Almost every American knows the traditional story of July Fourth””the soaring idealism of the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress’s grim pledge to defy the world’s most powerful nation with their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. But what else about revolutionary America might help us feel closer to those founders in their tricornered hats, fancy waistcoats and tight knee-breeches?

Those Americans, it turns out, had the highest per capita income in the civilized world of their time. They also paid the lowest taxes””and they were determined to keep it that way.

By 1776, the 13 American colonies had been in existence for over 150 years””more than enough time for the talented and ambitious to acquire money and land. At the top of the South’s earners were large planters such as George Washington. In the North their incomes were more than matched by merchants such as John Hancock and Robert Morris. Next came lawyers such as John Adams, followed by tavern keepers, who often cleared 1,000 pounds a year, or about $100,000 in modern money. Doctors were paid comparatively little. Ditto for dentists, who were almost nonexistent….

Read it all.

In Congress, July 4, 1776.

The UNANIMOUS DECLARATION of the THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world….

Worthy of much pondering, on this day especially–read it all.

…all Americans should find timely inspiration in seeing how much they can count on their fellow Americans when disasters strike.

Those riding to the rescue in Colorado included four North Carolina Air National Guard crew members killed Monday when a C-130H3, based in Charlotte, crashed while on a firefighting mission in Colorado.

Meanwhile, as of Tuesday, 22 deaths had been blamed on storms and widespread power outages in seven states, from the Midwest to the mid-Atlantic, and Washington, D.C.

….utility workers from as far away as Mississippi, Florida and Canada battled an intense heat wave as they strived to restore power….

Read it all.

O! say can you see by the dawn’s early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming.
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming.
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
”˜Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: ”˜In God is our trust.’
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

–Francis Scott Key (1779-1843)

“In Philadelphia, the same day as the British landing on Staten Island, July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress, in a momentous decision, voted to ‘dissolve the connection’ with Great Britain. The news reached New York four days later, on July 6, and at once spontaneous celebrations broke out. ‘The whole choir of our officers … went to a public house to testify our joy at the happy news of Independence. We spent the afternoon merrily,’ recorded Isaac Bangs.”

“A letter from John Hancock to Washington, as well as the complete text of the Declaration, followed two days later:

“‘That our affairs may take a more favorable turn,’ Hancock wrote, ‘the Congress have judged it necessary to dissolve the connection between Great Britain and the American colonies, and to declare them free and independent states; as you will perceive by the enclosed Declaration, which I am directed to transmit to you, and to request you will have it proclaimed at the head of the army in the way you shall think most proper.’ “Many, like Henry Knox, saw at once that with the enemy massing for battle so close at hand and independence at last declared by Congress, the war had entered an entirely new stage. The lines were drawn now as never before, the stakes far higher. ‘The eyes of all America are upon us,’ Knox wrote. ‘As we play our part posterity will bless or curse us.’
“By renouncing their allegiance to the King, the delegates at Philadelphia had committed treason and embarked on a course from which there could be no turning back.

“‘We are in the very midst of a revolution,’ wrote John Adams, ‘the most complete, unexpected and remarkable of any in the history of nations.’

“In a ringing preamble, drafted by Thomas Jefferson, the document declared it ‘self-evident’ that ‘all men are created equal,’ and were endowed with the ‘unalienable’ rights of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ And to this noble end the delegates had pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

“Such courage and high ideals were of little consequence, of course, the Declaration itself being no more than a declaration without military success against the most formidable force on Earth. John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, an eminent member of Congress who opposed the Declaration, had called it a ‘skiff made of paper.’ And as Nathanael Greene had warned, there were never any certainties about the fate of war.

“But from this point on, the citizen-soldiers of Washington’s army were no longer to be fighting only for the defense of their country, or for their rightful liberties as freeborn Englishmen, as they had at Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill and through the long siege at Boston. It was now a proudly proclaimed, all-out war for an independent America, a new America, and thus a new day of freedom and equality.”

