Throughout his talk, Idowu-Fearon emphasized the “vigorous and robust” character of the Anglican Communion, as it pursues the “apostolic mandate given by the Lord Jesus, to make disciples of all the nations.” Again and again, he referenced “missionary calling,” the “sacrificial offering” of generations of English Anglicans zealous for global mission, and the C of E’s contributions to the Anglican Communion.

“This is a wonderful, if complex, story that I hope will never be forgotten,” he said. “I hope you realize this, because it is a fact that the Church of England today is giving necessary, effective, and beautiful gifts to the wider Communion.”

The secretary general did not shy away from noting the difficulties Anglican Communion provinces face: “economic displacement and political uncertainty; family dissolution; refugees and migration; grinding poverty; and persecution,” but also “the dispiriting and destructive dynamic of Anglican conflict over human sexuality” and a worrisome fading of the “fertile energy of outward mission.”

He lifted up the 1920 Lambeth Conference as a potential model for how to respond to these challenges: the assembled bishops recognized that communion is founded in “the undeflected will of God,” who desires to “win over the whole human family.”

Read it all.

The Episcopal Church (TEC) is a complex and diverse denomination. Only last January I had the pleasure of worshipping at two Episcopal churches in Houston, which was a great experience with some wonderful people. In a broad church like TEC there are people to the theological left and right and everything in between. However, TEC as a whole is typified by a radical liberalism and an authoritative leadership that punishes dissent and persecutes conservative believers (I can provide evidence if you wish!). Bishops in TEC have denied every line in the Apostles’ Creed and there is a flagrant rejoicing in apostasy. I have to tell you that the vast majority of world-wide Anglicans look on TEC with a mixture of confusion and disgust and have broken fellowship with TEC. It is because of TEC that the next Lambeth conference has been indefinitely postponed. The African and Global South Anglican bishops have responded with no shortage of rage and rancor at TEC’s actions and attitudes towards Scripture. Now if the TEC presiding bishop asked you, as something of a celebrity recruit to TEC, to go to Africa and get the African bishops to chillax and to receive TEC back into the Anglican fold, what would you say to them? In other words, should the global south Anglican bishops be in fellowship with TEC?

Read it all.

To compare the mentality of a brother bishop to school shooters (see here), or to call him and presumably those close to him “petty deciders or wolves who masquerade as sheep” is incredibly inappropriate for any Christian, not to mention bizarre. I truly have never before heard or read such a spiteful and hate-fueled speech on either side of our present unpleasantness. This type of hateful and over the top language is even worse coming from a leader who claims to speak for the “national Church” and all Episcopalians. Let me be clear: I am an Episcopal priest and the Presiding Bishop does not speak for me. I have no delusion that I share in any ownership of anything outside of my parish and my diocese. The idea that one person, even if one agrees with the present incumbent, can speak for all Episcopalians is sheer lunacy.

To be fair, this centralization of power and influence certainly did not start with the present Presiding Bishop, but we do well to consider the state in which we find ourselves. Power corrupts, and the Presiding Bishop rightly notes that when one figure assumes the power it often leads to abuse, tyranny and corruption. She apparently fails to see how this truth has been demonstrated in her term as Presiding Bishop. Fast tracking bishops to “renounce their orders” rather than letting the House of Bishops speak, inhibiting without the consent of the three most senior active bishops (which the new Title IV conveniently does not require), and setting up new dioceses (which TEC has every right to do) while violating the canons of TEC all point to an office that has overgrown its canonical bounds and is running unchecked.

Read it all.

Texas Supreme Court notified of witness harassment in Fort Worth case

“I simply want to bring to your attention actions on the part of the Appellees that I believe ought to be of concern to you.

I write as one of the authors and signers of an Amicus Brief in this case, presented by the Anglican Communion Institute, and signed as well by several bishops of the Episcopal Church. I have no interest in this case or in its disposition other than with regard to the matters in the Brief, as they touch disputes over the Episcopal Church’s constitution. That was ever my interest, and it remains so. I do not care who gets the property.”

