Read it all. Those of you who are able, do pray for the Mere Anglicanism conference next week.

Read it all.

Via email:

The elected officers of the Diocese and Diocesan Corporation were extremely pleased today to learn that the Texas State Supreme Court has granted our motion for direct appeal. The Court has agreed to reconsider the February 2011 decision by the 141st District Court, which would result in the surrender of all property to representatives of the New York-based Episcopal Church.
The Diocese’s written brief is due to be filed with the Court by Feb. 6. The opposing parties may respond by Feb. 27, after which the Diocese will have about two weeks to reply. A hearing date has not been set.

Commenting on the news, Bishop Jack L. Iker said, “We are delighted with the decision of the Texas Supreme Court to grant our request for a direct appeal in the lawsuit brought against us by The Episcopal Church. It is very rare for a direct appeal to be filed in the first place, and it is even rarer for the Supreme Court to grant one. It is clear that the Court understands that key questions of the constitutionality of Texas statutes, trust codes, and property laws are at issue in this litigation.

“It is our hope and expectation that the Supreme Court, using neutral principles of law, will rule in our favor.”

With one Episcopal church property appeal from the Church of the Good Shepherd in San Angelo already before the Court, it is even more significant that the court has moved so swiftly to take up our case. This announcement encourages us to believe that the Court finds merit in our case, and it renews our hope of an early conclusion to litigation that has already consumed almost three years and millions of dollars in legal expenses.

“It is gratifying,” said Fort Worth attorney J. Shelby Sharpe, who heads the diocesan legal team,“ that the court has granted the petition for direct appeal in this critical religious freedom case. We look forward to the court’s ultimate decision, which should be helpful to other courts facing similar issues.”

The Houston priest appointed by Pope Benedict XVI to lead what amounts to a nationwide diocese for Anglican converts to Catholicism said Monday that the new Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter represents a momentous step toward healing the rift between the Vatican and the Anglican church.

“For, perhaps, the first time since the Reformation in the 16th century, a corporate structure has been given to assist those who in conscience seek to return to the fold of St. Peter and his successors,” said the Rev. Jeffrey Neil Steenson, a married former Episcopal priest and father of three.

Read it all.

The Vatican, working with its Fort Worth Diocese and Bishop Kevin Vann, is launching a structure today to allow Anglican parishes and their married priests in the United States to join the Roman Catholic Church.

More than 1,300 Anglicans, including 100 priests, have applied to be part of a new body, essentially a diocese.

Among them are members of St. Luke’s in Bladensburg, Md., which last summer became the first group in the country to convert to Catholicism.Vann, leader of the Fort Worth Diocese, said in an interview Sunday that he will oversee requests nationwide from Episcopal priests who wish to become Catholic.

Read it all.

Father [Jeffrey] Steenson said he expected more former Episcopalians to join after they saw how the new group operated. He said that he personally had always longed for closer ties with the Catholics, a feeling that only intensified as the Episcopal Church broke with tradition on female priests and acceptance of homosexuality, dividing the churches further. But he is also overjoyed to preserve elements of the Anglican liturgy, he said. The expectation is that this parallel structure will continue indefinitely.

When the Vatican authorized creation of these entities in 2009, some Anglican leaders, especially in England, expressed concern that it was trying to take advantage of their turmoil. In England, where a similar grouping was formed last year, about 60 priests and more than 1,000 members have joined so far.

But Cardinal [Donald] Wuerl and Father [Scott] Hurd said that the system was developed in response to a growing demand.

Read it all.

Pope Benedict XVI established a new nationwide U.S. ordinariate Jan. 1 for U.S. Anglicans (Episcopalians) who wish to become Catholic. He named Fr. Jeffrey N. Steenson, a Catholic theology professor in Houston and former Episcopal bishop, as its first head.

The new Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter will be based in Houston, according to Jan. 1 announcements released in Rome and Washington.

In a news release on its new Web site http://www.usordinariate.org/index.html the ordinariate said that more than 100 Anglican priests in the United States and nearly 1,400 individuals from 22 communities are seeking to enter the Catholic Church as part of the ordinariate. Two of those communities entered into full communion with the Catholic Church this past fall after a period of preparation.

Read it all.

