his successor in office. This was traditional in most dioceses of the Episcopal Church and had served well for literally decades. In these new times, however, there were occasions when our bishop would be away from the diocese for extended periods. Therefore, real estate closings had to be continued until such time as the bishop was back in residence. Today fax machines, e-mails and FedEx would help us keep things going but those were not universally available, if at all, in the early 1980s.

A new plan was adopted to retitle the real property of the diocese in the name of a corporation which would be called “Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.”

Read it all.

Here’s the beginning of proposed resolution 4 from the Diocese of Northern California:

TITLE: Affirmation of Real and Personal Property Status

RESOLVED: That this 97th Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Northern California urges every Parish, Mission and Congregation in the Diocese of Northern California to examine the title documents for all real property held in their respective Parishes, Missions and Congregations, and where necessary take such steps to incorporate the provisions of Title I, Canon 7, Section 4 of the Canons of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church into said title documents affirmatively stating that “all real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for The Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Diocese of Northern California.

You can read all the proposed resolutions here.

The following is an excerpt of the lead article in the Diocese of Northern Michigan’s September 2007 newspaper, entitled “Dar es Salaam, Already One in God.” The intro to the article states “On the 19th of February, 2007, the Primates of the Anglican Communion, meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, released a Communiqué. We, as the Diocese of Northern Michigan, offer our response.” It is not clear who exactly within the diocese drafted this response. Please read it all carefully. It is noteworthy not so much for what it says specifically in response to the Primates’ demands, but its articulation of the theological convictions accepted within the diocese. This is where TEC’s Baptismal Ecclesiology can lead individuals or an entire diocese.

(emphasis added)

We invite all to God’s table. What we expect, in turn, is that those who come to the table likewise recognize the right, by being children of God, of everyone else to be at the table.

BAPTISMAL ECCLESIOLOGY

We proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ that everyone and everything belongs. We are continually being created in the image of God, in whom we live and move and have our being. Baptism confirms this most basic truth which is at once, the Good News: all is of God, without condition and without restriction.

We seek and serve Christ in all persons because all persons are the living Christ. Each and every human being, as a human being, is knit together in God’s Spirit, and thus an anointed one ”“ Christ. Jesus of Nazareth reveals this as the basic truth of the human condition:

God is more in me
than if the whole sea
could in a little sponge
wholly contained be.
~Angelus Silesius

We strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being, because each person embodies the living God. Life is inherently and thoroughly sacramental, which is why we love one another without condition.

We stand with Meister Eckhart who, when he gazed deep within himself, as well as all about him, saw that “the entire created order is sacred” as it is grounded
in God. We do harmful and evil things to ourselves and one another, not because we are bad, but because we are blind to the beauty of creation and ourselves. In other words, we are ignorant of who we truly are: “there is no Greek or Hebrew; no Jew or Gentile; no barbarian or Scythian; no slave or citizen. There is only Christ, who is all in all.” (Colossians 3:11).

Everyone is the sacred word of God, in whom Christ lives. This baptismal vision of a thoroughly blessed creation leads us to understand the reason for the incarnation in a new way:

People think God has only become a human being there ”“ in his historical incarnation ”“ but that is not so; for God is here ”“ in this very place ”“ just as much incarnate as in a human being long ago. And this is why he has become a human being: that he might give birth to you as his only begotten Son, and as no less. ~Meister Eckhart

AFFIRMATIONS

Because each and every one of us is an only begotten child of God; because we, as the church, are invited by God to see all of creation as having life only insofar as it is in God; because everything, without exception, is the living presence, or incarnation, of God; as the Diocese of Northern Michigan,

We affirm Christ present in every human being and reject any attempt to restructure The Episcopal Church’s polity in a manner contrary to the principles of the baptismal covenant;

We affirm the full dignity and autonomy and interdependence of every Church in the Anglican Communion and reject any attempt of the Primates to assume an authority they do not have nor have ever possessed;

We affirm the sacramental gift of all persons, their Christ-ness, especially those who are gay and lesbian, and reject any moratorium on the blessing of samesex unions and consents of gay bishops, as it would compromise their basic dignity.

The full article is here (pp. 1-2)

West Virginia had the honor of kicking off the fall diocesan convention season. You can find all the convention info here.

On one level most of the proposed resolutions aren’t too controversial. Nothing dramatic re: Same-Sex Blessings. Nothing about the Windsor Process, the Tanzania Communique or the Crisis in the Communion. Nothing about voting to leave TEC.

But, these resolutions are not exactly “Yawn-worthy” either. Take a close look. Resolutions are here.

How about Resolution 4 which starts out:

Concerning: Deletion of Clergy Minimum Compensation
WHEREAS, many churches in West Virginia are struggling with finances causing the closing or clustering of churches.
WHEREAS, in the Diocese many churches have lost almost 50% of their congregations over the last many years exacerbating this problem.

Lost 50% of their congregations?!?! Um, but, I thought our presiding bishop has said that TEC and its dioceses and parishes are all healthy and thriving.

