The level of support for C029 when it was presented to the House of Bishops on 12 July 2012 was markedly different. The Rt. Rev. William Gregg, Assistant Bishop of North Carolina, was the first to rise and offered a strong statement of rejection of the resolution.

It was “not up to one denomination” to change the universal church’s teaching on baptism, Bishop Gregg said.

The Bishop of Southern Ohio, the Rt. Rev. Thomas Breidenthal, agreed the issue needed further study and urged defeat of the resolution….

The Rt. Rev. Pierre Whalon, Bishop of the Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe, urged his colleagues not to refer the matter to committee but to vote for adoption. There were large numbers of non-baptized people in Europe, he noted, and by recognizing the need for pastoral sensitivity this permitted bishops to address local needs. Without this recognition the hands of bishops were tied, he said….

Read it all.

The Diocese of Central Florida is committed to making disciples of all nations and loving one another as Christ loves us.

The Deputation from the Diocese of Central Florida has an extraordinary sense of sadness and disappointment that the Episcopal Church has chosen to adopt a provisional rite for same-sex blessings.

We recognize that to the vast majority of those members participating in the councils of General Convention, this represents progress. To us, it represents a step back from the clear teachings of Holy Scripture and a disregard for the unity and teaching of the Church.
Our Lord Jesus Christ emphasized marriage between a man and a woman as a divine ordinance for the ordering human relationships. For that reason, he sternly warned against human interference with marriages. Jesus said, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ”˜made them male and female,’ and said, ”˜For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matt. 19:4-6)

The 77th General Convention’s decision represents denominationalism. In matters of ethics and morals, we have shown blatant disregard for the unity of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. However, we in the Diocese of Central Florida stand in solidarity with our communion partners within the Episcopal Church and within the Worldwide Anglican Communion who “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” (Jude 1:3) . We deeply lament the costly repercussions that these decisions will have within the Episcopal Church and for Anglican Christians around the world especially those under anti-Christian totalitarian regimes.

The actions of General Convention also represent a departure from the rubrics and worship of the Book of Common Prayer and the stated Canons of the Episcopal Church. These liturgies are not recognized in the Diocese of Central Florida as being consistent with either the laws of the State or the canons of this Church on Marriage. The Book of Common Prayer says, “Christian marriage is a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God. In the Episcopal Church it is required that ”¦ the marriage conform to the laws of the State and the canons of this Church.” (p. 422)

While we are greatly saddened by the General Convention’s action, we are not discouraged. We know that we are called by God to “stand firm”. If any are discouraged, let us bear one another’s burdens and cast our cares on the Lord in prayer for one another. Our faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord gives the strength and hope needed to serve without compromise within the Episcopal Church and the world, “for our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh”. (Ephesians 6:12) Our faith is not in the human institutions of the Church, but in the unwavering faithfulness of Jesus Christ our Lord””his grace is sufficient.

We stand behind our Bishop, The Rt. Rev. Gregory Orrin Brewer, in his endorsement of the minority report known as the Indianapolis Statement.

The Rev. Charles Holt, Chair
The Rev. Phylis Bartle
The Rev. Danielle Morris
The Rev. James Sorvillo
The Rev. Eric Turner
Mr. Charles Armstrong
Mrs. Anneke Bertsch
Mr. Sid Glynn
Mr. William Grimm, esq.
Mrs. Sonya Shannon

[Resolution] A049…specifies that the liturgy will not be authorized for use until the first Sunday in Advent 2012, which is December 2nd of this year. Due to Bishop Wolf’s retirement and Bishop Elect Nicholas Knisely’s consecration November 17th, the implementation of this liturgy will be at his direction in consultation with others.

Bishop Elect Nicholas Knisely did not have vote at this year’s General Convention, but during his election process this past May he spoke publically in support of authorizing a blessing of same-sex relationships while at the same time honoring the diversity of opinion on this subject in Rhode Island Episcopal Parishes.

Bishop Elect Knisely reminds Rhode Island Episcopalians of Roger William’s legacy of religious tolerance. He said this week “How do we live into a world where people disagree? We are Episcopalians. We understand and fully expect that we won’t agree. That would be a “pure” church ”“ and we have historically rejected that understanding of how to live as God’s people in the world. We find our unity in common prayer.”

Read it all.