A shameless lover of Christmas carols, I have found support for my sentimentalism in a most unlikely place; an essay by Dr. Lewis Thomas, one-time dean of New York University School of Medicine. He notes that the human faculty for language is rooted in a specific collection of neurons in the left hemisphere of the brain. This corresponds with a similar center of neurons in the brain of a song bird. It is there that the bird’s song is “recorded,” that is, if the bird learns it as a nestling. If the bird hears the proper song at that stage it will have it in mind for life. It can then add its own arpeggios so that it is the song of the species and at the same time the bird’s own recognizable voice””“perceptively different from the song of all his relatives.” But, according to the dean of medicine, if it does not hear the song as a youngster, the collection of neurons cannot compose the song on its own. Sadly enough, “what comes out later when it is ready for singing and mating is an unmelodious buzzing noise.” The song isn’t instinctive. The urge to sing is instinctive, but not the song. The little bird must first be sung to if it is to know and sing the song.
I think of this fascinating fact as we draw closer to when we shall sing again the Song of Christmas. Like the brain of the song bird we cannot nor did we compose this song on our own. It was a song sung to us. Sung to the human race, to our species, by angels. They sang it to the shepherds out in the fields near Bethelehem on that first Christmas night. It is the song of the Savior, the God-Man Jesus Christ. We did not create it, for Christmas was not an idea of the human race. In our sinful condition we could never have composed it. We tend to want to save ourselves””to find a way out of our problems by our own ingenuity and effort. But we never get there. All we produce in our attempts to save ourselves is the “unmelodious buzzing noise” of human pride and striving. The truth of the matter is that we are saved by God’s grace or we are not saved at all.
There were many who were striving to save themselves when the Angels first sang the song of Christmas to the shepherds. Caesar Augustus tried to bring peace to the world by the power of the Roman Empire””by its unique blend of politics, statesmanship and military might. Among the Greeks, the intellectual sophisticates of the day, it was the aspirations of culture, science, art and thought that promised from year to year a salvation for humankind that never came. The Priests in Jerusalem sought salvation by the sacrifices offered daily in the temple. The Scribes and Pharisees tried to deserve God’s favor through their religious perfectionism, by keeping the demands of the Law. But religion then, as it too often does today, brought only conflict to the individual’s conscience and from there to one’s relationships with others. Instead””from politics, culture, and religion””there came only the unmelodious buzzing noise we hear all too often in the world around us today.

But, to certain poor shepherds the song was sung; they, in their everydayness, represent all of our race, the entire human species””existing somewhere between animals and angels””to such the angels came. And the Glory shone around them and the song of salvation, the song composed in heaven (to be lived out on earth) for our species was first sung”¦. “Behold, I bring you good news of a great joy that will come to all the people, for unto you is born this day, in the city of David a Savior who is Christ the Lord.” Of course the shepherds””just as you and I would have done, for this is hardly a story of their virtue but of God’s grace””ran with eager steps to Bethlehem. It was God’s grace-filled invitation that sent them breathless across the fields.

After the angels departed, and the glory that shone around them had given way to the normalcy of the night; after the shepherds returned from the stable, the night song of the Savior, once heard, was never forgotten. Sure, the night was still dark; the air cold; the duties still needed to be done. The wolf and bear still lurked in shadows of the glistening moon. Nothing had really changed, and yet everything was different. I remember. For that’s how it was for me when Jesus Christ came into my life as a college student some 38 years ago. Nothing had changed, and everything was different. It has been that way for me ever since. The Song of Christmas, the song of Salvation, the hope of Jesus the Messiah, once heard, was never forgotten. And like the song of the songbird, it can be heard in the darkest of nights, and on the coldest of mornings.

I have heard it myself in the waiting rooms of hospitals. I have sung it as I have walked before a hundred caskets”¦leaned my ear near to the beds of the dying to hear it whispered in the last breath of the faithful. It is why the trees, and lights; the eggnog and the parties are only a preparation. For perhaps you’ve noticed, as one preacher has put it, “the hurt of life does not become suspended, magically put on hold until the festive days are done.” And he is right. It is not only priests and preachers who live with these things. You too find yourself going from a divorced friend’s loneliness to another friend’s wedding; From hospital room to holiday party; From toasting champagne to tossing dirt on a coffin. And among the glow of Christmas lights are a score of grieving memories for each of us””grief and worries that trouble our hearts even while we are digesting the evening’s dinner. Yet that is why we gather for the Christmas Eucharist. To sing again the song that the Angels first taught our race to sing. The song that announced the Savior was born. Born in a stable; “ right between the mystery of the angels and manure of the cattle.” (J. B. Shepherd) In that very intersection where we so often live our lives. That is where the song was first sung to our race; and once the Angels had sung it, it is now ours to sing. It is the reason we will gather on Christmas Eve: singing the song of our Savior; experiencing anew the birth of his grace in our lives.