Then there’s Resolution 9 on the Diocese’s giving to 815 which begins:

Concerning: Remitting Full Amount of National Church Assessment in Four Years
WHEREAS, In Article I of its Constitution, the Diocese of west Virginia accedes to the Constitution and Canons of the National Episcopal Church of the USA, and
WHEREAS, In various Canons the National Church, called the General Convention, mandates the payment of an assessment, also called “asking,” of a certain percentage sum of the income of each Diocese to support the National Church, and
WHEREAS, In 2007, and for some years prior, the Diocese of West Virginia has forwarded half or less than half of its assessment (asking) to the General Convention, and it proposes to submit only approximately 45.2% of the asking in its draft budget for 2008,

It’s interesting of course to see the fact that WV (a “reappraising” diocese) hasn’t been able to meet its full assessment for the National Church. Yet another sign that perhaps some dioceses are not as “healthy and vital” as 815 would like folks to believe. But even more interesting to this elf…. note the first line of the resolution: WHEREAS, In Article I of its Constitution, the Diocese of west Virginia accedes to the Constitution and Canons of the National Episcopal Church of the USA

Very interesting that. In fact one will note that in every resolution submitted by this individual, one Robert DuBose, that phrase appears. We wonder whose idea THAT was/is?

Readers, can you keep your eyes open for similar phrases about Acession to TEC’s Constitution and Canons in all of your diocesan resolutions? This elf has a hunch there is going to be a LOT of that language floating around. Thanks! Looking like it could be a very long and UNdull convention season. Stay tuned.

A committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth recommended Monday that the diocese leave the U.S. Episcopal Church and affiliate with another province of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Because the proposal involves a constitutional change, it would first have to be approved at the diocese’s annual convention Nov. 16-17 and again in 2008, Bishop Jack Iker said.

“This is just a first step,” Iker said.

Read it all.

Leaders of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth have recommended that it leave the more liberal Episcopal Church, the Anglican body of the United States.

The Episcopal Church faces considerable internal division, including revolt by some dioceses and parishes, over allowing an openly gay bishop and not forbidding the blessing of same-sex unions.

The Fort Worth diocese’s standing committee ”“ a key panel of clergy and lay leaders ”“ proposed Monday that the diocese withdraw from the Episcopal Church and affiliate with another province of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

In announcing the recommendation, the Rev. Ryan S. Reed, president of the committee, described Fort Worth as a “traditional, conservative diocese” that has long found itself at odds with the leadership of the Episcopal Church.

The proposal to withdraw would have to be approved at the diocese’s annual convention Nov. 16-17. And because the move involves changing the diocese’s constitution, a second vote would be required at next year’s annual convention.

Read it all.

[i]Posted today on the Diocese of Fort Worth website[/i] [hat tip to Randall Foster at TexAnglican who had it posted before we’d even gotten this by e-mail.]

Today the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth announced its decision to sponsor five proposed amendments to the Diocesan Constitution and Canons for consideration at the diocese’s 25th Annual Convention on November 16 and 17, 2007. [PDF document below]

If adopted, the Diocese would take the first step needed to dissociate itself from the General Convention of The Episcopal Church and to begin the process of affiliating with another Province of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Since constitutional changes do not go into effect until they are approved by two successive diocesan conventions, the second, ratifying vote would come at the annual meeting in 2008. Under the proposals, the Diocese would reaffirm its position as “a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, consisting of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces and regional churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.”

EXPLANATION from the Very Rev. Ryan S. Reed, President, on behalf of the Standing Committee

The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth has always been a traditional, conservative diocese, adhering to the beliefs and practices of the historic catholic faith. This means it has often found itself in conflict with decisions of the General Convention, which has continued a series of innovations in liturgy, theology, and the sacraments. For 25 years, the diocese has attempted to differentiate itself from the actions of the General Convention and its ongoing effort to revise and redefine the historic teaching of the Church on faith and morals, as revealed in Holy Scripture.

To submit to and comply with the current direction of the General Convention would mean for us to embrace a distortion of the Christian faith that our forebears would not recognize as a continuation of “the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship.” It would mean driving an even deeper wedge between us and the rest of the Anglican Communion, as well as other Christian bodies, who do not condone recent actions of the General Convention, but rather view them as schismatic and sectarian. We cannot act against our conscience and in violation of the faith once delivered to the saints.

The full text of the announcement is here.

A PDF document with the proposed changes to the Constitution & Canons is here.

The Episcopal Church will make sure that any property it sells is not intended for use by parishes that plan to affiliate with other Anglican provinces, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said Sept. 30 on a visit to Grace Cathedral in San Francisco.

Asked if she were satisfied with the agreement by the Diocese of the Rio Grande to sell St. Clement Pro-Cathedral in El Paso, Texas, to the congregation, Bishop Schori said she had recommended two stipulations.

“I’ve told them that my two concerns are that the congregation not set up as another part of the Anglican Communion and that there is some reasonable assurance that it’s a fair sale,” she said.

Bishop Jefferts Schori spoke to reporters before appearing on Grace Cathedral’s Forum, a weekly program, broadcast on the Internet. Bishop Jefferts Schori appeared on the program with the Bishop of California, the Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus. She also preached at the 11 a.m. service.