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, that The Episcopal Church reaffirms that baptism is the ancient and normative entry point to receiving Holy Communion and that our Lord Jesus Christ calls us to go into the world and
baptize all peoples. We also acknowledge that in various local contexts there is the exercise of pastoral sensitivity with those who are not yet baptized.

[This post will was originally ‘sticky’ at the head of the blog – new posts were below sticky posts – see also the index].

It was with significant prayer and reflection that the Bishop of South Carolina, the Rt. Rev. Mark J. Lawrence, and the South Carolina deputation to the 77th General Convention took steps to differentiate themselves from actions taken by the convention which, in the words of Bishop Lawrence “mark a departure from the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received them.”

On the morning of July 11, 2012, five of South Carolina’s seven deputies did not return to the house floor. Bishop Lawrence, after addressing the House of Bishops in a private session, also left the convention.
The full deputation released a statement, July 10, 2012, which said:

“Due to the actions of General Convention, the South Carolina Deputation has concluded that we cannot continue with business as usual. We all agree that we cannot and will not remain on the floor of the House and act as if all is normal. John Burwell and Lonnie Hamilton have agreed to remain at Convention to monitor further developments and by their presence demonstrate that our action is not to be construed as a departure from the Episcopal Church. Please pray for those of us who will be traveling early and for those who remain.”

Those who did not return to the house of deputies were the Rev. Canon Jim Lewis, the Very Rev. David Thurlow, Elizabeth “Boo” Pennewill, Lydia Evans, and Reid Boylston.

Bishop Lawrence stated that the departure of the deputies should not be understood as a departure from the Episcopal Church. “Frankly, a deputation to General Convention has no authority to make such a decision.”

Bishop Lawrence, in a private session of the House of Bishops on July 11, requested and received a point of personal privilege. During this time he expressed things for which he was grateful during this convention, the “intentional engagement in honesty and collegiality with fellow bishops.” He also expressed his “grievous concern” with changes to the canons through resolutions D002 and D019, which have to do with transgender identity and expression, as well as with resolution A049, which authorized a provisional rite for the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions.

“These resolutions in my opinion,” said Lawrence, “are disconcerting changes to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church–to which every bishop, priest and deacon is asked to conform. More importantly they mark a departure from the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received them, therein making it necessary for me to strongly differentiate myself from such actions.“

At the conclusion of this private session Lawrence told the House of Bishops that he would not be continuing in the remainder of the Convention.

“I concur with the assessment of our canon theologian, the Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon, when he described the actions of this General Convention as ”˜unbiblical, unchristian, unanglican and unseemly,’” said Lawrence.

Bishop Lawrence will be sending a statement to diocesan clergy, which is to be read in parishes on Sunday, July 15, 2012.

“Our deputation and I appreciate the prayers of so many in the Diocese of South Carolina,” said Lawrence. “I know that some did not think we should attend the 77th General Convention, but I believe our presence and witness was important and even respected by many on both sides of the theological divide. As St. Paul states regarding his ministry, ”˜”¦we refuse to practice cunning or to falsify God’s word; but by the open statement of the truth we commend ourselves to the conscience of everyone in the sight of God.’“ (2 Corinthians 4:2)

Applause and cheers erupted July 11 as Resolution C095, which calls for creation of a task force to re-imagine the workings of the Episcopal Church in the 21st century, sailed unanimously through the House of Bishops.

Read it all.

…The bulk of the deputation to the House of Deputies from the Diocese of South Carolina has left General Convention one day early, following the actions of the Convention thus far to (a) add transsexual persons to the list of people who cannot be denied work at any level in the Episcopal Church (USA); (b) adopt a rite for the blessing of same-sex unions, in violation of both the Book of Common Prayer and the ECUSA Constitution; and (c) refuse to act at this time on the proposed Anglican Covenant….

I shall not speculate on the response(s), if any, that those in ECUSA’s leadership might make to this development. (I have done that once too often, and they have always managed to equal or exceed my worst expectations.) I shall note here only that there is no Church Canon, or Constitutional provision, mandating a Diocese to participate willy-nilly in the proceedings of General Convention, or mandating a Bishop to attend sessions of the House of Bishops.

It is evident that it is far more important to the leaders of the Diocese of South Carolina to attend to their dispirited flocks than to signal that everything remains normal, after such extraordinary and illegal moves by the Church’s General Convention. Many other Bishops may not be aware of it just now, but they are going to face plenty of storms in their own dioceses after they return.