You can hear it again this Christmas season. Hear it in the words of the Gospel; in every poorly crafted, but faithful sermon. It vibrates in the strings of the harp; in reed and brass and flute. In the chords of carols and anthems. Once you have heard the melody, like the young song bird, you will never forget it. You may add your own arpeggios; your personal witness to his salvation. For each human voice is unique and like no other. God made it that way. Just as he also made your voice to sing the song that heaven composed for our human race””even when you sing with wounded voice. His birth and his cross are the only things that can keep us from singing again that old unmelodious buzzing noise of a fallen and sinful world. It may be your instinct to sing. But this song, composed in heaven, sung first on earth by angels to shepherds, lived out from crib to cross by Jesus Christ, shall be passed on person to person and sung again soon in a thousand thousand churches around the world; sung by voices all around: wounded or angelic: it is the same song they sing”¦The Song of Christmas.

–First penned to the Diocese of South Carolina in 2009 but well worth a rereading I think

A half-dozen religious leaders this morning delivered a letter to Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley’s office asking him in the spirit of the Christmas season to support the repeal of the state’s immigration law — the Beason-Hammon Act.

“We are writing to let you know that we are praying for you as you consider the multitude of problems caused by the Beason-Hammon Act,” the letter states. “In this time when we celebrate the greatest of gifts, we pray that you will show great political courage and leadership and support the repeal of this unfortunate legislation that has brought such heartache to our State.”

(Letter to Gov. Bentley)

The letter is signed by: Henry N. Parsley Jr., bishop of the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Alabama; The Most Rev. Robert J. Baker, of the Catholic Diocese in Birmingham; The Most Rev. Thomas J. Rodi, archbishop of Mobile; William H. Willimon, bishop of the Birmingham area of the United Methodist Church….

Read it all.

It’s a confusing time to be a member of the Episcopal Church. More than two decades of bickering over a range of theological issues, notably the question of whether openly gay and lesbian people can be ordained as priests and bishops, has left one of America’s oldest denominations splintered.

Over the past eight years, the ordinations of [non-celibate] gay and lesbian priests as bishops has prompted strong objections from traditionalists, and some bishops have gone as far as schism ”” leaving the Episcopal Church for an array of more conservative Anglican groups.

Into this situation comes the Rev. Gregory Brewer, who recently was elected bishop of the Diocese of Central Florida, based in Orlando. Brewer, who was pastor of Calvary-St. George’s Episcopal Church in New York City, has big shoes to fill. He will succeed the Rt. Rev. John Howe, who is retiring in March….

Read it all.

Read it all.

15 December 2011

On Wednesday, December 14, Province IV bishops diocesan were invited to attend a meeting in Charleston, South Carolina with Bishop Mark Lawrence to discuss the recent issuing of quitclaim deeds by Bishop Lawrence and the Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina to parishes of the diocese. A representative group who were available at the appointed time and date attended the meeting.

Gracious hospitality and collegiality characterized the gathering during which we prayed and participated in open, honest, and forthright conversation. Probing questions were asked by all, and it is fair to say that we did not agree on all matters discussed. For the visiting bishops, the gathering particularly helped to clarify the context of the Diocese of South Carolina’s quitclaims decision. Where we go in the future is a matter of prayer and ongoing engagement of concerns before us, an engagement we embrace out of our love for Christ and his Church.

The Right Reverend Scott Anson Benhase
The Episcopal Diocese of Georgia

The Right Reverend Michael B. Curry
The Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina

The Rt. Rev. Clifton Daniel III
The Episcopal Diocese of East Carolina

The Rt. Rev. Don E. Johnson
The Episcopal Diocese of West Tennessee

The Rt. Rev. Mark J. Lawrence
The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina

The Rt. Rev. G. Porter Taylor
The Episcopal Diocese of Western North Carolina

The Rt. Rev. W. Andrew Waldo
The Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina

Please note that what follows is the cover letter written to Bishop Daniel first, and this is then followed by the full letter to all the bishops–KSH.

Dear Bishop Daniel:

As a lay person and retired college president (3 church-related liberal arts colleges over 24 years), I read with care your letter representing the Bishops of Province IV. After spending time in prayer, I have written an open letter to the Bishops of Province IV. I am hopeful that you will forward this letter to the other Bishops as an example of one lay person’s assessment of what is happening in and to our Diocese of South Carolina. I know that Bishop Lawrence is deeply sensitive to the impact of what is happening in The Episcopal Church on the laity of our diocese.

Just as faculty members and deans debate intellectual issues in higher education with a fervor that might ignore the needs of students, I worry that clergy and bishops debate theological issues with a fervor that might ignore the needs of parishioners. I hope that as you meet with Bishop Lawrence that you will hold in your thoughts and heart that there are people in every pew in every Episcopal church in our country and world who are hurting, confused, frightened, and desperate for a message of hope, love and reconciliation.

You and all the Bishops in Province IV, including Bishop Lawrence, will be in my and many laypersons’ minds, hearts, and prayers this coming week.