The issue of control over property is becoming an increasing concern as parishes disaffected by The Episcopal Church’s stance on homosexuality and other matters affiliate with more conservative bishops in other provinces.

Bishop Jefferts Schori’s concerns evidently have not been written into the sale agreement. Bishop Jefferts Schori said she has made herself clear to Bishop Jeffrey Steenson and the diocese, but that it’s “too soon to get a response.”

Read it all.

We, the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, have recently conducted two meetings with clergy and lay leaders of the diocese. This was done in accord with our decision, announced in May, to continue to seek Alternative Primatial Oversight as requested by vote of the 2006 Diocesan Convention. The meetings allowed us to explore the options before us. All active parish clergy resident in the diocese were invited to attend one of the two meetings. The junior and senior wardens of each congregation also were invited to attend, to represent the concerns of the laity.

The purpose of the meetings was to give each participant an opportunity to share personal feelings and opinions on the crisis facing The Episcopal Church and the relationship of this diocese to General Convention. The meetings were characterized by a spirit of charity and openness, as well as anxiety and grief. We heard sincere and faithful voices from all points of view. It was the opinion of all that, regardless of what course of action is taken, there will be tremendous cost at all levels. At the same time, we were encouraged by the honest discussion during this time of listening.

Three general options for the future were identified in May. During the whole course of both meetings, we heard two or three persons voice support for a path of complete accession to the positions taken by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church. There was a little more support for continuing the current course of staying and witnessing within The Episcopal Church. The overwhelming opinion expressed by those who spoke was that it is time for the realignment to move forward, as we committed ourselves to doing at our Diocesan Convention of 2003.* Sadly, no other solution to the crisis could be identified. With faith and renewed hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, we will move forward.

We appreciate the contributions made by all who participated, and we pray for the life and direction of this diocese.

The Very Rev. Ryan S. Reed
President
on behalf of the Standing Committee

Stand Firm has four documents posted. Three are suggestions by various Bishops as to what should be said in a “Mind of the House” resolution. The fourth is a memo from Peter Lee. We’ve posted some excerpts below, but if you can read them all at Stand Firm, please do so.

A Memorandum to the House of Bishops from Peter James Lee
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6103/

This one is about Resolution B033 — an explanation of what it supposedly meant to the House of Bishops.

Key text:
[blockquote]The General Convention speaks for the Episcopal Church and we bishops understand that resolution as providing an assurance to the wider communion that meets the requests of the Primates’ Communique from the Primates’ meeting in Tanzania. The General Convention of the Episcopal Church has never authorized the blessing of intimate unions between same sex partners. While the Episcopal Church has, for some forty years, explored the most faithful way of ministering to and with gay and lesbian people who are part of our common life, as a liturgical church, our official actions are expressed in our liturgies and no rite of blessing has ever been adopted by the General Convention.[/blockquote]

========================

Bishop Henry N. Parsley (Alabama): Mind of the House Resolution
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6105/

This one is a bit more detailed, it tries to discuss all the issues: Polity, B033, authorization of SSBs, DEPO, etc. Here’s an excerpt:

We have listened prayerfully to your communiqué from Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania in February 2007 and offer our response.

We recognize that in the polity of the Episcopal Church we as the House of Bishops acting alone cannot legislate for this church or alter resolutions of the General Convention. In our role as chief pastors of the Episcopal Church we believe that, consistent with the report presented to you by the Communion Sub-Group of the Anglican Communion Joint Standing Committee, our General Convention Resolution B-033 (On the Election of Bishops) is in accord with the requests of the Windsor Report and meets your concerns. The Sub-Group found that this resolution “complies with the force of the Windsor Report” and that by adopting it “the majority of the bishops have committed themselves to the recommendations of the Windsor Report.” We agree.

Secondly, we remind you that our General Convention did not in 2006, nor has before, adopted resolutions authorizing the development of the public rites for the blessing of same sex unions. The Covenant Statement adopted by our House of Bishops in 2005 states that “we pledge not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and we will not bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006”. The General Convention of 2006 took no action on this matter and the Covenant Statement continues to have moral force among us as bishops. We continue as well to heed the word of the Primates’ Meeting communiqué from Dromantine assuring “homosexual persons that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship.” We recognize that in our diocese there will be differing pastoral responses to this affirmation.

Thirdly, we affirm once again our unequivocal commitment and care for all the dioceses, parishes, and members of the Episcopal Church, as evidenced in our Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight plan.

========================

A Resolution Submitted by Bishop Dean E. Wolfe, Diocese of Kansas
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6106/

Ok here’s the key section of this one:

As bishops laboring in a fractured age, we seek to find a place for everyone at Christ’s table. We believe room for respectful disagreement within our church is holy space and we value opportunities for ongoing conversation, prayer, and growth. While we acknowledge that we are not of one mind, we continue to strive to be of one heart. We are resolute in our belief that, “the mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ.”

We pledge ourselves to work more fervently for deeper unity in the Church and we commit ourselves to addressing the pastoral needs and concerns of everyone in our care. We are pleased to note a growing awareness and understanding of the polity of The Episcopal Church, both within the membership of our own church and with our Anglican partners in other Provinces, even as we gain a deeper awareness and understanding of the polity of other Provinces. We affirm our understanding that The General Convention, that wondrous gathering of lay and ordained person, is authoritative for our Province.