Read it all.

The Rt. Rev. Greg Rickel, Episcopal Bishop of Olympia, reflected in an e-mail over his church’s historic votes over the past two days. Rickel voted for the “holy covenant” and has endorsed same-sex marriage, which Washington will vote on this November. He said:

“It had to be a most gratifying day for gay and lesbian people, who share a deep and abiding love, in fidelity, for one another. Their journey has been long and many of them may not feel this is all they would like to see, but most present here are surely gratified this day.”

The clergy delegates to the General Convention voted 76 percent to approve the new liturgy. It garnered a 78 percent “yes” vote among lay delegates. The convention is divided into a House of Bishops and a House of Delegates, the latter elected from each of more than 100 dioceses.

Read it all.

Sometimes a resolution comes down the pike whose wisdom and beauty is almost breathtaking. This is how the whole House of Bishops felt about a resolution sent to us by the legislative committee on public policy. It concerned Israel and Palestine. Very often such resolutions come across as one-sided and polarizing, even when they don’t intend to be. Not this one. It was all about how the Episcopal Church could help the Diocese of Jerusalem in its work of bringing Jews, Muslims and Christians together in pursuit of peace, and could pursue policies that would favor dialogue over division. This resolution didn’t skirt the profound challenges that face the two-state solution embraced by our church, nor did it avoid naming concrete actions we can take, including positive investment in Palestinian businesses to build up the economic infrastructure that is crucial to any future viability of Palestine as a state. But there was no rancor in this resolution — rather a clearly articulated care for the people on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide. Bishops across the whole political spectrum were able to rally around this piece of legislation — not because it offered no challenges, but because it challenged everyone to the hard work of peace-making. This resolution would not have been possible apart from a growing commitment to peace-making within our own church, as we learn to gather at one altar despite our differences.

Read it all.

(Written the day before the Deputies Vote–KSH).

As I have explained this will be passed by the House of Deputies. The Diocese of Texas has a plan for dealing with this. Our plan, rolled out in April, communicated to all Diocese of Texas clergy, and posted for the diocese in order to have access to the materials is available at: http://www.epicenter.org/unity

In our plan the progressives will be allowed generous pastoral provisions to respond to gay and lesbians while the traditionalists who oppose the blessing of same-gender blessings are protected by the legislation and by my desire to make room for all people of many views on this subject within our diocese. In the Diocese of Texas we have a way to move forward with our continued work of proclaiming the uniqueness of Christ Jesus and participating in God’s mission of salvation.

Our goal is to keep the church together for the sake of mission. In the past we have not had a plan that enabled us to stay together, so people on all sides have been frustrated, fearful, and suspicious of one another. Traditionalists and progressives alike have left as our church because of a lack of direction. The Texas plan offers a vision of unity for the sake of mission of God; it reminds us that our future resides in the arms of God and God’s kingdom.

Read it all.

Fears of a “meltdown” here at the 77th General Convention of The Episcopal Church seem today largely unfounded. As I indicated in an earlier post, I have often been amazed that this somewhat unwieldy body of lay persons, bishops, priests, and deacons seems to find a way for common sense and the Holy Spirit to bring us back from the brink time and time again over the years.

At this point, it looks as though we will not only have overwhelmingly passed provisional liturgies for the blessing of same sex unions and made a rational, careful response to the proposal for an Anglican Covenant which will keep us at the table, but will pass a sensible (for now) budget for the next triennium, vote to relocate but not sell the Church Center headquarter in New York, establish a special task force and process for listening to the church and bringing to the next General Convention specific plans for restructure of our administration and governance. Not bad for eight days in the smoldering heat of an Indianapolis summer!

Read it all.

In introducing the resolutions to the house, the Rt. Rev. Ian Douglas, Bishop of Connecticut and episcopal chairman, said the committee was blessed by having seven of the proposers of the eight initial resolutions on it.

As the committee worked, it became clear that “this church holds a wide variety of ecclesiological positions and opinions on the Anglican Covenant and its position in the Anglican Communion,” Douglas said. “As we continued to perfect ”¦ we began to believe that we would be unable to make a positive statement that would not somehow create a significant [number] of winners and losers.”