Shalom,
Peter

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Proactive Transition Management
A strategic plan is worthless ”“ unless there first is a strategic vision. John Naisbett
The ability to embrace new ideas, routinely challenge old ones, and live with paradox will be the effective leader’s premier trait. Tom Peters

December 7, 2011

An Open Letter to the Bishops of Province 4

Dear Bishops:

I am puzzled intellectually, offended emotionally, and disappointed spiritually in your letter to Bishop Lawrence requesting a meeting based on the fact that you “determined that it is our duty as bishops of this province to address these concerns in direct communication with you, as Jesus exhorts his followers in Matthew’s Gospel (18:15-20), and in accord with our ordination vows regarding the unity and governance of the church.”

Matthew 18:15-20 NIV
15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ”˜every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. 18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

I am puzzled intellectually because you did the exact opposite of Jesus’ advice as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew. You did not send one Bishop to talk to our Bishop. You did not send two or three Bishops. You sent a message from all the Bishops of Province 4 and published the letter on the Internet for all to see. While I have not attended seminary (I’m a retired college president from three church-related liberal arts colleges over 24 years), I did review several writers about this passage from Ignatius (c 110) to Chrysostom (c 380) to Augustine to Matthew Henry to B.W. Johnson and to David Lose and Karl Jacobson who preached on this text on September 4, 2011 when this passage was the Gospel Lesson in the Lectionary. Throughout my reading, the central meaning of Jesus’ parable, to seek reconciliation and unity, seems to have escaped you. Why did you choose this Scripture passage to set the context of your letter? What were you hoping to accomplish? Why did you violate the very passage you quoted by going viral with your letter on the Internet? I am puzzled.

I am also offended emotionally. Violating Jesus’ advice and going viral is offensive to those of us who see our Bishop as a man of great faith and integrity. The tone of your letter, while claiming to be collegial is every bit as confrontational and accusatory in the same passive-aggressive manner as the Pharisees who tried to build a case against Jesus. By going viral, you have tried to put Bishop Lawrence in a box and that is disingenuous on your part. Fortunately, Bishop Lawrence is a Godly man whose deep and abiding commitment to Jesus Christ as Savior and Redeemer, as described in the Bible and affirmed in the canons, rituals, and prayer book of the Anglican Communion will give him the insight tempered with humility and love to address your questions. Matthew Henry captured my sentiments beautifully when he wrote on Matthew 18:15-20, “When we come together, to worship God in a dependence upon the Spirit and grace of Christ as Mediator for assistance, and upon his merit and righteousness as Mediator for acceptance, having an actual regard to him as our Way to the Father, and our Advocate with the Father, then we are met together in his name.”

Finally, I am disappointed spiritually. Four years ago, when my wife and I moved to Georgetown, South Carolina, we joined Prince George Winyah Episcopal Church. Our faith has grown exponentially with a priest who is a marvelous teacher and preacher and with a congregation devoted to the Word and eager to grow in grace and love. While we may not agree on every issue facing Prince George or The Episcopal Church, we feel the presence of the Holy Spirit in the midst of our congregation and we are growing closer to Jesus every day. Knowing Bishop Lawrence’s fervent desire for our Diocese to have just a small space to stand on our orthodox principles and interpretation of the life, ministry, and word of Jesus Christ, I am spiritually disappointed that The Episcopal Church seems to lack the largess, love, and commitment to true unity in diversity to allow us to remain both true to a Biblically-based orthodox faith and to communion with Province 4 and The Episcopal Church USA. Why are you so intent to punish brothers and sisters who are proclaiming the “Good News” of a Savior who died for our sins on a cross so that all might be victorious over death? Why do you want to characterize as “sin” our Bishop’s attempt to protect this orthodox faith in a world that is becoming increasingly and disturbingly secular and even anti-Christian? Why will you not provide a place in TEC for a Diocese that appears to be so consistent in its orthodoxy faith and practice with the rest of the Anglican Communion?

As you approach your visit with our Bishop, I and many others in our Diocese of South Carolina, will be praying for you and for Bishop Lawrence. We will be praying that you come in a spirit of love, seeking understanding of our deep and abiding orthodox faith, looking for reconciliation, affirmation and unity amidst diversity. For you will indeed be gathered in His name. To that end, I close with comments made as recently as this fall by David Lose at Luther Seminary when addressing Matthew 18:15-20.

“Authentic community is hard to come by. It’s work. But it’s worth it. Because when you find it, it’s like discovering a little bit of heaven on earth; that is, it’s like experiencing the reality of God’s communal fellowship and existence in your midst. And, as Jesus promises, when you gather in this way — with honesty and integrity, even when it’s hard — amazing things can happen because Jesus is with you, right there, in your very midst, forming and being formed by your communal sharing.” David Lose

Welcome to South Carolina. May God’s blessings of faith and intellect be among you. May Christ’s love and reconciliation abide with you.