=======================

Mind Of The House Resolution Submitted By Bishop Pierre Whalon
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6107/

Bishop Whalon’s resolution is the most detailed of all. Not merely a short statement but quite a comprehensive outline of what he thinks the bishops need to say. Here is his introduction and another short excerpt:

I propose that the document we release at the end of our meeting address the basic points below, some of which have to be filled out as the meeting unfolds. The first three seem to me to be obviously needed, The other points also seem necessary: some description of the actual state of The Episcopal church, to help people around the world hear what is actually happening among us: addressing the issue of authority in the Communion, particularly relating to the ACC; affirming the essential unity of all the baptized, despite how we might feel about other people at times; and addressing the matters of the Primatial Vicar, B033, and rites of same-sex blessings.

I offer some language for these latter points, in parts quite strong. It isn’t in my usual style, but I think we cannot mince words. Some reiteration of basics of the faith seems necessary, since people around the globe will be reading what we have to say. […]

IV. Before we turn to our comment on the Primates Communiqué, we must set the record straight about the actual state of The Episcopal Church. E.g.,

Number of parishes is 7,115; numbers of parishes seeking to leave TEC is around 160, or about 2.2%. This is a major tragedy, but not the massive movement that some would claim.

While the Windsor Report commended our plan of Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (§152), we have seen an organized strategy of congregations refusing any and all provision of alternative oversight and then claiming that they are being persecuted. When parishes have been willing to engage in the process, DEPO has worked effectively. We noted with frustration that DEPO, offered at great cost, did not receive any recognition in the Primates Communiqué.

It should be noted that parishes and dioceses in The Episcopal Church do not exist apart from it. We respect that some people feel bound by conscience to leave the Church and go elsewhere, though such partings of friends have been extremely painful to live through. Some parishes have challenged their dioceses in the secular courts for retention of properties that do not belong to them. These properties are most often the result of the hard work of generations of faithful Episcopalians, and the lawsuits have resulted in serious wasteful diversion of funds that should be consecrated for the mission of God to pay for secular legal representation. While we are listening to the leaders of a few dioceses who say they must leave, and would dread that eventuality, it is clear that they would leave as people, not dioceses. As Bishops of this Church. We implore those who feel they need to leave to reconsider.

In reality, the Anglican constitution is a fantasy of Bishop Doss, as the paper ignores how the Anglican Communion came into being, including the concessions that the American Church had to make first to the Episcopal Church of Scotland and then to the Church of England in order to receive Episcopal orders from those churches. These concessions both included doctrine in the form of creedal language and changes in the prayer book. It also ignores the Colenso controversy which sparked the first Lambeth Conference and the first Anglican border crossing – the creation of the Diocese of Mauritzberg which was coterminous with the Diocese of Natal. I don’t think any paper can effectively address the structure of the Anglican Communion without addressing these two issues – the admission of the Episcopal Church to communion with the churches in Britain and the Colenso controversy. To ignore these issues is like talking about weather while not discussing cloud formations, or maybe a discussion of shoes without addressing the issue of feet. If anything constitutes a common law of the Anglican Communion, it is these two issues and how they were handled.

The paper, in addition to ignoring the foregoing issues, lacks concreteness by previous examples (perhaps precedent from a common law legal point of view) in its assertions of what this Anglican constitution really is, other than citation to Hooker for his three strands and how the Church of England dealt with competing theologies and practices before the Anglican Communion was ever established. During these times, a hierarchical structure governed in the Church of England (and, arguably, still does) which enables someone to impose a solution on various disputes. The Queen enforced a prayer book. I note that Doss does not suggest that the Queen do so again, but comprehensiveness does not exist in a vacuum – someone has to provide to glue to hold the comprehensive church together. Doss, while arguing for keeping the structure (or lack thereof) that we have in the Anglican Communion, supplies no glue for holding things together.

The paper also assumes, without proof, that same-sex sexuality and the doctrinal innovations of the Episcopal Church are good and true, essentially foreclosing any further discussion of them. It lays the blame for the current controversies squarely at the feet of traditionalists and ignores the fact that the innovations of the Episcopal Church, while perhaps not challenging the mythical Anglican Constitution (if such even exists), are squarely against the Christian thought and teaching of a majority of Christians and certainly Anglicans. While the paper recognizes the fact that the Anglican Communion is built partially on like-mindedness, it then ignores the evaporation of this like-mindedness as a cause for the current controversies.

Read it all.

I have considerable sympathy with the views on sexual ethics of liberals in the Episcopal Church, including presumably, the Bishop of San Diego: I agree with them that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexual activity. But before you assume that I “don’t have any morals” I should note that I regard the arrogance and hypocrisy of liberal clergy, and their strong-arm tactics as shockingly immoral. They put on the armor of righteousness convinced that they were divinely commissioned not only to enlighten members of the Episcopal Church but to exert prophetic moral leadership in the World, and were cock-sure that they would get their way by “using psychology”””by manipulating laypeople””and by bullying conservative clergy.