I do not like being punished for this”

Read it all on Anglican Ink and there is a larger copy of Dr Radner’s letter here

See also the earlier item TEC Witness Intimidation Process Concluded to which this responds
The recent Conciliation “Accord” announced between several bishops and their accusers over charges they violated canons in filing an amicus brief in Texas is a minor event. But it does fit well into a larger and disturbing pattern of TEC’s current leadership. That complaints were filed and charges brought against the bishops in the first place, such as to make this conciliation process necessary, represents gross misconduct on the part of the complainants in Fort Worth and of the Presiding Bishop’s office. It is misconduct not only according the canons as they now stand, but according to generally accepted ethical standards. That other TEC bishops and leaders have failed to protest this misconduct is a matter of shame for our church and for them.
………
By and large, it seems that the bishops tried to fulfill their prudential obligations in this accord. But we also emphasize that, however construed, the pressures they were responding to were thrust upon them under duress, by the misconduct of the complainants and the PB’s office.

It is, furthermore, a strategy of intimidation on the latter’s part that cannot succeed. The arguments of the Amicus brief, and the constitutional reasoning behind it, are now well-publicized and available for all. They have also, to the present, not been refuted in any compelling way by the PB’s office. In fact, despite their paying literally hundreds of thousands of dollars to “expert” witnesses, that witness itself is concocted of misreadings and misquotations from the constitutional and historical record of our church.

Lastly it should be stated clearly: members of ACI will not be intimidated by the complainants or the PB’s office or those who collude with it. Currently, Turner and Radner of ACI have had formal complaints lodged against them in their respective dioceses (Texas and Colorado). Those dioceses have decided to leave these complaints open thus far, refusing to act on them for whatever reason, whether out of desire to leave the threats hanging in the air or out of ignorance regarding the canonical demands before them or simply out of a desire not to make waves in a difficult moment. In any case, the members of ACI are in the business simply and quite transparently of articulating and stating our understanding of the theology and polity of our church, to which we are committed. These are not matters over which to negotiate; nor are they matters about which to fear. They are duties of Christian honesty.

Read it all

Read it all

In an 19 Oct 2012 email Bishop Matthews wrote:

“The Reference Panel unanimously decided according to IV. 6.sec.8 that the complaint will proceed with option (c), Conciliation pursuant to Canon IV.10.”

Under the Title IV disciplinary canons, if the intake officer finds that if a prima facie case can be made against the accused ”“ if the charges if proven true would constitute an offense ”“ the proceedings are passed on to a Reference Panel for action….

the panel proposed…option b, conciliation.

Read it all.

This last point brings us to the crux of our disagreement with Bishop Whalon: does TEC’s Constitution create a “metropolitical authority” superior to the diocesan bishop? Bishop Whalon thinks it does. Without citing or alluding to a single provision of the Constitution, he merely asserts: “the metropolitical authority”¦ resides in the General Convention”¦.The General Convention is at the top of our hierarchy.” We disagree. And it is important to emphasize that our disagreement with this conclusion is based fundamentally on an undeniable legal fact: nowhere does TEC’s Constitution state what Bishop Whalon asserts.

“Metropolitical authority” is a very precise and technical ecclesiological term. “Top of the hierarchy” is a very colloquial allusion to a legal concept that is widely used and readily identified in constitutions and legal documents. The legal term most often used to express this concept is “supremacy,” as in the English Act of Supremacy by which the Church of England separated from Rome and the oath of supremacy that all Church of England bishops continue to swear to this day. There are also other terms that are recognized legally as expressing this concept, but none of them is used in TEC’s Constitution. If there were any constitutional article stating that the General Convention is the supreme or highest or metropolitical authority in the church, we can be quite confident that Bishop Whalon would have quoted it rather than relying on mere colloquial assertion.