Sincerely,

Peter T. Mitchell

(Please note that the letter to which this letter below responds may be found there–KSH).

Third, this diocese grows weary of the constant interference in its internal affairs that continues to disrupt our mission. First, there was the non-canonical intrusion by the Presiding Bishop’s office hiring counsel for the episcopal church in this diocese to investigate our parishes, then there was the

assertion by a subcommittee of the executive council that our constitutional and canonical amendments duly considered and passed were somehow not effective, then there were charges brought against our bishop now correctly recognized by the Disciplinary Board of Bishops for what they were at the outset – without merit. Yet, within less than two weeks of that decision, we have yet another attempt without canonical or constitutional support to inject others into the internal affairs of this autonomous diocese.

So, let us be clear. We will not use the coercive force of threatened litigation over property to impose a false and destructive unity upon this Diocese. We cannot sanction the compromise of a full gospel proclamation that is undermined by actions such as the communion of the un-baptized. We cannot sanction the undermining of Christian marriage by the practice of same sex marriage or blessings. In such matters of the internal governance of this Diocese, out of the great depths of our love and concern for our people, we will continue to assert the autonomy that is historically and constitutionally ours and we will do so consistent with our belief that God alone dictates our future.

Bp. Lawrence has communicated to us his intent to meet with you and other attending Province IV bishops next week in the spirit of collegiality invoked in your letter. Given all we have said above, we are concerned about your motives and have expressed these concerns to Bp. Lawrence.

Read it all.

A $1.5 million renovation of a retreat center launches Dec. 16 on Albuquerque’s Westside.

The Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande purchased the Conference and Spiritual Life Center at 6400 Coors NW in January for $1.7 million and is investing $1.5 million to expand and upgrade it. It will have state-of-the-art conference capabilities, a 45-room retreat house and will house the offices of the diocese.

Read it all.

…[Mariann] Budde, who was installed last month as the ninth bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, faces a tough road. After a decade of schism within the church and a broad disillusionment with mainline Protestantism in general, membership in the Episcopal Church in America ”” the denomination of FDR and George Herbert Walker Bush, the throne of high WASP-dom ”” has fallen on hard times.

Recent polls put Episcopalians in America at fewer than 2 million, which means that there are numerically more Jews, more Muslims and more Mormons in this country than there are Episcopalians. Washington, D.C., one of the largest and most visible dioceses in the country, has not suffered the same radical attrition as elsewhere; still, membership has stagnated for the past 10 years at about 40,000 members in 88 congregations.

“We got so fascinated with ourselves that the world just sped by us,” says Budde. “We’re like a boutique. We’re the most inclusive church in the world that’s the tiniest church in Christendom. .”‰.”‰. I’m not interested in being the leader of a boutique church.”

Read it all.

I am always encouraged when Christians choose to measure their actions by the Word of God. When making a decision, it is helpful to measure it against Scripture and even to be able to justify the action with a passage or a verse. As an Anglican Christian and an Episcopalian, I am even more encouraged when our leaders seek to live biblically. This does not always happen. Unfortunately, this week in church news was not a good week for the untrained to learn from Anglican bishops how to read the Scriptures properly. Our bishops, if you are not aware, generally wear purple shirts as a sign of their office. What we witnessed this week in two separate cases is Purple Shirts Proof-texting in Public (warning: do not say this three times fast with five saltine crackers in your mouth).
There is an inherent danger in reading the Bible to find a verse or text to prove your point. This error is known as proof-texting, and all trained theologians are warned against this isolationist tendency. As I was taught in seminary, “a text without a context is a pretext.” The discipline of receiving godly instruction from God’s Word includes the study and consideration of the fullness of any piece of Scripture that we would choose to quote. There were two notable examples of proof-texting this week by Anglican bishops.

The first came from the Right Reverend Clifton Daniel, Bishop of East (North) Carolina in a letter written to our own Bishop Lawrence. In it, he chose to reference and apply Mathew 18:15-20. Here is the context:

Since we have had no direct communication from you regarding these reported actions, we determined that it is our duty as bishops of this province to address these concerns in direct communication with you, as Jesus exhorts his followers in Matthew’s Gospel (18:15-20), and in accord with our ordination vows regarding the unity and governance of the church. What we seek in the coming weeks is a face-to-face meeting with you and and a representative group of your fellow Bishops Diocesan of Province 4 in order to have a clarifying conversation and to address the concerns raised among us:

The letter continues with the listing of two concerns. In the final paragraph, his letter indicates that he will release the letter to “Episcopal news organizations” following a telephone conversation.