Even now as the Church is undergoing meltdown, the Princes of the Church and their courtiers, like their counterparts in the secular regime, are determined to stay the course. The bishop seems convinced that with enough legal firepower he will be able to capture territory from dissident congregations and achieve “mission accomplished” within a year. He also claims to believe that once dissident clergy and laypeople have been forced out of their churches, rebuilding will be relatively unproblematic””or at least feasible:

In each and every case, it is my intention to rebuild vibrant, Christ-centered ministries in congregations that have been seriously affected”¦

Following current events in the secular world, I’m not so sure about that. Mission accomplished is quick and easy””you can beat up bad guys and level an entire country in three weeks of shock and awe. Rebuilding is quite another thing and I’m not sure how the bishop plans to accomplish this task in those seriously affected congregations.

This bishop’s letter is very light on specifics and on figures. Once conservative dissidents have been forced out of their churches, how big will the righteous remnant in each church be? 100? 50? 10? I rather doubt that there will be a sufficient number to maintain the property. The bishop however seems to believe that once ethnic cleansing is complete local residents who, presumably, had been scared off by the bigots and homophobes occupying the facility would flood into the church to establish vibrant, Christ-centered ministries.

This also seems highly unlikely and I doubt that the bishop or anyone else really believes it. We can make an educated guess about what will happen. The diocese will install part-time, retired or non-stipendiary clergy in these parishes and operate them as missions for a few years, making a show of working to establish vibrant, Christ-centered ministries and then, when they’re sure no one is looking, sell them off. San Diego county real estate still fetches a good price and the Diocese should be able to extract a pretty penny from creative entrepreneurs looking to turn the buildings into church-themed restaurants or nightclubs or to developers who will tear them down to build condos….

Read it all and please note the disclaimer that Dr. Baber asks to be printed:

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED HERE ARE MY OWN AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN TO REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF MY EMPLOYER. IF YOU LINK, QUOTE OR CITE PLEASE INCLUDE THIS DISCLAIMER AND DO NOT INCLUDE MY ACADEMIC AFFILIATION.

.

“It would be impossible for me to respond to the whole document in the short time I have before I leave for other duties for the next several days, but I have reviewed the document (which is rather confused and repetitive) and make observation of several key points:

The scholarship is very uneven, and even totally in error on major points. For example, in showing the difference between TEC and the rest of the Anglican Communion (especially England), these legal scholars state that we elect our bishops by clerical and lay support, while in England the Prime Minister nominates to Parliament a nominee, who is then either accepted or rejected by Parliament. Only our system is fully open to the Holy Spirit, so we cannot conform to the Tanzania communique. First, names of possible bishops are never submitted to Parliament, which has absolutely no role in the choice of English bishops. Second, a number of other Provinces elect their bishops. Third, claiming that the TEC system is the only way the Holy Spirit operates would cast into doubt the election of Matthias in the Acts of the Apostles, not to mention most of the rest of the Christian Catholic world. And how does our selection process prevent us from conforming to the Tanzania communique?

Obviously, a major issue for the Anglican Communion is the question of the election and consecration of Gene Robinson (and the probability of other non-celibate homosexual persons being consecrated bishop). The whole issue of homosexuality is mis-represented in the document….

Read it all.

The Rt. Rev. Dorsey F. Henderson, Jr., Bishop of Upper South Carolina, was erroneously listed as a contributing author of a legal paper prepared for the House of Bishops’ meeting next week.

“My name is on it because there was a criss-cross of e-mails,” Bishop Henderson told a reporter from The Living Church. “I asked that my name be removed, but I was informed that it had already been sent to the printer. There are parts in which I concur, but others where I dissent.”

The 98-page paper is titled “The Constitutional Crisis, 2007: A Statement to The House of Bishops, the Archbishop of Canterbury, & Honored Visitors by Legally Trained Members of the House.” In addition to Bishop Henderson, five other bishops who are licensed attorneys are listed as authors: the Rt. Rev. Cabell Tennis, retired Bishop of Delaware; the Rt. Rev. Robert D. Rowley, Jr., retired Bishop of Northwestern Pennsylvania; the Rt. Rev. Joe Morris Doss, retired Bishop of New Jersey; the Rt. Rev. Creighton Robertson, Bishop of South Dakota; and the Rt. Rev. Stacy F. Sauls, Bishop of Lexington.

Read it all.

Download it and read it all.

It appears to many of us ”“ bishops, clergy, laity ”“ that a moment of decision has arrived in the Anglican Communion. The Windsor Report and Primates Communiques from Dromantine and Dar es Salaam have asked The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada to take clear actions committing these two Provinces of the Anglican Communion to “walking together” rather than “walking apart” from the Communion. After four years the official, as well as general, response from The Episcopal Church seems to be “we’ll do it our way.” Moreover rejection (by both the House of Bishops and Executive Council) of proposals to allow sufficient integrity to dioceses like Pittsburgh, concerning traditional Faith and Order, now seem all but final. A last minute reversal by the House of Bishops (prior to a September 30th deadline established by the Communion) seems most unlikely. In light of these events, with heavy hearts, and for the sake of our mission it appears the time has come to begin the process of realignment within the Anglican Communion.