The committee began to think instead of presenting two resolutions to General Convention. Resolution B005 calls itself, in part, “a pastoral response to the Episcopal Church.”

Read it all.

I was present in the gallery of the House of Deputies today as the final vote was taken on a rite for same-sex blessings. The Deputies voted to concur with the Bishops in approving the rite.

As you know, over the past three years I have exercised the authority given me by the 2009 General Convention to allow the blessing of same-sex couples, and have stipulated the use of the rite developed in the Diocese of Washington, D.C. In the intervening years a number of our parishes have used this pastoral provision to minister to same-sex couples, and some are planning to do so in the near future.

What has happened now is that General Convention has issued its own rite that will be published shortly, and as of its effective date, that is the service that will be used by those parishes in our diocese who wish to bless unions.

Read it all.

The bishop suffragan of Texas, the Rt. Rev. Dena A. Harrison, reminded the bishops that “we are indeed members of a worldwide Anglican Communion. The actions that we might take today put our brothers and sisters in a tough position around the world that is literally life and death.”

“We are better able to handle the ambiguity than they are,” she added.

The Rt. Rev. Nathan Baxter, Central Pennsylvania, countered that “we’ve been called to courage, to not be afraid to be a minority.”

Read it all.

The whole day was exhilarating and unpredictable and messy but also holy and good.

The bishops talked about not requiring the Presiding Bishop to resign as a diocesan bishop, but decided to wait to act until we see the Structure piece. Our afternoon focused on a Trial use of a Blessing for same sex couples. It was a holy debate. The measure passed easily. My sense is that we currently have a kind of liturgical anarchy about rites of blessings. Dioceses use all kinds of rites. This will regularize them and enable us as a Church to see if this rite works. It’s a trial use for the Church to gather information.

General Convention is such a strange way to run a Church. My hope is that in our reform we will do much less business but do it well. I think our decisions afford a lot of input but not enough reflection. I know that after a week of being here, I am tired and not able to think as clearly as this work demands.

Read it all.

“Shaw, MA: Our diocese has had significant growth recently, in thanks to including all people. ”ª#gc77”¬” I was listening and it is certainly an accurate paraphrase, though not an exact quote.

Here are the figures–Massachusetts’ 2007 to 2010 ASA [average Sunday attendance]

20,121
19,351
18,130
17,903

Perhaps there are 2011 figures that show a [small?] increase, but still, there is a large disconnection here–KSH.

Update: You can find some of these statistics here and you can find a great deal more over there.

There have been a number of occasions over the years in TEC like this where a key document or statement has come out, and the response has been, shall we say, less than satisfactory. Therefore there needs to be some preparation on our part so as to try to react in a Christian manner. Herewith some suggestions:

(6) Expect the discernment to be a corporate activity. We still seek to be part of the Church of Jesus Christ, and we need one another. We are. as Ephesians says (4:15), to speak the truth in love. May the way we respond demonstrate this–KSH.

By the way–anyone recognize most of the language here? It is from something I wrote in 2007. Nick Knisely wrote [now Bishop-elect of Rhode Island] at the time that he found himself “pretty much full agreement with [my]suggestions”

The bishops then spoke in “yes/no” order. Bishop Michael Vono of the Rio Grande rose in support of the resolution, urging the House to vote in favor of the resolution as it was the “Jesus thing” to do “for our time.” Bishop John Bauerschmidt of Tennessee asked for a roll call vote on the resolution. He stated he would vote “no” as he believed that same-sex blessings were incompatible with the plain meaning of Scripture.

Bishop William Persell, the retired Bishop of Chicago, voiced his support for the resolution but asked Bishop Ely why the resolution had been amended, changing the words “gender” for “sex” and “trial” for “provisional” rites?

Bishop Joe Burnett, assistant Bishop of Maryland ”“ a member of the committee ”“ said that the change had been made to avoid triggering procedural issues. “Trial use” was a canonical term that could lead to “Prayer Book revision,” he said. The neutral term “provisional” was used to indicate the provisional period for study and use of the rite was for the coming three years.

Read it all.

Episcopal bishops have approved an official prayer that blesses same-sex unions.

Church leaders on Monday voted 111-41 in favor of the liturgy during the Episcopal General Convention in Indianapolis. The plan now goes to convention deputies for final approval.