Again it is important to stress the context of this debate: a legal brief to a civil court. Given the constraints of the First Amendment, secular courts of law can draw conclusions about church polity only when those conclusions are stated plainly in recognizable legal language in the church’s governing instruments””in other words “on the face of it.”

Read it all.

The first constitution of the church, ratified in 1789, reflects these foundational principles. Parishes were led jointly by rectors and vestries: clergy overseeing worship and education, and elected laypeople managing finances and property, as well as calling new rectors. The tradition of colonial conventions led to state conventions, which were what we now call dioceses, presided by the bishop but that have power to determine the life of the diocese. The annual diocesan convention oversees finances, elects a bishop when necessary and a standing committee and other governing bodies (depending on the dioceses) to exercise jurisdiction.

So far these were not very different than the features of English church life. It was the creation of a “general convention” endued with specific powers that marked the American Episcopal revolution. In short, while the Church of England and most of the churches that came from it have an archbishop who serves as the metropolitical authority, that authority resides in the General Convention.

Thus on the face of it, the seven bishops [signed an amicus curiæ brief submitted to the Texas Supreme Court] are right. In The Episcopal Church, the classic church hierarchy of deacon ”” priest ”” diocesan ”” archbishop ends at the diocesan level. But this is to misunderstand what a hierarchy is.

Read it all.

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.

Post on Complaints filed against 9 bishops of the Episcopal Church and Philip Turner under Title IV

Post Last Updated 24 October 2012

[Latest Update: 24 October 2012: See this story for the latest news.]

[Further Update 8th July: Following a further closed session of the House of Bishops on Sunday 8th July 2012 a Resolution of the House of Bishops was issued expressing support for the continuing dioceses. Provisional Bishop Buchanan of Quincy is reported by Episcopal News Service to have “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.”]

Latest updates:
*An ENS Article on the Mind of the House of Bishops Resolution Passed Today [8th July 2012]
*Mind of the House of Bishops Resolution, July 8, 2012, as Passed [8th July 2012]
*Full Text of Letter from Eight bishops to TEC House of Bishops Refuting disloyalty allegation [7th July 2012]
*(Fort Worth Diocese led by Bishop Jack Iker) Motion filed for expedited hearing [7th July 2012]
*[Eight] bishops respond to charges brought to the House of Bishops [Updated] [7th July 2012]
*House of Bishops reaches No decision as of yet on complaint brought by Bishops Ohl and Buchanan [7th July 2012]
*House of Bishops to hear complaints from Fort Worth and Quincy on 6 July 2012 [6th July 2012]
*Current TEC Bishops in Fort Worth and Quincy write PB Jefferts Schori about recent Charges [6th July 2012]
Title IV Complaint Filed Against Philip Turner [4th July 2012]
*South Carolina Standing Committee Statement [3rd July 2012]
*What is it that the Bishops are saying about the Polity of The Episcopal Church? [3rd July 2012]
*[Allan Haley] Bishopsgate Plot Thickens: Complaint Timed to Intimidate Witness [3rd July 2012]
*Central Florida: Statement by Bishop Brewer and the Standing Committee [3rd July 2012]
*Bishop Howe responds to “Presentment” [3rd July 2012]
*Dr Ephraim Radner: How To Kill a Christian Church in Four Easy Steps [3rd July 2012]
*Dallas: Standing Committee Statement [3rd July 2012]
*Albany: Bishop Love’s Letter to the People of the Diocese of Albany [3rd July 2012]

A brief guide to the action being taken against 9 bishops of the Episcopal Church under the new Title IV Disciplinary Canons and against Dr Philip Turner with links in reverse chronological order so that the newest items appear first in each category. The Elves hope these links from T19 posts and elsewhere will assist the understanding of readers.