Constitutional changes proposed for consideration at the 142nd Annual Convention would begin the process to exercise our right to end the accession of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church of the United States of America. The accession clause first appeared in the Constitution of our Diocese in 1868. The effect of the changes would make clear the right to end any claim of spiritual or canonical authority of the General Convention over the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and would allow the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to realign itself with another Province of the Anglican Communion. The proposed changes are written in such a way, however, that continuing membership in The Episcopal Church remains a possibility if The Episcopal Church were to reverse its “walk apart” from the Anglican Communion.

Where are we going? Nowhere. We stand where we have always stood. We are who we have always been. It is The Episcopal Church that has moved. It is The Episcopal Church that has become something new. If the Convention adopts the constitutional amendments proposed, it is re-alignment within the Anglican Communion that would be made possible. The argument is that this re-alignment would free the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh from any claim that it can be forced to be something different, from being carried somewhere outside the mainstream of Anglicanism, from being lured somewhere outside the mainstream of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Because the accession clause is a feature of our local diocesan constitution, adoption of the changes requires the action of two successive annual conventions. The proposed changes would therefore not take effect immediately, but would open a season of planning, discussion and decision-making in preparation for the second vote in 2008.

Read it all.

The Rev. Van McCalister, public relations officer for the diocese, said the change in date was primarily made to give the voting members of convention time for prayer and careful consideration of the unusually large number of important events scheduled this fall. These include the fall meeting of the House of Bishops, at which the bishops are expected to consider requests made of The Episcopal Church by the primates of the Anglican Communion.

“We are very aware of the fact that this is a very important transitional moment, no matter how the vote goes,” Fr. McCalister said. “We’re just in a ”˜wait-and-see’ mode right now, however.”

Last year diocesan clergy and lay delegates approved the first reading of controversial changes to remove language acknowledging the diocese as a constituent part of The Episcopal Church from its constitution and canons. In order to be approved, the changes must pass at two consecutive conventions. If approved it is possible that the diocese would face a legal challenge.

Read it all.

While other agenda items were marked as amended, concurred or had check marks besides it, the Dennis Canon was not marked off.

At this stage, the documentary evidence supporting passage of the Dennis Canon, Resolution D-24, came to an end. No records of the House of Bishops, save for those appended to House of Deputies’ Committee Reports have survived, nor have the minutes or the messages to the House of Bishops from the Deputies confirming its action been retained in the archival record.

A final examination of the remaining documents for the Convention in the Archives, however, unearthed the missing 10th day summary in the “print shop” binder””a record of all items sent for duplication. On page 10, the summary reports resolution D-24 as amended was adopted by the Deputies, and message 204 memoralizing this action was sent to the House of Bishops””-however no copy of this message has survived either, and is known only by reference.

Given that the summary of legislation was produced on the same day as the actions it describes took place, it is reasonable to assume that it is a true and correct record of events. While this indirect evidence exists of passage of the Dennis Canon, no direct evidence has survived.

Wicks Stephens, chancellor of the Anglican Communion Network, said the “absence of usually present documentation is troubling and indeed suspicious.”

While acknowledging that the documentary evidence in the Archives could be used to argue the Dennis Canon passed Convention, it also “suggests that it may not have been. In that event one can argue that the court should put the burden of proving its valid establishment on the party asserting its validity ”“ TEC. At that point, how will TEC meet such a burden unless they can find the rest of the record?” he said.

Read it all.

Here are some of the elements:

–Meetings will begin and end on time, with consent and discussion agendas planned to maximize time for effective discussion and decision-making.
–A detailed agenda and all documents pertaining to agenda items will be mailed to members sufficiently in advance of the meeting date to allow for thorough study. –It is the responsibility of each member to familiarize themselves with the materials prior to the meeting.
–I will come to the meeting on time and stay the entire time. If I am unable to attend, or must leave before the end of the meeting, I will notify the leader in advance.
–I will use “I” messages when I address the meeting: “I believe;” “I think;” “I want;” etc.
–I will listen respectfully to what others have to say without interrupting. I will not engage in side conversations when another speaker has the floor.

Read it all (hat tip: Bible Belt Blogger)

Received via email:

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – – Three California Anglican churches today announced the filing of petitions with the California Supreme Court to settle a church property dispute case that affects countless churches and their members throughout California. The three churches are St. James Church in Newport Beach, All Saints’ Church in Long Beach, and St. David’s Church in North Hollywood.

In July 2007, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reversed the Orange County Superior Court’s prior ruling that the three former Episcopal churches, which ended their affiliation with the national denomination in 2004, did not forfeit their property by changing their affiliation to another Anglican church. This division of the appellate court broke with nearly thirty years of California church property law applying “neutral principles” (i.e., who holds the deed, who bought or donated the property, and whether the local church ever agreed to turn over the property), and instead ruled that denominations can take over local church property by simply passing an internal rule – even if the local church is separately incorporated, bought and maintained the property, and never consented to the rule.