—-David McCullough, 1776

A Statement by Dr Philip Turner received by email
When I learned that complaints had been registered against the Bishops who might serve as witnesses in the case involving the diocese of Quincy and against those Bishops who had submitted an Amicus brief in the Fort Worth case, I wondered if a complaint had also been made against me. I also may be a witness in the Quincy case and was among those who submitted the Amicus brief. Accordingly, I enquired as to whether a complaint against me had been lodged with my diocese. I was told by an unimpeachable source that in fact a complaint against me had been received. I have not seen the complaint. I do not know what the complaints are or who the complainants are. The process is said to be confidential at this point, but confidentiality of this sort means that the nature of the complaint and the identity of the complainants are withheld from the accused member of the clergy. Only the complainants and the diocesan office know the relevant information. It is my belief that this complaint will be judged to be both without substance and frivolous. Nevertheless, an anonymous complaint whose source and content are unknown to the accused is not a matter about which I feel it right to remain silent.

Philip Turner

Let us hear your thoughts, in whatever direction they may go.

“It’s really an incredible thing that it’s happened in my lifetime,” said Peter Higgs, the theorist after whom the boson is named, struggling not to cry in front of the crowd.

The announcement comes nearly 50 years after Higgs and four other theorists predicted the existence of the boson. The particle was originally invoked to explain why particles called W and Z bosons have mass, whereas photons ”” particles of light ”” do not. W and Z bosons mediate the weak nuclear force (which governs certain types of radioactive decay), and photons mediate the electromagnetic force. So by explaining the difference in their masses, the Higgs boson allowed physicists to unite the two forces into a single ‘electroweak’ force.

Read it all – there is a report from Reuters and the Huffington Post explains it all

“Today we stand on an awful arena, where character which was the growth of centuries was tested and determined by the issues of a single day. We are compassed about by a cloud of witnesses; not alone the shadowy ranks of those who wrestled here, but the greater parties of the action–they for whom these things were done. Forms of thought rise before us, as in an amphitheatre, circle beyond circle, rank above rank; The State, The Union, The People. And these are One. Let us–from the arena, contemplate them–the spiritual spectators.

“There is an aspect in which the question at issue might seem to be of forms, and not of substance. It was, on its face, a question of government. There was a boastful pretence that each State held in its hands the death-warrant of the Nation; that any State had a right, without show of justification outside of its own caprice, to violate the covenants of the constitution, to break away from the Union, and set up its own little sovereignty as sufficient for all human purposes and ends; thus leaving it to the mere will or whim of any member of our political system to destroy the body and dissolve the soul of the Great People. This was the political question submitted to the arbitrament of arms. But the victory was of great politics over small. It was the right reason, the moral consciousness and solemn resolve of the people rectifying its wavering exterior lines according to the life-lines of its organic being.
“There is a phrase abroad which obscures the legal and moral questions involved in the issue,–indeed, which falsifies history: “The War between the States”. There are here no States outside of the Union. Resolving themselves out of it does not release them. Even were they successful in intrenching themselves in this attitude, they would only relapse into territories of the United States. Indeed several of the States so resolving were never in their own right either States or Colonies; but their territories were purchased by the common treasury of the Union. Underneath this phrase and title,–“The War between the States”–lies the false assumption that our Union is but a compact of States. Were it so, neither party to it could renounce it at his own mere will or caprice. Even on this theory the States remaining true to the terms of their treaty, and loyal to its intent, would have the right to resist force by force, to take up the gage of battle thrown down by the rebellious States, and compel them to return to their duty and their allegiance. The Law of Nations would have accorded the loyal States this right and remedy.

“But this was not our theory, nor our justification. The flag we bore into the field was not that of particular States, no matter how many nor how loyal, arrayed against other States. It was the flag of the Union, the flag of the people, vindicating the right and charged with the duty of preventing any factions, no matter how many nor under what pretence, from breaking up this common Country.

“It was the country of the South as well as of the North. The men who sought to dismember it, belonged to it. Its was a larger life, aloof from the dominance of self-surroundings; but in it their truest interests were interwoven. They suffered themselves to be drawn down from the spiritual ideal by influences of the physical world. There is in man that peril of the double nature. “But I see another law”, says St. Paul. “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind.”

–Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (1828-1914). The remarks here are from Chamberlain’s address at the general dedicatory exercises in the evening in the court house in Gettsyburg on the occasion of the dedication of the Maine monuments. It took place on October 3, 1889. For those who are history buffs you can see an actual program of the events there (on page 545)–KSH.