Now it has been widely noted in the blogosphere that Bishop Daniel only partially followed the admonition of Matthew 18. Here’s how the text reads:

15 ”If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

In his hurry to find a Bible verse to justify the request of the Province IV Bishops, Bishop Daniel failed to follow the very verse he is quoting. Verse 15 requires Bishop Daniel to visit with Bishop Lawrence privately and alone. It seems that Bishop Daniel has moved on to the action described in Verse 16 of a group of believers going to a recalcitrant brother. The only problem is he assumes the conditions in Verse 17 (refusal to listen) and pre-publishes the “offense” to the church. This my friends is a prime example of a Purple Shirt Proof-texting in Public. Humbly, either follow Matthew 18 or do not quote it.

The second example involves international Anglican relations and relieves any of the more conservative Anglicans from the smug thought that their heroes, especially their bishops, would not publicly proof-text. This example comes in a letter from the Right Reverend Charles Murphy to the Archbishop of Rwanda, the Most Reverend Onesphore Rwaje. There has been a breakdown in the relationship of the Anglican Mission in America with its parent body the Rwandan House of Bishops. In the letter Bishop Murphy chooses the Exodus story to elucidate the situation. Here’s how this portion of the letter reads:

I must now say, however, that I believe that the Lord’s present word to me (and to us) now directs me to look beyond Genesis chapters 39-45, and on into the Book of Exodus. There we find the following:

Exodus 1:8 > “Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.”

Clearly, with an altogether new and different leadership in place in our African home of refuge and sojourn, the Anglican Mission, like the people of God earlier in Exodus, now finds itself in a very new and different situation. The result, as we saw in the story of Exodus, is that God’s sovereign hand which had led His people into Africa (Egypt) in the earlier Book of Genesis, then took a dramatic turn in the Book of Exodus instructing His people that it was now time for them to leave Africa.

Exodus 5:1, 8:1, 9:1 etc. > God next states again and again that He is ready for His people to go.

The promise, of course, was that He had actually prepared a new home in a new location, which would then launch a totally new chapter in the unfolding story of the people of God.

Exodus 10:1 > God then begins to move within the hearts of the Egyptian leadership to make it more and more clear to the people of Israel that Africa (Egypt) could no longer be viewed as their lasting home.

I now see a parallel between the Exodus story and the present situation with Rwanda and the PEAR. Things have now been made very clear to me, and I am thankful for the clarity that I now have.

I am very thankful that Bishop Murphy believes that he has received a clarity from the Lord, but I want to humbly suggest that the text from which he draws a parallel is unfortunately a proof-text for his actions.

The Exodus powerfully reminds us of God’s sovereignty over all people and events, not just the people of Israel. Joseph’s rise to power in Pharaoh’s household is a perfect example of God’s guiding hands over all things. Because we understand who Pharaoh is ”“ a competing deity with Yahweh in the Exodus narrative ”“ it is hard to accept that the Archbishop or the Rwandan church is a parallel. Bishop Murphy goes on to directly compare Africa and Egypt. He even suggest the use in this case of them interchangeably. How can that be? Biblically, going to Egypt is sometimes required but never preferred. Egypt is a pagan nation. Africa ”“ a continent- is not first of all a nation and second of all is not pagan. For American Anglicans troubled by the drift of the Episcopal Church to seek shelter from the church in Rwanda is not akin to going to Egypt, at least not biblically. Again we see a Purple Shirt Proof-texting in Public.

As a parish priest my concern is for everyday Christians to receive the power and presence of the Lord through the proper understanding of God’s Word. Because I believe 2 Timothy 3:16 when it says that the “all Scripture is”¦ useful for teaching,” I want all of our people to know how to properly receive the teaching that is also useful for “rebuking, correcting and training.” We expect a lot from our leaders, but I do not think it is too much to expect that they would be “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 3:15). May I just ask for no more Purple Shirts Proof-texting in Public?

–The Rev. Shay Gaillard is rector, Church of the Good Shepherd, Charleston, S.C.

A list of the Episcopal Church’s 75 commissions, committees, agencies and boards spilled over eight PowerPoint slides during a recent presentation by its new chief operating officer, Bishop Stacy Sauls.

By his count, there are also nearly 50 departments and offices in the church’s New York headquarters, and 46 committees in its legislative body, the General Convention.

Read it all.

The full text of the letter follows below the fold

December 5, 2011

The Right Reverend Mark Lawrence
The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina
126 Coming Street
Charleston, South Carolina 29413

Dear Mark,

I write to you following the regular annual meeting of the bishops of Province 4, gathered this year in Memphis, Tennessee. We missed you and understood your need to stay at home and close to your diocese.

The meeting covered a variety of topics: the Denominational Health Plan; the beginning of a search process for a new dean of the School of Theology at Sewanee; the upcoming Provincial Synod in June and the General Convention in July; ministry to retired clergy and their families; Daughters of the King; a prison ministry network in our province; ongoing concerns about the sin of racism in our world and church; and immigration, among other topics.