“Californians respect property rights, and no one, especially a big church bureaucracy, should have the right to confiscate someone else’s property just by passing a rule. For nearly thirty years, and based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, California courts have respected the property rights of church members who have bought and maintained their property,” said Eric C. Sohlgren, legal spokesman. “By turning the clock back to cases from the 1800’s, the court’s opinion has given big institutional churches a power greater than eminent domain, and thrown this area of law into turmoil and uncertainty. California courts, religious corporations and church members are now left with a patchwork of conflicting court decisions governing ownership of church property,” Sohlgren said.

St. James, All Saints’ and St. David’s, as the sole property owners, never agreed to relinquish their property to the Episcopal Church upon changing their affiliation, and they have consistently maintained that they have the right to use and possess the property they have owned and maintained for decades.

“We are asking the Supreme Court to intervene and declare explicitly that California courts are to apply neutral principles of law in resolving church property disputes,” Sohlgren added.

The churches also seek the Supreme Court’s guidance on a California statute which allows courts to expedite cases where people are sued for exercising their free speech rights, known as the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute. The statute subjects to early scrutiny cases filed by large private interests to deter individuals from exercising their political or legal rights to free speech or to petition the government. Attorneys for the three churches argued that The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Los Angeles are large, wealthy and powerful religious organizations that sought to stifle these fundamental rights when church members spoke out about their disagreements with the Episcopal Church, including through the act of disaffiliation itself.

* * *

A Brief Recap

The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles brought lawsuits against St. James, All Saints’ and St. David’s Anglican Churches and their volunteer board members in September of 2004. Subsequently, the national Episcopal Church intervened into the lawsuits against the three local church corporations and their volunteer board members.

On August 15, 2005, the Honorable David C. Velasquez of the Orange County Superior Court ruled in favor of St. James against the complaint brought by the Diocese of Los Angeles. In October 2005, Judge Velasquez issued a similar ruling in favor of All Saints and St. David’s. The Diocese of Los Angeles appealed the rulings to the California Court of Appeal.

In August 2005, the Complaint in Intervention filed separately by the national Episcopal Church (“TEC”) was still pending in the Orange County Superior Court.

In Fall 2005, the Court granted the three Churches’ challenges to TEC’s original Complaint in Intervention, but gave TEC an opportunity to amend the Complaint (but only if it could do so in good faith). TEC filed a First Amended Complaint in Intervention, which rehashed many of the church-rule arguments the Court had already rejected in prior rulings. The three local churches filed another challenge (called a demurrer) asking the Court to dismiss the First Amended Complaint without further leave to amend on the ground that even if all of the factual allegations were true, they did not state a legal wrong under California law. TEC also appealed that ruling to the California Court of Appeal.

In July 2007, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, in an opinion authored by Presiding Justice David G. Sills, reversed the Orange County Superior Court’s prior ruling that three church corporations which disaffiliated from the national denomination did not forfeit their property. This division of the appellate court broke with nearly thirty years of California church property law, and Division Two of the Fourth Appellate District, by ruling that general churches can take over local church property by simply passing an internal rule – even if the local church is separately incorporated, bought and maintained the property.

Three churches that split from the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles in a dispute over a gay bishop are asking the state Supreme Court to weigh in on who controls the parishes’ buildings.
The petition comes a little more than a month after an appeals court ruled the buildings should be placed under control of the diocese, reversing lower court rulings in favor of the parishes.

St. James Church in Newport Beach, All Saints Church in Long Beach and St. David’s Church in North Hollywood pulled out of the six-county Los Angeles Diocese in 2004, following the ordination of a gay bishop in the Diocese of New Hampshire.

They announced they were placing themselves under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Church in Uganda.

The Los Angeles Diocese sued the parishes to gain control of the properties, arguing the parishes held their church buildings in trust for the diocese and the national Episcopal Church, and were not entitled to them.

Read it all.

A task force charged with proposing revisions to the ecclesiastical Title IV disciplinary process met July 23-24 at Grace and Holy Trinity Cathedral in Kansas City to discuss how it will approach modifications to the current disciplinary process, which does not include jurisdiction over members of the laity.

The 73rd General Convention, which met in Denver in 2000, authorized creation of a previous task force, which conducted surveys and developed a “theology of discipline” for the first three years and then proposed a draft which included among its provisions one making the laity liable for a number of offenses within the court’s jurisdiction.

Read it all.

Steve Waring’s article in The Living Church has prompted several requests for clarification. Let me begin by saying how deeply tragic it is that trust levels are so badly damaged in this church that whether or not a diocese used this or that “form” becomes such an issue. One of my favorite Chesterton quotes is: (to paraphrase) The pessimist is not to be faulted for criticizing the world. The pessimist is to be faulted for not loving what he criticizes. Amen. I trust that none of us takes any glee or delight in finding ourselves at such a place in the life of the Episcopal Church.

It is also important I believe for me to say that neither I (nor I trust anyone in South Carolina) would have felt the need to say anything about this at all save for the fact that Mr. Beers and others had made the statement in print that South Carolina used the same “short form” as Virginia. That is verifiably not the case. What seems to be a matter of curiosity is how it came not to be the case.

