I have to say that the PB’s action, related to Bishops Wantland and Scriven, is really offensive. Meanspirited. I do not believe she acted in this way with Bishop Mark McDonald when he left TEC to serve as a bishop in the Church of Canada.
[blockquote] I would request a response, indicating whether you lack a basic understanding of the English language, or choose to engage in illegal activites. There is no other possible rational interpretation of your actions. [/blockquote]
Doesn’t get much clearer than that now, does it?
You have to remember that the reason Bishop Wantland had to write his latest letter is because KJS read these words: “I am not resigning my Orders” and interpreted them to mean “I am resigning my Orders.”
I hope there will also be a thread about Bishop Scriven’s errrrr…”renunciation” in which KJS took it upon herself to revoke the ordination and consecration of a man ordained by the Church of England, and consecrated by the hands of Archbishop Carey (at the time Archbishop of Canterbury). Sorry to be old fashioned about these things, but since when can the PB of TEC revoke orders granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Fr. Robison,
You find the PB’s action “offensive”? Where have you been the past two and a half years? And aren’t you one of those hoping to benefit from “waging reconciliation” in the law courts of Pittsburgh?
I find your taking offense puzzling.
Dan,
1. Yes, I do find her actions in this matter offensive. And this isn’t the first time. I do think there’s a distinction to be made between Bishop Wantland, who intends to remain in the U.S. and serve churches on the realigned side of the stream, in an entity that is at least in an “impaired” or limited communion not only with TEC but also within the institutional life of the wider Anglican Communion, and Bishop Scriven, who left the U.S. as a Bishop in good standing in the Episcopal Church, whose last official act as a bishop here before departing from the U.K. was a visitation for confirmation rat St. Stephen’s, McKeesport, a parish of the TEC Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, and who is now undertaking ministry within the Church of England, an entity in full communion with TEC. It probably is necessary for the PB to find some official way to differentiate from Bishop Wantland (though I think this particular “way” is entirely wrong, and she should probably wait until he acts outside the authority of TEC and then ask the HoB to inhibit him), but I don’t see the case at all with Bishop Scriven. His situation is like Mark McDonald’s, who left TEC to begin work with the native peoples of the Canadian frontier, in the Anglican Church of Canada. His departure from TEC was not made the occasion of a “renunciation of orders.”
2. I’m where I’ve been all along. It’s not far from you, and maybe we can catch a cup of coffee one of these days.
3. My assumption is that Bishop Duncan and his attorneys were aware that the language of his settlement with Calvary Church might be a problem if an institutional break with the Episcopal Church happened down the road. They must have figured that they would prevail, should the question return to Judge James’s consideration, and I wish them well now that the question has been reopened. Neither I nor my parish have any desire to benefit in any way from the actions taking place in the courts. My preference and advice would have been to stay out of it, to let Calvary Church and the realigned diocese sort out the answer to the question of compliance with the Stipulation, and then to have a mutually charitable conversation leading to an appropriate and mutually agreeable distribution of the assets of an entity that in all truth no longer exists, the “pre-October 4” Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, in which you and I were colleagues and friends. I assume we continue to be friends, and colleagues as well in Christian ministry, although we chose different paths forward at this particular juncture.
I know nothing of Mr. Wantland other than the correspondence at the link. +KJS’s letter laid out the basis for her action; Mr. Wantland brought it on himself and should not have been the least bit surprised by it. And one thing I’ve learned from practicing law is that intemperate language of complaint very seldom gets you anywhere with decisionmakers.
Re #s 5 & 8,
Given the level of mendacity (it’s breathtaking) in Madam Schori’s letter I felt that the bishop’s response to her was frankly rather restrained.. Indeed of all the descriptives which I might have applied, “intemperate” does not make the list. Now had I been on the receiving end of Ms. Schori’s slander, I suspect we would have seen a response that might have been more fairly characterized as intemperate. But then again I have an unfortunate tendency to be rather frank when addressing persons of questionable character. No doubt this is a consequence of my ten years in the Navy which armed with some colorful phraseology for just such occasions.