We also considered, with some concern, recent publicly reported actions regarding quitclaim deeds given to parishes in the Diocese of South Carolina. Since we have had no direct communication from you regarding these reported actions, we determined that it is our duty as bishops of this province to address these concerns in direct communication with you, as Jesus exhorts his followers in Matthew’s Gospel (18:15-20), and in accord with our ordination vows regarding the unity and governance of the church. What we seek in the coming weeks is a face-to-face meeting with you and and a representative group of your fellow Bishops Diocesan of Province 4 in order to have a clarifying conversation and to address the concerns raised among us:

A. We have heard and read reports that you have given a quitclaim deed to each congregation in your diocese. Is this true? If this report is true, under what canonical authority did you proceed? Did you involve the Standing Committee and are the members of the Standing Committee in accord? Who signed the deeds? Would you provide a sample copy of a deed and the letter of explanation that accompanied it?

B. In order to better understand your action, the Bishops of Province 4 gathered in Memphis respectfully request that you meet with several of your fellow Provincial Bishops Diocesan in Charleston, or elsewhere if you desire, to discuss what has been noted above. We make this request in a spirit of collegiality and fellowship as well as out of concern for the people of the Diocese of South Carolina and concern for the well-being of The Episcopal Church.

I have contacted you earlier today by telephone and shared with you the content of this letter, as well as seeking a date in the very near future for our proposed meeting. I will send you an email and hard copy of the letter. I am also releasing this letter to Episcopal news organizations today after our conversation.

Faithfully yours,

Dan

Clifton Daniel, 3rd
Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of East Carolina
Vice President of Province 4 of The Episcopal Church

(Please note if necessary you may find a pdf version there–KSH).

(What follows–which I decided may be of interest to blog readers–is the email I sent late last week in answers to a reporter’s questions; none of the wording has been changed–KSH).

1. Could you provide me with some background on the process of accusation and acquittal?

Some parishioners in the Diocese of South Carolina believed a threshold had been crossed whereby Bishop Lawrence had abandoned the communion of The Episcopal Church. They submitted evidence to support this, alleging multiple violations. Under relatively recently instituted new procedures the allegations went to the Disciplinary Board of Bishops. They met over conference call and decided the charges were sufficiently serious to merit further consideration. Bishop Lawrence was informed of this fact by the chair of the committee and the Diocese made public the allegations against the Bishop on its website. There were numerous complications in the process along the way, but eventually the committee met and “the Board” as a whole “was unable to make the conclusions essential” to certifying merit in the charges.

2. What is your opinion of the Church’s decision?

We are relieved at the decision and thankful for the hard work of the people involved. We are, however, deeply troubled by the process, a process which the diocese itself has believed is unholy and unhelpful (and most especially that it was passed unconstitutionally).A careful reading of the statement of the committee on their decision reveals a troubling underlying tone of institutional pressure to conform which is sadly lacking in grace. Even more upsetting, it reflects a larger pattern of those in The Episcopal Church’s leadership of the use the external push of canons to achieve desired ends which only the Holy Spirit and genuinely Christian relationships can produce.

3. What is Bishop Lawrence’s opinion of homosexuality? Has the Episcopal Church taken the wrong position?

The position of the diocese is the position of the ecumenical consensus of Christians East and West through the church’s history: there are only two states of human beings, singleness and marriage, and the only proper context for the expression of sexual intimacy is between a man and a woman who are married to each other. This remains the current standard of the Anglican Communion, the third largest Christian body in the world.This standard must be maintained with pastoral sensitivity by the church in local practice where we seek to balance truth and love.

As the Thirty-Nine Articles make clear, church councils can do and make errors and we believe there have been multiple erroneous decisions made by TEC senior leaders on this matter in the last decade or more. We are also more and more troubled that such wrongful decisions are increasingly allowed to be promoted in local practice, while senior leadership claims that other standards are being upheld. This has led to increasing chaos in our own province as well as sowed disunity through the Anglican Communion.

4. Many Episcopalians left the Church over its progressive theology and started their own denominations, yet lest I am mistaken Bishop Lawrence has remained with the Episcopal Church. What keeps him from leaving?

No one can decide to leave the church, the church is the body of Christ. Such a notion is a bizarre American anomaly which needs to be challenged at every opportunity.

Bishop Lawrence is seeking to be a faithful upholder of both evangelical truth and catholic unity. He is disturbed by the disorder involved in numerous decisions of those who through conscience have sought to worship God as Anglicans outside TEC because they felt they had no choice. At the same time he is deeply troubled by the continued movement of the Episcopal Church away from the gospel of Jesus Christ died and risen. The further TEC moves from Holy Scripture as the church has received it, the further the diocese will need to distance itself from the falsehoods being embraced. But the diocese is the main unit of the Anglican Church and the unity of the diocese needs to be protected as much as possible as this process is being lived out.