[A] UNOFFICIAL INTRODUCTION [Updated 8th July 2012]
On 28th June 2012 Bishop Clayton Matthews, Intake Officer for the Episcopal Church issued two communications:

1. To 3 bishops, Edward Salmon, former Bishop of South Carolina and current Dean of Nashotah House Theological Seminary, Peter Beckwith, former Bishop of Springfield, and Bruce MacPherson, sitting Bishop of Western Louisiana stating that he will initiate disciplinary process against them following complaints “for your action in signing affidavits” in proceedings regarding the Diocese of Quincy

2. To 7 bishops [including Bishop MacPherson again], Maurice Benitez, retired Bishop of Texas, John Howe, retired Bishop of Central Florida, Paul Lambert, Suffragan Bishop of Dallas, William Love, sitting Bishop of Albany, Bruce MacPherson, sitting Bishop of Western Louisiana, Daniel Martins, sitting Bishop of Springfield, James Stanton, sitting Bishop of Dallas stating that he will initiate disciplinary process against them following complaints “for your action in filing of Amicus Curiae Brief in the pending appeal in the Supreme Court of Texas in opposition to The Episcopal Diocese of Texas and The Episcopal Church” [n.b. there is no court involvement of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas, however there is one in respect of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth]. An Amicus Curiae Brief is a third party submission offered ‘as a friend’ of the Court usually about something the Court will want and need to know.

Neither the identity of the complainants nor the specific canonical breaches alleged have been disclosed to the bishops. However the complaint seems to be that they gave submissions to the Courts regarding the polity of the constitution, canons and history of the Episcopal Church and in particular as it relates to dioceses and that their opinion may have differed from the assertions of the Episcopal Church litigators who claim that the polity of the church is hierachical with dioceses subservient to and at the total whim of the National Church bodies and in particular its General Convention and through that its central church offices under the Presiding Bishop. The bishops appear to be speaking up for the rights of the Dioceses in the polity of the Episcopal Church. [Update 3rd July 2012: see this post What is it that the Bishops are saying about the Polity of The Episcopal Church?]

[Update 8th July 2012: Responses have been issued from Springfield, Albany, Dallas, Central Florida and from Bishop Howe.

On 4th July 2012 The Very Reverend Dr Philip Turner former Dean of Berkeley Divinity School, Yale ascertained that Title IV proceedings were being brought against him in the Diocese of Texas – read his statement here.

On 6th July 2012 the text of a letter of complaint by the provisional bishops of the dioceses of Fort Worth and Quincy [reformed and funded by the Presiding Bishop’s office in the wake of departures] to the House of Bishops was released. It states: “We respectfully urge that the House of Bishops set the record straight on the polity of this Church regarding its hierarchical character” and sets out four grounds of complaint which they make about the bishops.

Eight of the nine bishops have written to the Presiding Bishop refuting each of the four grounds of complaint and setting out their reasons of principle in defending the polity of The Episcopal Church in their Amicus Brief. Read the full text here.

It is reported that the House of Bishops together with Goodwin Proctor partner and Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop David Booth Beers met in closed session on the evening of Friday the 6th, and at the start of the afternoon session of Saturday 6th.

In further developments it appears that the General Convention litigation package may be about to impact on the current Court actions in ways which those who put it together may not have envisaged]

[Further Update 8th July: Following a further closed session of the House of Bishops on Sunday 8th July 2012 a Resolution of the House of Bishops was issued expressing support for the continuing dioceses. Provisional Bishop Buchanan of Quincy is reported by Episcopal News Service to have “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.”]

[B] FULL INDEX OF POSTS:

CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST THE BISHOPS AND PHILIP TURNER
The Presiding Bishop is at it again [30th June 2012] – dealing with 2 Anglican Ink articles breaking news of the charges brought

Allan Haley comments on the aggressive action taken against 9 TEC Bishops on the Eve of GC 2012 [30th June 2012] legal analysis of the charges by Canon lawyer Allan Haley

Newspeak to become Official Language of TEC: Innovative Loyalty Oath Plan Put Forward [1st July 2012] containing allegations about the bishops by lawyer Kathleen Wells and the Bishop and Deputation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth

[*NEW] Title IV Complaint Filed Against Philip Turner [4th July 2012]

[*NEW] Current TEC Bishops in Fort Worth and Quincy write PB Jefferts Schori about recent Charges [6th July 2012]

[*NEW] House of Bishops to hear complaints from Fort Worth and Quincy on 6 July 2012 [6th July 2012]

[*NEW] House of Bishops reaches No decision as of yet on complaint brought by Bishops Ohl and Buchanan [7th July 2012]

[*NEW] (Fort Worth Diocese led by Bishop Jack Iker) Motion filed for expedited hearing [7th July 2012]

[*NEW] Mind of the House of Bishops Resolution, July 8, 2012, as Passed [8th July 2012]

RESPONSES AND DEVELOPMENTS
[*NEW] Full Text of Letter from Eight bishops to TEC House of Bishops Refuting disloyalty allegation [7th July 2012]

[*NEW] [Eight] bishops respond to charges brought to the House of Bishops [Updated] [7th July 2012]

South Carolina Standing Committee Statement [3rd July 2012]

Central Florida: Statement by Bishop Brewer and the Standing Committee [3rd July 2012]

Bishop Howe responds to “Presentment” [3rd July 2012]

Dallas: Standing Committee Statement [3rd July 2012]

Albany: Bishop Love’s Letter to the People of the Diocese of Albany [3rd July 2012]

Bishop Dan Martins: Speaking Truth in Love [2nd July 2012]

ANALYSIS
[Allan Haley] Bishopsgate Plot Thickens: Complaint Timed to Intimidate Witness [3rd July 2012]

ACI: The Quincy Three, The Fort Worth Seven And Title IV: What Now? [2nd July 2012]

Communion Partners: Title IV Exposed [1st July 2010]

COMMENT
[*NEW] An ENS Article on the Mind of the House of Bishops Resolution Passed Today [8th July 2012]

Dr Ephraim Radner: How To Kill a Christian Church in Four Easy Steps [3rd July 2012]

An ENS report on Bishopgate [2nd July 2010] from ENS staff working on Sunday

Open Thread: Tell us about an interesting experience you have had recently with an Opinion [1st July 2010]

Dr Peter Carrell: The Open Church and its Enemies [1st July 2010]
from a New Zealand priest

Mark Harris: Say it isn’t so”¦. seven bishops charged with misconduct [1st July 2010] from an Episcopal priest in Delaware and former Executive Council member

Robert Munday: Have you ever been stung by a dead bee? [1st July 2010] – from a former Dean of Nashotah House Theological Seminary and Episcopal Priest

Standfirm: Charges Deployed to Silence ECUSA Bishops in Court [30th June 2012] – note the comments from Allan Haley

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION
[*NEW] What is it that the Bishops are saying about the Polity of The Episcopal Church? [3rd July 2012]

Bishop Bruce MacPherson – A Prescient Diocesan Address from 2008 [1st July 2012]

Prayers from Lent and Beyond and more here

ACI: Friend of Court Brief Filed in Fort Worth Lawsuit [23rd April 2012] – with link to Amicus Curiae Brief

Online text of current Title IV Canon

Read it all.

Update – Eight bishops have now signed

Latest updates:
* BREAKING* Title IV Complaint Filed Against Philip Turner [4th July 2012]
* BREAKING* South Carolina Standing Committee Statement [3rd July 2012]
What is it that the Bishops are saying about the Polity of The Episcopal Church? [3rd July 2012]
[Allan Haley] Bishopsgate Plot Thickens: Complaint Timed to Intimidate Witness [3rd July 2012]
Central Florida: Statement by Bishop Brewer and the Standing Committee [3rd July 2012]
Bishop Howe responds to “Presentment” [3rd July 2012]
Dr Ephraim Radner: How To Kill a Christian Church in Four Easy Steps [3rd July 2012]
Dallas: Standing Committee Statement [3rd July 2012]
Albany: Bishop Love’s Letter to the People of the Diocese of Albany [3rd July 2012]

You may find the full post with all the links there.