It is sad to see +Wantland write a letter that contradicts his belief in the Scriptures. He, +Iker and others are employing a strategy designed to preserve their wealth and property while claiming a “biblically” principled view. Perhaps Matthew 6:24-30 doesn’t appear in their version:
‘No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.*
Do Not Worry
25 ‘Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink,* or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life?* 28And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, 29yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. 30But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31Therefore do not worry, saying, “What will we eat?†or “What will we drink?†or “What will we wear?†32For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33But strive first for the kingdom of God* and his* righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
34 ‘So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today.
The entire passage speaks directly to the plan. “I specifically requested status in the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church in conformity with Rule XXIV of the House of Bishops.” I would rewuest a response from +Wantland as to whether he lacks a basic understanding of the biblical language or chooses to engage in “unbiblical” activities.
[blockquote]And one thing I’ve learned from practicing law is that intemperate language of complaint very seldom gets you anywhere with decisionmakers.[/blockquote]
But, D.C. (# 8), Dr Schori is not [i]qua[/i] Presiding Bishop canonically granted the authority to make the decision that she has made.
You might want to read a little about Bishop Wantland. I suspect that there will be plenty there for you to criticize (given your own theological and legal/canonical stances), but it might give you a better understanding of the man, whether in the end you make the same summary assessment of him as you did in your comment or not.
And, as to the “Mr’ Wantland honorific – you might also reflect on the fact that Dr Schori does not have the authority herself to revoke the episcopal orders of a bishop in Christ’s holy catholic Church (particularly one who is under the canonical aegis of another provincial Church of the Anglican Communion), only – and not in the way that she has decreed – to revoke his authority to exercise the sacramental ministries appertaining to that episcopate.
Addressing her as Dr. Schori rather than her given title is an obvious sign that the letter isn’t meant to be read with humility or sincerity. Bishops don’t do well when they engage in belittling.
Mr Johnson: the entirely proper and traditional Anglican forms of address includes the option of using academic titles instead of ecclesiastical ones. I take no offence when I receive a letter which begins Dear Mr. _________, and neither does Rowan Williams find being addressed or described as Dr. Williams either in letters, in the press, or on television. Bishop Wantland did, at least, choose to address her more formally, instead of the ‘Dear Katharine” which other people who are called bishops are wont to use in correspondence.
And, as to the “Mr’ Wantland honorific – you might also reflect on the fact that Dr Schori does not have the authority herself to revoke the episcopal orders of a bishop in Christ’s holy catholic Church (particularly one who is under the canonical aegis of another provincial Church of the Anglican Communion), only – and not in the way that she has decreed – to revoke his authority to exercise the sacramental ministries appertaining to that episcopate.
At one time the Brits had the custom of addressing former military officers, for the rest of their lives, by their last-held rank, I suppose as an expression of appreciation for their service. Now imagine that Colonel Smith resigns in a huff from the British Army because he disapproves of its experimentation with innovative but unproven tactics. He accepts a ‘commission’ as a senior staff officer with a militia devoted to the preservation of old-school tactics; his new colleagues are lobbying actively to displace the Army as the country’s land force. Sure, the man remains a trained soldier. But it would not be a huge shock if his former comrades declined to address him any longer as ‘colonel.’
Well, if a Colonel resigned his commission in one nation’s army and took up a commission at the same rank in the army of another country (as happened constantly in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries), he certainly would still be called Colonel. Bishop Wantland is no longer a bishop in TEC. He is a bishop in the Province of the Southern Cone. He certainly is a bishop under any circumstances, even if he is persona non grata in some parts of TEC. BTW, #15 above, today in *America* as well as in Britain and other countries, an officer (Captain and above) who retires from service is entitled to use his/her last held rank by courtesy in social situations.
If you wish to deprive Bishop Wantland of his ecclesial title, then refer to him as “Dr. Wantland”, in recognition of his earned theological degree. Of course, as noted, Bishop Schori doesn’t have the canonical or theological authority to deprive anyone of Holy Orders. There is a process to inhibit their ministry, but she has chosen not to use it.
Moreover, as a lawyer, Bp. Wantland is also likely to be aware of the impact his words have.
Read the canon. Bishop Wantland’s request wasn’t wrong or impossible. Ms. Schori just didn’t want to read the possibility of someone NOT under her control being invited to be part of the HOB Club.