…the findings in respect of Bishop Lawrence are even broader. As we have noted before, under the new Title IV all clergy are required to report to the Intake Officer “all matters which may constitute an Offense.” The failure by the Board to refer these matters to the Intake Officer thus necessarily constitutes a finding by them, the body responsible for the trial of bishops under Title IV, that not only has there been no abandonment, neither has there been a violation of any of the other disciplinary canons. In other words, Bishop Lawrence has been given the broadest possible clearance.
Fourth, turning to the final sentence in Bishop Henderson’s statement in which he emphasizes that he is speaking only for himself, we note that the express reservation here underscores the fact that the rest of his statement is made on behalf of the entire Board. As to the substance of this sentence, we are unsure what Bishop Henderson means when he expresses his hope that the minority in South Carolina will be given a “safe place.” We are unaware of any allegations that dissident clergy have been disciplined or otherwise treated unfairly by Bishop Lawrence or the Diocese. There was a single allegation concerning a chapel comprised of dissenters from the diocesan majority, but this related not to any alleged discipline or persecution but only to whether this chapel would be organized as a diocesan parish or mission. Bishop Lawrence has in the past vigorously refuted this allegation, pointing out that he has worked closely with this chapel to provide them with priests, including the licensing of priests from other dioceses. In any event, this allegation was dismissed along with the others.

Perhaps Bishop Henderson was using the term “safe place” to suggest that Bishop Lawrence permit the dissenters to perform same sex blessings, call priests who are in same sex relationships or practice communion of the unbaptized, practices that are widespread elsewhere in TEC but prohibited in the Diocese of South Carolina. There is much esteem and affection for Bishop Henderson in the Church, but his hopes on this point are simply those of one bishop expressed openly to another. For our part, we have little doubt that Bishop Lawrence will continue to require that all under his episcopal authority adhere to traditional standards of sexual ethics, standards required by diocesan canons, regardless of any decision made to approve blessings at next year’s General Convention.

Read it all.

Read it all; and thanks.

Read it all.

A disciplinary committee of the Episcopal Church has decided that Bishop Mark Lawrence has not abandoned his church.

The judgment came Monday after the Disciplinary Board of Bishops reviewed 63 pages of material submitted by individuals in the Diocese of South Carolina who asserted that recent actions taken under Lawrence’s leadership amounted to a withdrawal from the church.

But the board — led by the retired bishop of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, the Rt. Rev. Dorsey Henderson — decided otherwise, citing Title IV, Canon 16 of the church’s constitution.

Read it all.

As the Episcopal Diocese of Western Massachusetts prepares to close on the sale of the Bement Camp and Conference Center near Worcester this week, a group of camp alumni has called on the state attorney general to investigate the handling of funds held in trust by the diocese.

In a statement Tuesday, the diocese said it was both “surprised and disappointed” by the development and said the funds entrusted in its care have been handled properly.

“All diocesan funds, including those to support the Bement Camp and Conference Center, are invested, managed and expended in compliance with the directions of the donor, if any, church canons and applicable Mass. and federal laws,” Steven Abdow, administration and finance officer, wrote to the [Daily Hampshire] Gazette on behalf of the diocese.

Read it all.

We are grateful that Bishop Lawrence’s Kafkaesque ordeal is now over. We are troubled that General Convention’s sweeping revisions to church canon made this sideshow possible. We pray that this test of the church’s comprehensiveness will inspire further discussion at General Convention next summer about the wisdom of reckless canonical revision.

Read it all.

To sum up the current anomalies, as presented in this post:

1. The Episcopal Church (USA) currently defines marriage, both canonically and in its rubrics, as the “physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman.”

2. There is no current measure proposed in the governing bodies of the Episcopal Church (USA) which would alter or amend its definition of “marriage” so as to incorporate therein the joining in “marriage” of two persons of the same sex.

3. Notwithstanding the Episcopal Church (USA)’s Book of Common Prayer and its associated Canons, certain clergy (including diocesan bishops) have performed, or have allowed to take place within their Diocese, rites of “holy matrimony” for same-sex marriages within the Episcopal Church’s liturgy.

4. The resulting spectacle of lawlessness is undermining the Church from within.

Read it all.

Read it all.

Read it all.

Returning to Orlando is something of a full-circle reunion for Brewer and those friends of his youth whose lives he influenced so long ago. Many of them have carried forward the community involvement he inspired, said Judy Betterson, a childhood friend of Brewer’s wife.

Betterson said she found Brewer to be smart, witty and humble ”” a sage in a young man’s body.

“He was probably the wisest man I had known at such a young age,” said Betterson, 61, of Winter Park.

Read it all.