Long, too long America,
Traveling roads all even and peaceful you learn’d from joys and
prosperity only,
But now, ah now, to learn from crises of anguish, advancing,
grappling with direst fate and recoiling not,
And now to conceive and show to the world what your children
en-masse really are,
(For who except myself has yet conceiv’d what your children en-masse
really are?)

–Walt Whitman (1819-1892)

What was the Founders’ attitude toward religion in the country?

Public virtue was seen as necessary for a republic, and most believed that virtue was produced by religion. There was a strong view that religion was necessary to turn out good citizens.

Many of the Founders were well versed in religious and theological matters. How did this affect their work as architects of the republic?

They could quote Scripture. Jefferson and others were tutored by ministers. They were an extremely biblically literate generation. This certainly shaped their view of Providence. The extent to which they believed in Providence would be unimaginable today.

Adams and folks like that continually quoted [Jesus’] statement that a swallow cannot fall without God’s knowledge. Washington talks about the invisible hand of Providence. Their biblical knowledge convinced these people that there was an invisible hand of God, and that there was a moral government of the universe.

Read it all.

Lord God Almighty, in whose Name the founders of this country won liberty for themselves and for us, and who lit the torch of freedom for nations then unborn: Grant that we and all the people of this land may have grace to maintain our liberties in righteousness and peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage! The LORD looks down from heaven, he sees all the sons of men; from where he sits enthroned he looks forth on all the inhabitants of the earth, he who fashions the hearts of them all, and observes all their deeds. A king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength. The war horse is a vain hope for victory, and by its great might it cannot save. Behold, the eye of the LORD is on those who fear him, on those who hope in his steadfast love, that he may deliver their soul from death, and keep them alive in famine. Our soul waits for the LORD; he is our help and shield. Yea, our heart is glad in him, because we trust in his holy name. Let thy steadfast love, O LORD, be upon us, even as we hope in thee.

[Psalm 33:12-22]

It was with great sadness that we heard of the decision of the Presiding Bishop’s office and Bishop Clayton Matthews to “initiate a disciplinary process” against nine faithful Bishops of the Church (including Bishop Salmon) for their “action in signing affidavits in opposition” to The Episcopal Church’s motions for Summary Judgment in the Dioceses of Quincy and Fort Worth. These Bishops are facing disciplinary actions for simply expressing their faithfully held factual understanding and belief that The Episcopal Church is not the unitary hierarchical body claimed by its attorneys in litigation. That this action has been possible validates our concerns with the changes made to the Title IV disciplinary canons. That such an attempt is being made to silence the remaining conservative voices in the church is a troubling sign of what may lie ahead. As the details of the charges and their nature are made clear in the days ahead, their seriousness and character will become evident. Until then, we as the Standing Committee wish to express first our unswerving support for Bp. Salmon and the eight other faithful bishops facing disciplinary action along with him. We similarly express our united contempt for such a predictably partisan use of the disciplinary canons and we pray that those responsible will have the good sense to promptly drop these proceedings. They can only bring further injury and dishonor to the Church we love.

If you wish to see such, you may find a signed copy here.

Bishop Howe writes, in part:
[blockquote]I am at a complete loss to know how the filing of this brief could constitute an offense for which any of us could be charged!

At this point, formal “charges” have not been filed. A “complaint” has been submitted, but we have not been told who filed it.

My understanding is that Bishop Matthews (Director of the Office for Pastoral Development, and “Intake Officer” regarding this matter) could dismiss the complaint on his own reconnaissance – unless the Presiding Bishop were to direct otherwise….[/blockquote]
Well, Bishop Howe — and any others who may be wondering about both the timing and the substance of these complaints — let me shed some further light on the matter for you.

It turns out that in the Diocese of Quincy litigation, each side was scheduled to file last Friday, June 29, a list of the witnesses, both lay and expert, whom they plan to call to the stand at the trial scheduled for next April.

What a curious coincidence, then, that on the day before the Anglican Diocese of Quincy had to file its statement (i.e., on June 28), one of the Bishops which they planned to list as an expert witness received an email from the Intake Officer, the Rt. Rev. F. Clayton Matthews, that a complaint had been lodged against the Bishop for providing testimony earlier in that same case.

…….

When it comes to Church property litigation, Bishop Buchanan and those attorneys all work directly for the Presiding Bishop, the Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori.

Who just happens to be the “Diocesan Bishop” with authority to agree to dismiss the complaints filed against the Bishops.