Read it all and a longer version is there.

You can find it here.

Back to work at 2:15. The Bishops dealt with a sensitive issue. Seven bishops–some retired or no longer Episcopalian–had signed a friendly brief for the court proceedings in Fort Worth to support the parishes who left The Episcopal Church and are trying to keep their property. Because much of our conversation was private, I can only report that we had a unanimous roll call vote to support the Episcopal parishes, the right of the Episcopal bishops in the dioceses struggling with property disputes, and affirmation that the Episcopal bishops are the only rightful bishops in these dioceses. It was a hard but grace filled conversation.

Read it all.

[Bishop John] Buchanan told Episcopal News Service after the resolution passed during private conversation that he “told the house I am grateful for the support and help the resolution provides, but it’s not what I asked for. I asked for clarification around the hierarchical character of our church.”

Read it all.

From here:

Resolved, That Episcopalians in the Dioceses of Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy and San Joaquin–lay and clergy–be commended for their unflagging efforts to continue to witness to God’s mission as The Episcopal Church during recent difficult times as they reorganize their continuing dioceses in that same spirit; and be it further

Resolved, That the leadership in each of those four continuing dioceses be commended for their similar efforts, including in particular the Rt. Rev. C. Wallis Ohl, Provisional Bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth; the Rt. Rev. Kenneth L. Price, Assisting Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh; the Rt. Rev. John C. Buchanan, Provisional Bishop of the Diocese of Quincy; and the Rt. Rev. Chester L. Talton, Provisional Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, and especially the strong lay leadership of each dioceses.

You may read more there.

Update: You can check to see the headline chosen by the TEC affiliated diocese of Fort Worth there.

The Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence, Bishop of South Carolina, opposed the change in canon language.

“We have entered into a time of individualized eros, with a wide variety of self-perceptions,” Bishop Lawrence said. “We are condemning ourselves to freedom ”” the freedom of every individual to self-define every aspect of who they are in such a way that we no longer have any kinds of norms. We are entering into the chaos of individuality. It’s an idol that will break us….”

The Rt. Rev. Prince G. Singh, Bishop of Rochester, supported the resolutions, saying he knows what it feels like to be “the other.”

“When I am in India, people think I’m an American. Here, people think I’m from somewhere else,” he said. The resolutions encourage healthy self-examination, he said.

Read it all.

The word here is change. The Deputies voted to allow the next Presiding Bishop to remain a Diocesan Bishop. The Bishops voted to fund a significant Development Office. We also are exploring moving the diocesan contribution to The Episcopal Church to 15%. And of course, we are waiting to hear about the Budget and reforming General Convention and a new structure for our Church.

As I have worked on the Education Committee, I once again remember that our Church has many perspectives. The Education Standing Commission presented resolutions to replace Confirmation with Baptism as rite for full initiation into Church leadership. However, most of the Deputies and Bishops did not agree. I am disappointed but not surprised. Change is long and when I think I know where the Holy Spirit is headed, I am most often wrong.

Read it all.

The U.S. Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops on Saturday approved a proposal that, if it survives a final vote, would give transgender men and women the right to become ministers in the church.

The House of Bishops voted at the church’s General Convention to include “gender identity and expression” in its “non-discrimination canons,” meaning sexual orientation, including that of people who have undergone sex-change operations, cannot be used to exclude candidates to ministry.

Read it all.

(ENS)–My headline, not theirs–KSH.

Bishop Andrew Waldo of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina opposed D019, seeking clarification of “gender expression ”¦ to get a sense of how the people in my diocese who have a poor understanding of what transgender means.

“I believe we need to have more discussion in the church, in our congregations, in order to be able to speak in a way that is theologically sound, that gives a deeper understanding of what it means to be a transgender person,” he said.

Read it all.

Episcopal Bishop J. Jon Bruno, the head of the six-county Los Angeles diocese, generated applause, laughter and whistles this week when a telephone call was broadcast during a bishop’s convention in Indianapolis.

In early May, Bruno announced in an open letter that he had been diagnosed with leukemia and was undergoing aggressive treatment, but on Thursday, he told the bishops that he was “doing fabulous,” according to the Episcopal News.

“We’ve gone from what one doctor said was a hopeless case to a complete remission,” he told the bishops. “I’ve been cleared of leukemia.”

Read it all.