We seemed to have had in our election files, as apparently did many other dioceses, the now infamous “short” form. In receiving information from Bishop Matthew’s office, he simply cautioned us to check the language very carefully, and to make sure that our language complied with the standard. His assistant, Lindy Emory very kindly sent us the correct form, which as I stated before, we simply cut and pasted into our consent request letter (I verified these details with Bishop Salmon’s assistant on Monday to insure that I remembered them correctly. She faxed me the “boiler plate” we had received from Ms. Emory and indeed, we used the correct form).

It is also extremely important for me to add that in offering advice to “keep us out of the ditch” Bishop Matthews and his staff were in every instance respectful, kind and helpful. We were grateful that they kept us from making a mistake. Why the Diocese of Virginia “didn’t get the memo” is unclear.

So on the day that Mark Lawrence was elected, the request letters, in the proper form, sat addressed and ready to go. They sat for 60 days or so while we waited for the “green light” from Canon Gerdau. The delay was in the requirement for the second psychological exam. Fr. Lawrence had to go from Bakersfield to UCLA, and the physician was painfully slow in getting the results to 815. According to Fr. Lawrence, the second exam was most cursory compared to the one done just a few weeks before, and the physician marveled that such a thing was required, given that an objective “third party” examiner in another diocese and previously employed by 815 had just completed the same test. But those were the rules and we followed them. The rest, as they say, is history.

And finally, to answer the question posed on a blog, yes, nearly all this took place during the last days of Presiding Bishop Griswold’s term in office. If my memory serves me correctly, Presiding Bishop Schori took office the same week that our consents went out. I remember this because much of the staff at 815 was absent, having gone to Washington for the ceremony.

Hope this helps clarify.

Dow Sanderson,
Past-president,
Standing Committee, South Carolina

In her posting, Jan [Nunley] says that there are “90 possible” elections affected by defective consents. Let’s suppose in the past it didn’t matter so much, because our church was in a difference place. But in the Lawrence debacle, we were all quoted chapter and verse on why the canons matter. Frankly, I agree with this rigid canonical adherence, but it has to be the same, in all cases, no matter what. It’s only fair. It’s only just

Now we’re told it was about signatures. Of course, it’s hard to see why we insist on the signature portion of the canons, but we look past the textual requirements. I’m also not sure the claim on the importance of signatures is valid. These days, electronic “signatures” in lots of forms are considered equivalent with ink signatures, in lots of situations. The Living Church is reporting that South Carolina was told not to use the “short form” in its consents. Fine. But why wasn’t Virginia told the same thing?

In all elections since the South Carolina election, it seems to me that it is important to ensure that there is adherence to the canons. If we’re tossing out one election because of defects, I think we need to toss out others as well. I am not saying that Virginia’s election should be tossed out, or that the ordination was irregular. I am saying that an “oops” should emanate from 815, and in the future we should follow the canons precisely. If the canons are no longer deemed adequate, there’s a little project to work on before GC 2009.

It seems to me what we heard “law, law” in the case of South Carolina. And we’ve heard “Gospel, Gospel” in other cases. Let’s have law and Gospel in all cases, balanced appropriately. Why am I writing about this budding controversy? Well, I think how we handle these conversations has to do with how we’ll handle other, more difficult issues. When the response from church leadership to all this is, “Let’s don’t and say we did, shall we?” it hardly seems to respect the dignity of those who find this situation challenging. Much better would be a straightforward, official explanation of why canons are applied particular ways at particular times. I’d like this problem to go away. And I’d like to avoid this particular conversation in the future.

Read it all.

Read it all.

Update: Sarah Hey has comments on this here.

———–
Update #2:
Referenced in the comments below are the following:

A blog entry by the Rev. Jan Nunley at TEC’s EpiScope blog

An article by Steve Waring in the Living Church.

From the Hartford Courant:

“We firmly believe that our church was built by and given to the Anglican communion there, known as the Trinity Church Society,” Helmandollar said, adding that the church’s construction in 1746 preceded the formation of the Episcopal Diocese. “Our own constitution says we will remain.”

Smith broke the news about stripping Helmandollar of his clerical status during an afternoon press conference Friday with Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, in town for the ordination today of Connecticut’s first female Episcopal bishop, the Rev. Laura J. Ahrens.

Smith said Helmandollar voluntarily renounced his orders with the Episcopal Church, but Helmandollar said that isn’t what actually happened. After he wrote to Smith informing him of the church’s decision to join the North American Anglican group, Helmandollar said, “he suggested that I renounce my orders, and I said I can’t do that.”

A few weeks later, he said, Smith wrote him a letter, dated June 20, that he had taken Helmandollar’s letter to the standing committee.

“Since you have joined another church and have renounced your ministry in the Episcopal Church,” Smith wrote, “I have laid the matter before the clerical members of the standing committee of the Diocese of Connecticut … A majority of the clerical members of the standing committee meeting on June 13, 2007, have agreed that you have renounced your ministry.”

Helmandollar was not surprised.

“I was expecting it,” he said, “but the slant of me having renounced is not sitting well with me.”

Read it all.