Enough said. This whole affair reeks to high heaven.

Read it all [Update: Also available on Anglican Ink here]

The Elves weren’t sure, so we thought we would find out. Follow the links and see what you think:

1. The key document:

Bishops’ Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church April 2009 Pdf with notes or online text without notes

2. For an overview/summary:

Losing Their Nerve: What The Courts Would Discover If They Examined TEC Polity Afresh – A talk given in February 2010

3. The full research paper supporting the Bishops’ Statement:

Is The Episcopal Church Hierachical? September 2008 [89 pages] Pdf

Read as much as you wish and this will be added to the Resources section at the foot of the main index post

Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) are expected to reveal on Wednesday the strongest evidence yet for the Higgs particle.

Anticipation is high and rumours have been rife about the announcement……

But why has so much time and effort been invested in detecting the boson?

“The Higgs boson gives other particles mass, which sounds simple,” Tara Shears, a particle physicist at Liverpool University, told BBC News.

“But if particles didn’t have mass, you wouldn’t have stars, you wouldn’t have galaxies, you wouldn’t even have atoms. The Universe would be entirely different.”

Read and watch it all if you wish

Received by email
It is both disheartening and baffling that a few days before the General Convention of The Episcopal Church, the Rt. Rev. Clayton Matthews acting in his capacity as Intake Officer, informed seven bishops of The Episcopal Church that a complaint has been filed against them regarding their endorsing a friend of the court brief in litigation involving The Texas Supreme Court, The Episcopal Church, and the Episcopal Diocese of Texas. At issue is not a matter of doctrine but a disputed matter of law on which people in The Episcopal Church clearly disagree. Why does signing such a brief warrant a complaint that Bishop Matthews takes seriously enough to send such a letter? Is this an attack against free speech? Are we not free to state our opinions in a court of law without retaliation by our church? Is this an intentional act of intimidation? Or given how close this is to General Convention, is this a diversionary tactic to throw the spotlight away from weightier matters facing our Convention? Until the content of the complaint comes to light we do not know. However, I want to assure these bishops of my prayers; and I join with the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Central Florida in offering our support, prayers, and friendship.

Posted July 3rd, 2012

Central Florida Episcopalian: Around the Diocese

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

There has been much discussion on this list (and elsewhere) over the past few days regarding a complaint leveled against seven bishops (myself included) who filed an Amicus Curiae (“Friend of the Court”) Brief back in April in the Texas Supreme Court related to the dispute between Bishop Jack Iker, the departing “Diocese of Fort Worth,” and The Episcopal Church.

(First, thanks to all who have expressed sympathy and concern both on the list and in posts to me personally. Please allow me to respond to everyone in these general remarks.)

The seven bishops (Benitez, Howe, Lambert, Love, MacPherson, Martins, and Stanton) signed onto a brief that was written by three theologians of the Anglican Communion Institute (Professors Ephraim Radner, Chris Seitz, and Philip Turner) that objected to, and attempted to correct, the way in which the court in Texas interpreted the structure of The Episcopal Church.

The question is: is The Episcopal Church “hierarchical” beyond the level of the diocese? Our brief largely followed the argument the Anglican Communion Institute spelled out in great detail back in 2009, which in turn stemmed from an understanding of the structure of the Anglican Communion expressed in a letter the Archbishop of Canterbury sent to me, personally; and the brief itself can be found on the ACI web site.

In our opening “Statement of Interest” we stipulated that: “All of these bishops and all of the officers and directors of ACI remain in The Episcopal Church, and have submitted this brief solely because they disagree with the characterization of the governance of The Episcopal Church as submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment that the trial court granted in this case.”

We went on to say, “As is well known, these bishops and ACI oppose the decision by the Diocese of Fort Worth to leave The Episcopal Church. They have no intention of withdrawing from the Church, but it is precisely because they intend to remain in the Church that they are concerned that the trial court ruling has misunderstood, and thereby damaged, the constitutional structure of The Episcopal Church.”

I am at a complete loss to know how the filing of this brief could constitute an offense for which any of us could be charged!

At this point, formal “charges” have not been filed. A “complaint” has been submitted, but we have not been told who filed it.

My understanding is that Bishop Matthews (Director of the Office for Pastoral Development, and “Intake Officer” regarding this matter) could dismiss the complaint on his own reconnaissance – unless the Presiding Bishop were to direct otherwise. He has said that “in the next few weeks” he will “initiate a disciplinary process according to title IV Canon 6 Sec. 3 & 4 of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.”

I have just written him to express surprise that he foresees “‘a disciplinary process’ for the filing of an Amicus Curiae Brief…the purpose of which was simply to inform the court that (in our opinion) it misconstrued the structure of The Episcopal Church according to the Constitution and Canons.”

I asked, “In what way can such a filing be considered an offense that warrants ‘a disciplinary process’?”

I concluded by saying, “I look forward to hearing more fully from you.”

When I do I will keep all of you informed. You are free to further distribute this post if you do so in its entirety.

Warmest regards in our Lord,

Bishop John W. Howe

Monday, July 2nd, 2012

Hello, General Convention! Here’s the answer I would give; and it doesn’t appear to be that hard:

1. Define the Gospel of Christ in terms of the smallest social unit and interest possible (e.g. homosexuals and their right to sexual affirmation)

2. Define the episcopacy according to the smallest unit possible (e.g. New Hampshire and its gay bishop)

3. Drive out anybody who has a larger vision ”“ traditional Christians, evangelicals, Bible-readers, people who study Christian lives and thought earlier than 1968 and farther afield than NY and LA.

4. Spend as much money as you can doing this instead of anything else and say this is “mission”.

Crudely stereotyped? Well, let’s admit to facts: The Episcopal Church is dying, having lost a third of its members in the last 10 years, and the decline still humming along; it has fewer and fewer young people and children as a proportion of its membership, fewer baptisms, fewer confirmations; and less and less money; it is closing more and more churches, watching dioceses disappear, go bankrupt or face merger; it’s seminaries are shutting their doors; it has produced little theology of note in over 20 years; its church planters and evangelists have mostly left; and its budget is shrinking and in line to be slashed yet further, with national programs and personnel falling by the wayside within a vacuum of missionary planning.

These are facts. But what are the causes? Multiple, no doubt. But there is a thread of correlation worth taking seriously: nixing evangelism programs and the theology behind them in the 1990’s; steady and relentless pursuit of a gay-centered political and theological agenda in the same period and after; imperviousness to larger church and Communion views to the contrary after 2003; vigorous (and expensive) focus on the legal pursuit of departing or objecting bishops and their flocks after 2005; passage of canonical disciplinary amendments that permit intimidation of dissenting clergy in 2009; massive budgetary losses and use of trust funds for the support of these legal costs and the decline of membership giving in the same period; imploding governance structures since 2011.

And let’s not forget the present: General Convention convenes with a slew of more traditional bishops officially under misconduct investigations over arguing on behalf of an alternative interpretation of TEC’s Constitution; a massive exodus of traditional Episcopalians underway; a theological education system in shambles; and a budget and budgetary process marked by the mutual recriminations of the church’s leadership elite.

Hello, General Convention! Anybody ready for an intervention? Anglican 9-1-1? Charges of criminally negligent ecclesiocide? For all of which I am willing offer an amicus brief”¦

Read it all

Read it all if you wish to confirm.

Throughout the years, Christians, like many other minorities in the region, have lent their support to those regimes that have guaranteed their security and religious freedom. In Iraq, Christians rose to the highest levels of society under Saddam Hussein’s regime, while in Egypt, Coptic Christians were protected from ultraconservative Salafists under Hosni Mubarak. As secular leaders from the secretive Alawite sect, the Assad dynasty largely preserved Christian life, protecting Syria’s minorities from what was perceived as a collective threat from the country’s Sunni majority.

Watching their once-shielding dictators fall like dominos across the region, Christians have suddenly found themselves on the wrong side of history. Faced by a rising tide of radical Sunni Islam, Christians in Iraq and Egypt have fled by the thousands. In Syria, concern over Christian repression has fallen on deaf ears, drowned out by popular support for the country’s opposition in the face of the Assad regime’s brutal crackdown.

This March, months before the Qusayr ultimatum, Islamist militants from the opposition’s Faruq Brigade had gone door to door in Hamidiya and Bustan al-Diwan neighborhoods of Homs, expelling local Christians.

Read it all.

[Received by email]
July 2, 2012

We, the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Dallas, express our support of our Bishop, The Rt. Rev. James Stanton and our Bishop Suffragan, The Rt. Rev. Paul Lambert. In the midst of great turmoil in the Church, they have led us faithfully and well, stating at every opportunity their allegiance to the Episcopal Church and our Diocese’s place within it.

In a letter dated June 29, our Bishops received the following from The Rt. Rev. Clayton Matthews: “As the Intake Officer for the Church, I am obliged to inform you that a complaint has been received against you 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 Fort Worth and The Episcopal Church. In the next few weeks, I will initiate a disciplinary process according to Title IV Canon 6 Sec. 3 & 4 of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.”

The Brief in question was submitted in April by the Anglican Communion Institute, in which a number of Bishops joined. Significantly, the Brief noted that each of the those submitting the Brief “oppose the decision by [the diocese of Fort Worth] to leave The Episcopal Church.” The Brief goes on to discuss that the submitters believe that the “hierarchy” of the Episcopal Church is in fact more nuanced and complicated than The Episcopal Church had previously argued and the trial court had found in its earlier rulings.

This type of complaint and the large number of spurious complaints against Bishops that have been received since the Title IV disciplinary canons were revised a year ago further demonstrate the urgent need to revisit the Title IV disciplinary Canons. Furthermore, as we approach the 236th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, we find it stunning that Bishops are now facing discipline for expressing their opinion.

We assure our Bishops of our support and call upon the people of our Diocese to be in prayer as events unfold.

June 30, 2012

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Earlier today, I received an email copy of a letter dated June 29, 2012, from the Rt. Rev’d Clayton Matthews. I was one of seven bishops addressed in the letter. The other bishops include: The Rt. Rev’d Maurice M. Benitez, The Rt. Rev’d John W. Howe, The Rt. Rev’d Paul E. Lambert, The Rt. Rev’d D. Bruce MacPherson, The Rt. Rev’d Daniel H. Martins, and the Rt. Rev’d James M. Stanton.

In the letter, Bishop Matthews states, “As the Intake Officer for the Church, I am obliged to inform you that a complaint has been received against you 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 Fort Worth and The Episcopal Church. In the next few weeks, I will initiate a disciplinary process according to Title IV Canon 6 Sec. 3 & 4 of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.”

To date, I have not seen a copy of the “complaint,” nor do I know who issued it, or what it says.

While Bishop Matthews has informed me that he has received a “complaint,” against me and the other six bishops dealing with our participation in the above mentioned Amicus Curiae Brief, at this point, I have not been officially charged with anything and may not be depending on the outcome of the initial investigation of the “complaint.”

At the appropriate time, I will address my participation in the Amicus Curiae Brief with Bishop Matthews (as the Intake Officer) and others involved.

As I learn more about this situation, I will keep you informed. In the mean time I would ask for your prayers as this situation is resolved.

Faithfully Yours in Christ,
+William H. Love

From here

O Lord our Saviour, full of grace and truth: Fill us thy servants with thine own divine compassion; that we may not only bear witness with thee to the truth, but, speaking the truth in love, may speak to the heart and conscience of men; to the glory of thy Name.

When the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam; and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he struck the ass with his staff. Then the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” And Balaam said to the ass, “Because you have made sport of me. I wish I had a sword in my hand, for then I would kill you.” And the ass said to Balaam, “Am I not your ass, upon which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Was I ever accustomed to do so to you?” And he said, “No.”

Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand; and he bowed his head, and fell on his face. And the angel of the LORD said to him, “Why have you struck your ass these three times? Behold, I have come forth to withstand you, because your way is perverse before me; and the ass saw me, and turned aside before me these three times. If she had not turned aside from me, surely just now I would have slain you and let her live.”

Then Balaam said to the angel of the LORD, “I have sinned, for I did not know that thou didst stand in the road against me. Now therefore, if it is evil in thy sight, I will go back again.” And the angel of the LORD said to Balaam, “Go with the men; but only the word which I bid you, that shall you speak.” So Balaam went on with the princes of Balak. When Balak heard that Balaam had come, he went out to meet him at the city of Moab, on the boundary formed by the Arnon, at the extremity of the boundary. 37 And Balak said to Balaam, “Did I not send to you to call you? Why did you not come to me? Am I not able to honor you?” Balaam said to Balak, “Lo, I have come to you! Have I now any power at all to speak anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, that must I speak.”

Numbers 22:27-38