We need some crazy Christians. Sane, sanitized Christianity is killing us. That may have worked once upon a time, but it won’t carry the Gospel anymore. We need some crazy Christians like Mary Magdalene and Harriet Beecher Stowe. Christians crazy enough to believe that God is real and that Jesus lives. Crazy enough to follow the radical way of the Gospel. Crazy enough to believe that the love of God is greater than all the powers of evil and death. Crazy enough to believe, as Dr. King often said, that though “the moral arc of the universe is long, it bends toward justice.” We need some Christians crazy enough to believe that children don’t have to go to bed hungry; that the world doesn’t have to be the way it often seems to be; that there is a way to lay down our swords and shields, down by the riverside; that as the slaves used to sing, “There’s plenty good room in my Father’s kingdom,” because every human being has been created in the image of God, and we are all equally children of God and meant to be treated as such.

Read it all.

6 July 2012

The Most Reverend Katharine Jefforts Schori
Presiding Bishop
The Episcopal Church
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017

Dear Presiding Bishop:

We write to address allegations that have been made against us””both those made by Bishops Ohl and Buchanan in their letter of yesterday and unknown others made in Title IV disciplinary complaints that we have not seen. Bishops Ohl and Buchanan have asked that the record be set straight. That is our intention in this letter.
No charge is more serious to us than the one that we have acted against our own Church””in other words, that we have been disloyal. We assure each of you that we have acted out of a profound loyalty to this Church we love. We knew our decision to file an amicus brief in Texas and affidavits in Illinois authenticating our earlier statement on Church polity would be controversial. We took these actions, however, precisely because we thought it our duty to do so in order to uphold the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church as we all have pledged to do. We hope that if you agree with us about nothing else, you will recognize that upholding the constitutional polity of the Church as we understand it is not disloyalty. Because our views have been mischaracterized, we welcome this opportunity to clarify what we believe and what we have said in our legal submissions. Our primary concern is that the polity that has defined this Church for two centuries is being transformed due to momentary legal
objectives in the secular courts. We do not question these objectives. We only believe that the constitutional polity of the Church””the discipline we pledge to uphold””should not be sacrificed in pursuit of these goals.

We can summarize what we were taught years ago and still believe about our governance as
follows:

”¢ The Episcopal Church is a hierarchical church and the hierarchical authority for matters within a diocese is the Ecclesiastical Authority of the diocese, which according to our Constitution is the diocesan bishop. Ours is not a Metropolitical church, but a church with a dispersed hierarchy. We did not invent this understanding of our governance. It has a long and venerable pedigree. For example, in “The Church’s Teaching” series volume on polity, Canon Powel Mills Dawley of General Seminary (working with a committee of church leaders under the auspices of the Church Center) concluded that:

“the dioceses possess an independence far greater than that characteristic of most other Churches with episcopal polity”¦.Diocesan participation in any national program or effort, for example, must be voluntarily given; it cannot be forced. Again, while the bishop’s exercise of independent power within the diocese is restricted by the share in church government possessed by the Diocesan Convention or the Standing Committee, his independence in respect to the rest of the Church is almost complete.”

”¢ As noted, we are not a metropolitical church. Our Constitution has no “Supremacy Clause”; it specifies no office or body with supremacy or hierarchical authority over the Ecclesiastical Authority of the diocese for matters within a diocese. And as bishops, we take no vow of obedience to any other office or body. Priests and deacons pledge conformity to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church and obedience to the diocesan bishop. Bishops only give the Declaration of Conformity. This was a matter of extreme importance to our founders. Church of England bishops give an oath of “Due Obedience” in which they “profess and promise all due reverence and obedience to the Archbishop and to the Metropolitical Church of Canterbury [York] and to their Successors.” Our founders very intentionally rejected such an oath for The Episcopal Church. We pledge obedience neither to an archbishop nor to a metropolitical church. We pledge to uphold the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church, but each diocesan bishop is the Ecclesiastical Authority in the diocese.

Ӣ Under the First Amendment, secular courts may not make extensive and searching inquiries into, and thereby interfere with, church doctrine or polity in order to decide secular legal cases. This is standard Supreme Court jurisprudence.