D.C. (#15), unless you hold a purely functionalist view of Christian holy orders – which, I grant, is possible (probable?), given your theological/philosophical positions – then you can surely see how a commission in any army differs from ordination.
And, of course, as pointed out in #17 and by time-honored Anglican custom, in view of the doctorates in divinity (hon.?) granted by two seminaries, he might also rightly be addressed as “Dr Wantland” without depriving him of any ecclesiastical office or authority.
From here, Bp. Wantland has an earned doctorate in religion from Geneva Theological College, now the Greenwich School of Theology. Louis Crew confirms the earned doctorate and adds a DD degree from Nashota. His law degree is from Oklahoma City University.
RE: “And one thing I’ve learned from practicing law is that intemperate language of complaint very seldom gets you anywhere with decisionmakers.”
Oh — I think it’s pretty safe to say that he was not trying to get somewhere “with decisionmakers” like KJS. But . . . he certainly “got somewhere” with some of us. ; > )
RE: “He, +Iker and others are employing a strategy designed to preserve their wealth and property while claiming a “biblically†principled view.”
Yep.
And one can certainly work to preserve wealth and property while at the same time neither serving it as a master, nor worrying about one’s life, food, or drink, nor worry about tomorrow.
RE: “I would rewuest a response from +Wantland as to whether he lacks a basic understanding of the biblical language or chooses to engage in “unbiblical†activities.”
It does not appear that BFT19 himself has a basic understanding of the biblical language. None of us are surprised.
An appropriately pathetic attempt by an unarmed man to parallel something that is brilliantly written.
I do find it amusing that our D C wishes to school the good bishop on “what [he’s] learned from prcticing law,” considering that His Grace has had his JD since D C was a school boy. Bp. W. has probably forgotten more canon law than D C ever studied.
I understand the testiness from both of you, but could you take your ridiculous titt-for-tatt, needling and meaningless oneupmanship over to Stand Firm where it belongs?
Oh, I’m satisfied with the battles which my side has won, Brian. The fact that you’ve never known or understood what those were is not really a concern either of yours or mine.
God has been good to me, and I’m amazed at the stores of joy and peace that I have as an Episcopalian. I don’t know if His blessings have led to that joy and peace, or if they are merely a part of the blessings He’s given, but I certainly am surprised at what He has done in and through me over the years.
But that too, is a matter of little concern to you — other than any hopefulness you may have that it is not true.
Young Joe from Old OC — Brian from T19 and I have enjoyed skirmishing for probably three years now. It is an occasional delightful ritual of ours. But the real question is — why didn’t you follow your own advice, and take [i]your[/i] needling elsewhere? ; > )
I believe that when orthodox parishes and dioceses withdraw from heretical situations it’s their DUTY to ensure that they do not leave preaching stations for heresy behind them. And, besides, bishops who fall into serious heresy (as all the Ecumenical Councils affirmed) lose the grace of ordination and though they may be called bishops, they aren’t. It is a virtue to leave with the property.
From the 8th Ecumenical Council:
Canon 15: ‘But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.’
“I think the church is more focused beyond ourselves as Americans than when I first came,” Lee said yesterday at the diocese’s annual council meeting, where he announced he would be stepping down.”
Care to submit Bishop Lee’s statement to your loving analyses, BfT19. I don’t think he’ll survive that acid test either. Or is truthiness now speaking the truth in love? Amazing how accepting the mere followers have become of every deviation from canonical, creedal, and moral/ethical norms. But someone once remarked that the road that was broad and easy to enter had an unpleasant destination – of course, that individual actually taught that once’s actions and will counted. He was the guy talking about where your treasure is their is your heart, too.
Care to submit Bishop Lee’s statement to your loving analyses, BfT19. I don’t think he’ll survive that acid test either. Or is truthiness now speaking the truth in love?
The analysis doesn’t apply to +Lee. The reason is because he isn’t claiming that he is a biblical Bishop-he claims to follow the canons of the Church and has a reasonable view of Scripture.
At one time the Brits had the custom of addressing former military officers, for the rest of their lives, by their last-held rank, I suppose as an expression of appreciation for their service
Correct and still the case, for those of the rank of Major and above. One has to remember that even after leaving, service personnel remain on the “Reserve” for a period and liable to call up in the event of need, although this is rare.
I do remember being told an unconfirmed story that either generally, of perhaps at one time, that the rank used is that of one above that which they were last gazetted before retirement.
I do not know whether the continued use of rank is a right granted or a matter of courtesy, and practice may vary from that of the US Military.
A Senior Priest [#16] writes: “Well, if a Colonel resigned his commission in one nation’s army and took up a commission at the same rank in the army of another country (as happened constantly in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries), he certainly would still be called Colonel.”
If Dr. Wantland [I’m happy to call him by his earned-doctorate title, which I hadn’t known about] had relocated his ministry to, say, Argentina, this would be a helpful analogy. But the situation here is one in which the former colonel has joined an irregular militia claiming the right to displace the regular army, seize its equipment, and strip the buttons and epaulets from its leadership.
————–
Todd Granger writes: “… unless you hold a purely functionalist view of Christian holy orders – which, I grant, is possible (probable?), given your theological/philosophical positions – then you can surely see how a commission in any army differs from ordination.”
An ordinand may well think of him/herself as irrevocably changed by ordination, and as permanently owing a higher duty in consequence of it. In that situation, it doesn’t seem out of place to say that an ontological change has indeed occurred.
I don’t see how that would differ materially, however, from a former military officer’s thinking of him- or herself as irrevocably changed, even after resignation, by virtue of having once taken the commissioning oath. From what I can tell, many and even most former military officers indeed feel something like that.
Upon checking, I find that Pageantmaster is correct in terms of the American practice of using military ranks after retirement. The British custom is to allow Captains and above to retain, by courtesy, the use of their title.
Senior Priest, as a retired USAF NCO, I am entitled to use my military rank as a matter of established military custom. It makes no difference if one is an Airman (rank) or a General…..the custom stands if the individual is retired from the service. I believe the same essentially applies to Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.
“The analysis doesn’t apply to +Lee. The reason is because he isn’t claiming that he is a biblical Bishop-he claims to follow the canons of the Church and has a reasonable view of Scripture.” BfT19
He follows as Schori follows the canons of the church? Which ones, pray? The written ones or the ones dreamed up for the purpose and having no existence in either reality or figment of imagination? If the written ones, why did he defer to a PB with no authority over him whatsoever? If a dreamed up one, why did his reason desert him on the issue of canons? Is his view of Scripture reasonable because he applied reason to Scripture and lived thereby – so embracing lawsuits and bad faith dealings with parishes under his cure? or because his particular view of Scripture accords with A)yours, B)Spong’s, C)Schori’s, or D)anyone’s he happened to be talking to at the moment?
Which ones, pray? The written ones or the ones dreamed up for the purpose and having no existence in either reality or figment of imagination? If the written ones, why did he defer to a PB with no authority over him whatsoever? If a dreamed up one, why did his reason desert him on the issue of canons?,/i>
The ones that continue to be upheld and go unchallenged by anyone with standing. If your interpretation is correct, find a conservative TEC bishop who will bring ++Katherine up on charges of canonical abuse, etc. Alas, you will not find one. So the interpretation of the canons that you disagree with is de facto canon law.
Is his view of Scripture reasonable because he applied reason to Scripture and lived thereby – so embracing lawsuits and bad faith dealings with parishes under his cure? or because his particular view of Scripture accords with A)yours, B)Spong’s, C)Schori’s, or D)anyone’s he happened to be talking to at the moment?
His view is reasonable because he understands that Scripture is the word of God, His revelation to mankind and a living document.
As a dear friend of mine who retired a full colonel said, he was commissioned an officer in the US Army and his commission was never revoked, therefore, he remains Colonel Rowland. After my retirement as a Lieutenant Colonel, some people still refer to me as “Colonel Miller.” My father-in-law, a retired USAF Colonel with a doctorate in economics and a second career as a university vice-president, went by “Dr. Kelley” when in an academic environment and now that he is retired from that position, he has reverted to “Colonel Kelley.” Pretty standard stuff.
Wow, that’s gonna leave a mark.
I have to say that the PB’s action, related to Bishops Wantland and Scriven, is really offensive. Meanspirited. I do not believe she acted in this way with Bishop Mark McDonald when he left TEC to serve as a bishop in the Church of Canada.
Bruce Robison
[blockquote] I would request a response, indicating whether you lack a basic understanding of the English language, or choose to engage in illegal activites. There is no other possible rational interpretation of your actions. [/blockquote]
Doesn’t get much clearer than that now, does it?
You have to remember that the reason Bishop Wantland had to write his latest letter is because KJS read these words: “I am not resigning my Orders” and interpreted them to mean “I am resigning my Orders.”
I hope there will also be a thread about Bishop Scriven’s errrrr…”renunciation” in which KJS took it upon herself to revoke the ordination and consecration of a man ordained by the Church of England, and consecrated by the hands of Archbishop Carey (at the time Archbishop of Canterbury). Sorry to be old fashioned about these things, but since when can the PB of TEC revoke orders granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Fr. Robison,
You find the PB’s action “offensive”? Where have you been the past two and a half years? And aren’t you one of those hoping to benefit from “waging reconciliation” in the law courts of Pittsburgh?
I find your taking offense puzzling.
FINALLY !!!
A bishop that tears into the deceit of Schori!
Dan,
1. Yes, I do find her actions in this matter offensive. And this isn’t the first time. I do think there’s a distinction to be made between Bishop Wantland, who intends to remain in the U.S. and serve churches on the realigned side of the stream, in an entity that is at least in an “impaired” or limited communion not only with TEC but also within the institutional life of the wider Anglican Communion, and Bishop Scriven, who left the U.S. as a Bishop in good standing in the Episcopal Church, whose last official act as a bishop here before departing from the U.K. was a visitation for confirmation rat St. Stephen’s, McKeesport, a parish of the TEC Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, and who is now undertaking ministry within the Church of England, an entity in full communion with TEC. It probably is necessary for the PB to find some official way to differentiate from Bishop Wantland (though I think this particular “way” is entirely wrong, and she should probably wait until he acts outside the authority of TEC and then ask the HoB to inhibit him), but I don’t see the case at all with Bishop Scriven. His situation is like Mark McDonald’s, who left TEC to begin work with the native peoples of the Canadian frontier, in the Anglican Church of Canada. His departure from TEC was not made the occasion of a “renunciation of orders.”
2. I’m where I’ve been all along. It’s not far from you, and maybe we can catch a cup of coffee one of these days.
3. My assumption is that Bishop Duncan and his attorneys were aware that the language of his settlement with Calvary Church might be a problem if an institutional break with the Episcopal Church happened down the road. They must have figured that they would prevail, should the question return to Judge James’s consideration, and I wish them well now that the question has been reopened. Neither I nor my parish have any desire to benefit in any way from the actions taking place in the courts. My preference and advice would have been to stay out of it, to let Calvary Church and the realigned diocese sort out the answer to the question of compliance with the Stipulation, and then to have a mutually charitable conversation leading to an appropriate and mutually agreeable distribution of the assets of an entity that in all truth no longer exists, the “pre-October 4” Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, in which you and I were colleagues and friends. I assume we continue to be friends, and colleagues as well in Christian ministry, although we chose different paths forward at this particular juncture.
Bruce Robison
I know nothing of Mr. Wantland other than the correspondence at the link. +KJS’s letter laid out the basis for her action; Mr. Wantland brought it on himself and should not have been the least bit surprised by it. And one thing I’ve learned from practicing law is that intemperate language of complaint very seldom gets you anywhere with decisionmakers.
Re #s 5 & 8,
Given the level of mendacity (it’s breathtaking) in Madam Schori’s letter I felt that the bishop’s response to her was frankly rather restrained.. Indeed of all the descriptives which I might have applied, “intemperate” does not make the list. Now had I been on the receiving end of Ms. Schori’s slander, I suspect we would have seen a response that might have been more fairly characterized as intemperate. But then again I have an unfortunate tendency to be rather frank when addressing persons of questionable character. No doubt this is a consequence of my ten years in the Navy which armed with some colorful phraseology for just such occasions.
It is sad to see +Wantland write a letter that contradicts his belief in the Scriptures. He, +Iker and others are employing a strategy designed to preserve their wealth and property while claiming a “biblically” principled view. Perhaps Matthew 6:24-30 doesn’t appear in their version:
‘No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.*
Do Not Worry
25 ‘Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink,* or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life?* 28And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, 29yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. 30But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31Therefore do not worry, saying, “What will we eat?†or “What will we drink?†or “What will we wear?†32For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33But strive first for the kingdom of God* and his* righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
34 ‘So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today.
The entire passage speaks directly to the plan. “I specifically requested status in the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church in conformity with Rule XXIV of the House of Bishops.” I would rewuest a response from +Wantland as to whether he lacks a basic understanding of the biblical language or chooses to engage in “unbiblical” activities.
[blockquote]And one thing I’ve learned from practicing law is that intemperate language of complaint very seldom gets you anywhere with decisionmakers.[/blockquote]
But, D.C. (# 8), Dr Schori is not [i]qua[/i] Presiding Bishop canonically granted the authority to make the decision that she has made.
You might want to read a little about Bishop Wantland. I suspect that there will be plenty there for you to criticize (given your own theological and legal/canonical stances), but it might give you a better understanding of the man, whether in the end you make the same summary assessment of him as you did in your comment or not.
And, as to the “Mr’ Wantland honorific – you might also reflect on the fact that Dr Schori does not have the authority herself to revoke the episcopal orders of a bishop in Christ’s holy catholic Church (particularly one who is under the canonical aegis of another provincial Church of the Anglican Communion), only – and not in the way that she has decreed – to revoke his authority to exercise the sacramental ministries appertaining to that episcopate.
I think that’s pretty clear. Even the Queen of Hearts might be able to graps it.
Addressing her as Dr. Schori rather than her given title is an obvious sign that the letter isn’t meant to be read with humility or sincerity. Bishops don’t do well when they engage in belittling.
Mr Johnson: the entirely proper and traditional Anglican forms of address includes the option of using academic titles instead of ecclesiastical ones. I take no offence when I receive a letter which begins Dear Mr. _________, and neither does Rowan Williams find being addressed or described as Dr. Williams either in letters, in the press, or on television. Bishop Wantland did, at least, choose to address her more formally, instead of the ‘Dear Katharine” which other people who are called bishops are wont to use in correspondence.
Todd Granger [#11] writes:
At one time the Brits had the custom of addressing former military officers, for the rest of their lives, by their last-held rank, I suppose as an expression of appreciation for their service. Now imagine that Colonel Smith resigns in a huff from the British Army because he disapproves of its experimentation with innovative but unproven tactics. He accepts a ‘commission’ as a senior staff officer with a militia devoted to the preservation of old-school tactics; his new colleagues are lobbying actively to displace the Army as the country’s land force. Sure, the man remains a trained soldier. But it would not be a huge shock if his former comrades declined to address him any longer as ‘colonel.’
Well, if a Colonel resigned his commission in one nation’s army and took up a commission at the same rank in the army of another country (as happened constantly in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries), he certainly would still be called Colonel. Bishop Wantland is no longer a bishop in TEC. He is a bishop in the Province of the Southern Cone. He certainly is a bishop under any circumstances, even if he is persona non grata in some parts of TEC. BTW, #15 above, today in *America* as well as in Britain and other countries, an officer (Captain and above) who retires from service is entitled to use his/her last held rank by courtesy in social situations.
Mr. Toedt –
If you wish to deprive Bishop Wantland of his ecclesial title, then refer to him as “Dr. Wantland”, in recognition of his earned theological degree. Of course, as noted, Bishop Schori doesn’t have the canonical or theological authority to deprive anyone of Holy Orders. There is a process to inhibit their ministry, but she has chosen not to use it.
Moreover, as a lawyer, Bp. Wantland is also likely to be aware of the impact his words have.
Read the canon. Bishop Wantland’s request wasn’t wrong or impossible. Ms. Schori just didn’t want to read the possibility of someone NOT under her control being invited to be part of the HOB Club.
D.C. (#15), unless you hold a purely functionalist view of Christian holy orders – which, I grant, is possible (probable?), given your theological/philosophical positions – then you can surely see how a commission in any army differs from ordination.
And, of course, as pointed out in #17 and by time-honored Anglican custom, in view of the doctorates in divinity (hon.?) granted by two seminaries, he might also rightly be addressed as “Dr Wantland” without depriving him of any ecclesiastical office or authority.
#19
From here, Bp. Wantland has an earned doctorate in religion from Geneva Theological College, now the Greenwich School of Theology. Louis Crew confirms the earned doctorate and adds a DD degree from Nashota. His law degree is from Oklahoma City University.
Thanks for the information, WM.
RE: “And one thing I’ve learned from practicing law is that intemperate language of complaint very seldom gets you anywhere with decisionmakers.”
Oh — I think it’s pretty safe to say that he was not trying to get somewhere “with decisionmakers” like KJS. But . . . he certainly “got somewhere” with some of us. ; > )
RE: “He, +Iker and others are employing a strategy designed to preserve their wealth and property while claiming a “biblically†principled view.”
Yep.
And one can certainly work to preserve wealth and property while at the same time neither serving it as a master, nor worrying about one’s life, food, or drink, nor worry about tomorrow.
RE: “I would rewuest a response from +Wantland as to whether he lacks a basic understanding of the biblical language or chooses to engage in “unbiblical†activities.”
It does not appear that BFT19 himself has a basic understanding of the biblical language. None of us are surprised.
An appropriately pathetic attempt by an unarmed man to parallel something that is brilliantly written.
I do find it amusing that our D C wishes to school the good bishop on “what [he’s] learned from prcticing law,” considering that His Grace has had his JD since D C was a school boy. Bp. W. has probably forgotten more canon law than D C ever studied.
RE: “Bp. W. has probably forgotten more canon law than D C ever studied.”
You flatter DC.
An appropriately pathetic attempt by an unarmed man
You flatter DC.
Hatred and bitterness. Cold comfort for the side that loses all the battles. But, hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.
RE: “Hatred and bitterness.”
Tsk tsk — you see your reflection when you look in that mirror.
; > )
Sorry that what I said stung there.
RE: “Cold comfort for the side that loses all the battles.”
You merely reveal what [i]you[/i] value, Brian. Not I.
RE: “But, hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.”
I’m so sorry for your sleep issues.
You merely reveal what you value, Brian. Not I.
Yes. You store up your treasures in heaven. Good luck with that.
Sarah and Brian from T19:
I understand the testiness from both of you, but could you take your ridiculous titt-for-tatt, needling and meaningless oneupmanship over to Stand Firm where it belongs?
Oh, I’m satisfied with the battles which my side has won, Brian. The fact that you’ve never known or understood what those were is not really a concern either of yours or mine.
God has been good to me, and I’m amazed at the stores of joy and peace that I have as an Episcopalian. I don’t know if His blessings have led to that joy and peace, or if they are merely a part of the blessings He’s given, but I certainly am surprised at what He has done in and through me over the years.
But that too, is a matter of little concern to you — other than any hopefulness you may have that it is not true.
Young Joe from Old OC — Brian from T19 and I have enjoyed skirmishing for probably three years now. It is an occasional delightful ritual of ours. But the real question is — why didn’t you follow your own advice, and take [i]your[/i] needling elsewhere? ; > )
I believe that when orthodox parishes and dioceses withdraw from heretical situations it’s their DUTY to ensure that they do not leave preaching stations for heresy behind them. And, besides, bishops who fall into serious heresy (as all the Ecumenical Councils affirmed) lose the grace of ordination and though they may be called bishops, they aren’t. It is a virtue to leave with the property.
From the 8th Ecumenical Council:
Canon 15: ‘But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.’
“I think the church is more focused beyond ourselves as Americans than when I first came,” Lee said yesterday at the diocese’s annual council meeting, where he announced he would be stepping down.”
Care to submit Bishop Lee’s statement to your loving analyses, BfT19. I don’t think he’ll survive that acid test either. Or is truthiness now speaking the truth in love? Amazing how accepting the mere followers have become of every deviation from canonical, creedal, and moral/ethical norms. But someone once remarked that the road that was broad and easy to enter had an unpleasant destination – of course, that individual actually taught that once’s actions and will counted. He was the guy talking about where your treasure is their is your heart, too.
Care to submit Bishop Lee’s statement to your loving analyses, BfT19. I don’t think he’ll survive that acid test either. Or is truthiness now speaking the truth in love?
The analysis doesn’t apply to +Lee. The reason is because he isn’t claiming that he is a biblical Bishop-he claims to follow the canons of the Church and has a reasonable view of Scripture.
D.C. #15
Correct and still the case, for those of the rank of Major and above. One has to remember that even after leaving, service personnel remain on the “Reserve” for a period and liable to call up in the event of need, although this is rare.
I do remember being told an unconfirmed story that either generally, of perhaps at one time, that the rank used is that of one above that which they were last gazetted before retirement.
I do not know whether the continued use of rank is a right granted or a matter of courtesy, and practice may vary from that of the US Military.
A Senior Priest [#16] writes: “Well, if a Colonel resigned his commission in one nation’s army and took up a commission at the same rank in the army of another country (as happened constantly in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries), he certainly would still be called Colonel.”
If Dr. Wantland [I’m happy to call him by his earned-doctorate title, which I hadn’t known about] had relocated his ministry to, say, Argentina, this would be a helpful analogy. But the situation here is one in which the former colonel has joined an irregular militia claiming the right to displace the regular army, seize its equipment, and strip the buttons and epaulets from its leadership.
————–
Todd Granger writes: “… unless you hold a purely functionalist view of Christian holy orders – which, I grant, is possible (probable?), given your theological/philosophical positions – then you can surely see how a commission in any army differs from ordination.”
An ordinand may well think of him/herself as irrevocably changed by ordination, and as permanently owing a higher duty in consequence of it. In that situation, it doesn’t seem out of place to say that an ontological change has indeed occurred.
I don’t see how that would differ materially, however, from a former military officer’s thinking of him- or herself as irrevocably changed, even after resignation, by virtue of having once taken the commissioning oath. From what I can tell, many and even most former military officers indeed feel something like that.
Upon checking, I find that Pageantmaster is correct in terms of the American practice of using military ranks after retirement. The British custom is to allow Captains and above to retain, by courtesy, the use of their title.
Senior Priest, as a retired USAF NCO, I am entitled to use my military rank as a matter of established military custom. It makes no difference if one is an Airman (rank) or a General…..the custom stands if the individual is retired from the service. I believe the same essentially applies to Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.
“The analysis doesn’t apply to +Lee. The reason is because he isn’t claiming that he is a biblical Bishop-he claims to follow the canons of the Church and has a reasonable view of Scripture.” BfT19
He follows as Schori follows the canons of the church? Which ones, pray? The written ones or the ones dreamed up for the purpose and having no existence in either reality or figment of imagination? If the written ones, why did he defer to a PB with no authority over him whatsoever? If a dreamed up one, why did his reason desert him on the issue of canons? Is his view of Scripture reasonable because he applied reason to Scripture and lived thereby – so embracing lawsuits and bad faith dealings with parishes under his cure? or because his particular view of Scripture accords with A)yours, B)Spong’s, C)Schori’s, or D)anyone’s he happened to be talking to at the moment?
Which ones, pray? The written ones or the ones dreamed up for the purpose and having no existence in either reality or figment of imagination? If the written ones, why did he defer to a PB with no authority over him whatsoever? If a dreamed up one, why did his reason desert him on the issue of canons?,/i>
The ones that continue to be upheld and go unchallenged by anyone with standing. If your interpretation is correct, find a conservative TEC bishop who will bring ++Katherine up on charges of canonical abuse, etc. Alas, you will not find one. So the interpretation of the canons that you disagree with is de facto canon law.
Is his view of Scripture reasonable because he applied reason to Scripture and lived thereby – so embracing lawsuits and bad faith dealings with parishes under his cure? or because his particular view of Scripture accords with A)yours, B)Spong’s, C)Schori’s, or D)anyone’s he happened to be talking to at the moment?
His view is reasonable because he understands that Scripture is the word of God, His revelation to mankind and a living document.
As a dear friend of mine who retired a full colonel said, he was commissioned an officer in the US Army and his commission was never revoked, therefore, he remains Colonel Rowland. After my retirement as a Lieutenant Colonel, some people still refer to me as “Colonel Miller.” My father-in-law, a retired USAF Colonel with a doctorate in economics and a second career as a university vice-president, went by “Dr. Kelley” when in an academic environment and now that he is retired from that position, he has reverted to “Colonel Kelley.” Pretty standard stuff.