If you do not immediately agree with all these points, we invite you to read our Bishops’ Statement on the Polity of The Episcopal Church, which we published in April 2009. It is a comprehensive examination of these issues. This puts succinctly what we have said in our court submissions. We made these submissions, however, only after we became concerned that the courts were misinterpreting””and thereby forever changing””our constitutional polity based on what we believed was erroneous information about our history and governance.

We began this letter by reiterating, however briefly, what we did say because most of the objections seem to be directed at things we did not say. Turning now to the specific charges made by Bishops Ohl and Buchanan, we can only say that none of them accurately describes what we actually said in our submissions.

1. We do not represent or argue that “dioceses can unilaterally leave.” We stated explicitly on the first page of our amicus brief that “the amici oppose the decision by the appellants (“Diocese of Fort Worth”) to leave The Episcopal Church, but in its ruling against them the court has misunderstood, and thereby damaged, the constitutional structure of The Episcopal Church.” We do not address in the brief whether withdrawal is permitted under the Constitution. Indeed, some in our number have at great cost ruled such proposals out of order in their own dioceses. Our legal submissions are concerned only with the nature of authority in our Church; we do not address the exercise of that authority by Bishop Iker or any other bishop.

2. We do not “deny the Dennis Canon.” In fact, we do not address property issues at all. The Dennis Canon and property trusts are not even mentioned in our amicus brief. The Episcopal Church parties in the Texas litigation have presented extensive argumentation to the Texas Supreme Court that they are entitled to the disputed property even under neutral principles of law. We do not address this issue at all, but our legal analysis that secular courts must use neutral principles of law if they cannot readily identify the nature of a church’s hierarchical authority can hardly be prejudicial to the Episcopal Church parties when they argue themselves that they win under such a standard.

3. We neither deny that this Church can “recognize its own bishops” nor claim that Bishop Iker is still the bishop of the diocese recognized by our Church. In fact, we explicitly state in the amicus brief that “The Episcopal Church clearly has the constitutional right to select a new bishop.” We recognize Bishops Ohl and Buchanan as the bishops of the TEC-recognized dioceses. Indeed, one of our number participated in the installation of Bishop Ohl’s predecessor. We acknowledge that Bishop Iker was the Ecclesiastical Authority of the diocese until the vote to withdraw, which is the crucial time period in this dispute, but that is undeniable. We conclude that if the court applies a deference to hierarchy standard””an issue on which we explicitly take no position””the Ecclesiastical Authority at the time of the vote to withdraw was Bishop Iker. We consider that conclusion inescapable given our polity. To the extent that this is a question of nomenclature, the Texas Court has previously ruled that Bishop Ohl and his diocese are not yet entitled to claim the name of “The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth” pending the final result of this litigation. Thus, Bishop Iker and his diocese continue to use this name. This ruling, however, plays no role in our analysis. It is not our concern.

4. Strangest of all is the claim that we have violated episcopal jurisdiction. We have performed no episcopal acts in another diocese. All we have done is exercise our civic””not ecclesiastical””rights to petition the government. To our knowledge, no one has ever before suggested that petitioning the legislatures or courts in Washington or state capitols””our brief was filed in Austin, not Fort Worth””requires the consent of the local bishop. To the extent that the claim really is that our submission might have an effect inanother diocese, we would reply that we are simply responding to submissions by others that will themselves have what we believe to be very profound and harmful effects on all our dioceses, not only in Texas but across the Church. And we note that we are not the first bishops of our Church to file an amicus brief this year with the Texas Supreme Court. Others filed a brief in another property dispute involving Bishop Ohl’s former diocese. Clearly, it is the views we express, not the act of filing a brief, to which objection is taken.

This brings us back to where we started. We are convinced that the venerable polity of our Church is under threat due to the temporary exigencies of secular litigation. However much we may understand and sympathize with these objectives, we consider it our greater duty to uphold our constitutional polity. Whether or not you agree with our interpretation””and we all must acknowledge that our polity is in some ways obscure””we hope you will recognize that we are doing our duty to uphold the good order of the Church as we perceive it and that it is no small part of the burden of that duty to know that others take offense from our actions.

Faihfully,

–The Rt. Rev. Peter H. Beckwith
–The Rt. Rev. John W. Howe
–The Rt. Rev. Paul E. Lambert
–The Rt. Rev. William H. Love
–The Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson
–The Rt. Rev. Daniel H. Martins
–The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon
–The Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton