“There are some matters which may not legitimately be addressed by a Diocesan Board or Convention, among them the continuing accession on the part of a Diocese to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church”
If these diocesan bodies can’t do it, can anyone in the diocese: e.g., these bodies plus the bishop? Bp. Howe’s phrasing suggests not.
I met Bp. Howe long ago, when he headed FOCUS. He seemed confident, independent, and fearless.
I would little have expected the deference (indeed, prostration) to David Booth reflected in this memo.
Second, he’s beginning to issue threats in the grand tradition of David Booth Beers, when he says this: “I have cautioned [Eric Turner] not to attempt to go around the Chancellors. … I urge you not to go looking for lawyers who will support a position you would like to see prevail.†This is ironic, given the list of people Howe consulted: almost to a person, those that would support the position Howe favors. The exception, of course, is Bishop Wantland – who is also the only advisor given the “honor†of having his advice singled out for rejection by Howe.
Does Bishop Howe not see that it is no longer an argument but it is already an unCivil War? It brings more “Hell” to avoid conflict than to bring the full might of ones resources to bear for a complete and decisive battle.
“War is hell,” is descriptive, not metaphor. It is a hard truth. Is the last half of Is 6 is unfolding before our very eyes once again?
I read the language you quoted to be referring to the Diocese of Central Florida, not ECUSA. It is ambiguous, however. Otherwise, I agree completely with your second paragraph and with Irenaeus.
The deference isn’t to the national chancellor, but to the rule of law… to the notion that an organized society is free to adopt rules and to abolish them, but that the members of the society really only have the choice either to comply with the rules or to accept the consequences of breaking them. However disorganized TEC may be in a factual sense, it is a corporate body that has established rules to govern its members. Anyone who cannot comply with the rules is free to leave, but is not free to accept the benefits of membership without also accepting the burdens of membership. People are Episcopalians, and local churches are Episcopal parishes, by virtue of their accession to the authority of the corporate institutions (the Constitution, Canons, and General Convention). If they repudiate that authority, they also forfeit their status as members-in-good-standing of the organization, including their entitlement to possess or use assets of the organization. The American Civil War (and its ecclesiastical analogue in the attempted formation of the P.E.C.C.S.A.) basically told us that a state government or state convention that has acceded to the national constitution is not free to secede unilaterally.
Disagree with him if you must, but this man of God is clearly not a coward nor someone’s dupe or shill. Would that we had more of this kind of bishop still among us. May he continue to seek and discern the Lord’s will in this time of trouble.
Bp. Howe has not and imo will never slip to the other side. However, he has certainly not taken the kind of stand that stalwarts in his diocese have asked him to take. He has certainly not distinguished himself among the orthodox in the battle for orthodox Anglicanism in the US. I am sorry to say that he appears closer to Peter Lee than to Bp. Duncan these days.
I think that Bishop Howe knows where his loyalty rests. He is compelled to allow the process to work itself out, and he knows that process is not in itself sacred. I’m glad that he will attend at least part of the meeting of the Network bishops.
#8 I suppose you could be correct. Often the Lord ‘tricks’ me into going somewhere I don’t want to be to fulfill His bidding and there maybe some delusion here. I hope so, +Howe has been a faithful servant, even if he’s a ‘Communion Conservative’ there are elements which just seems like he has taken leave of his senses in last two letter T19 has posted.
Mark McCall, you’re probably right, so I stand corrected. On the other hand, the requests Howe cites were not made to his diocese, but to the entire Episcopal Church. Saying that he has personally complied (as it were) puts his head in the sand, since the body of which his diocese is part hasn’t complied by a long shot. He’s not off the hook as long as he remains part of ECUSA.
Of course, it looks as though ECUSA will be getting off scot-free and leaving the Communion in pieces in its wake, so I suppose this is academic.
“Anyone who cannot comply with the rules is free to leave, but is not free to accept the benefits of membership without also accepting the burdens of membership. People are Episcopalians, and local churches are Episcopal parishes, by virtue of their accession to the authority of the corporate institutions (the Constitution, Canons, and General Convention).”
That’s rich, coming from the institution that ordained women, practices open communion and consented to Shannon Johnston’s election to the episcopate, all in violation of its canons.
Although I disagree with the main theoretical premise with which Bishop Howe is operating regarding the relationship of diocese to “national†church, I applaud the bishop’s clarity, integrity, and more fundamental commitments regarding Communion membership, due process, and (as Dale writes) the “rule of law†(which is itself a Scriptural injunction in a general way).
The question of “secession†(on the analogy of the Civil War, as Dale argues) does not, it seems to me, apply to the present case, where the General Convention has not in fact followed its own Constitution (however, this is something still in the process of the wider ecclesial adjudication). A diocese is under no obligation to remain “in union with the General Convention†(to use our church Constitution’s phraseology) if the Convention itself has undermined its own law and acts against it. It is certainly under no moral obligation to do so. Indeed, it is the General Convention that is now “out of union†with its constituent dioceses. This is the situation we are now in, and have been since 2003. It is not clear where that leaves a diocese, “legallyâ€. However, from an ecclesial standpoint – as well as an historical one, within Anglicanism and beyond – it would appear that the diocese under its bishop is now a self-governing entity awaiting a new ordering of its common ties to the church catholic. Much as Connecticut/New England was under Seabury, before its participation in and incorporation within the new General Convention. Or, perhaps it is a matter of those dioceses that still in fact, morally and theologically, “accede†to the Constitution of the Episcopal Church gathering to form a re-constituted General Convention, truly compliant with its own law. (I would urge this last course.)
However, I applaud Bp. Howe’s clear sense that the data necessary to proceed with this kind of argument and its practical implications and demands are not yet on the table, with respect to various decisions still facing various bodies within both ECUSA and the Communion; and his commitment to following out in order and prayerfully the succession of these decisions, while maintaining a careful and clear commitment to the enunciation of the Christian Gospel in witness and ministry.
One element that seems to have forcefully influenced the bishop’s thinking here is the reality of legal combat that threatens any diocese as it seeks to move faithfully within this mess. This is less a matter of “opinion†than simply of noting historical fact. And the care with which the bishop evidently seeks to avoid such litigation does not strike me as a sign of weakness, vacillation, or betrayal of the Gospel itself, but rather as an expression of his desire to maintain before the world a testimony of graciousness, faith, and consistency with our Lord’s own command that “as you go with your accuser before the magistrate, make an effort to settle with him on the way, lest he drag you to the judge, and the judge hand you over the officer, and the officer put you in prison†(Lk. 12:58). The Primates’ call in Dar es Salaam to set aside litigation was aimed at all parties, not just David Booth Beers: those who precipitate lawsuits, and those who bring them.
Of course, as many have pointed out, such “combat†is probably not something that can be put off indefinitely. But prudence is a virtue, in this case especially, and while there may come a “right time†for such legal engagement, it may also be the case, as the bishop implies, that a stepping down or away altogether from a “litigating church†may be the most faithful course in the end. Indeed, that would be my guess at this point.
While this letter from Howe convinces me that he is certainly trying to chart a faithful path, I do think that his statement
[blockquote]
“Go in peace, to love and serve the Lord.†But, please do not try to find ways to take property that does not belong to you. That is dishonest and illegal.
[/blockquote]
is further reason to doubt the sanity of any orthodox individual who gives a dime to their local parish UNLESS there is an ironclad guarantee that no funds are given to the diocese or national church as a result. I will go even further – I flat out will not give ANY MONEY to a TEC parish anymore. I will give my time, I will give my money to other ministries. But if 815 is deemed to be the “owner” of whatever I give to my local parish, then “thank you very much, but no!” I have better causes to give to!
“The deference isn’t to the national chancellor, but to the rule of law” —Dale Rye [#5]
There is precious little rule of law in ECUSA. The ruling reappraisers do what they please as they please, largely without constraint. And you rarely if ever find fault with that.
Dale Rye and Dr. Radner applaud Bishop Howe’s adherence to what they call “the rule of law.” When the so-called “rules” are repeatedly selectively enforced or not enforced to suit those holding power, they lose their moral authority, gentlemen. Do you both concede the many historical and recent examples or would you like a list?
The light has been extinguished from the lamp stand as well. But your church does have power–over those who choose to submit–such as Bishop Howe.
[i]When, in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes,
I all alone beweep my outcast state
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries
And look upon myself and curse my fate,
Wishing me like to one more rich in hope,
Featured like him, like him with friends possess’d,
Desiring this man’s art and that man’s scope,
With what I most enjoy contented least;
Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising,
Haply I think on thee, and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day arising
From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven’s gate;
For thy sweet love remember’d such wealth brings
That then I scorn to change my state with kings.
Dr. Radner – there is a reason why “people listen when Dr. Radner speaks.” At least I do, and I dare say I am not alone.
I was very pleased to see your comment
[blockquote]
Or, perhaps it is a matter of those dioceses that still in fact, morally and theologically, “accede†to the Constitution of the Episcopal Church gathering to form a re-constituted General Convention, truly compliant with its own law. (I would urge this last course.)
[/blockquote]
It is my hope that this is the seed for the reclamation of the TEC from the radical ideologues that have captured it and are proceeding to destroy both it and the Anglican Communion.
It is my hope that Rowan Williams sees this also, and that the end result will be that he recognizes only those Windsor compliant dioceses as being “in communion” with him and that these dioceses then do exactly as you suggest.
He declares with grave piety that if a thing is improper it should not be done regardless of whether others have done so or not. There is a bitter, bitter irony in this that he cannot see or hear, that TEC has done what is improper over and over and is not likely to change its course. And,s he correctlh observed, tht there has been no punishment in the past does not mean there will be none in the future – except he would be astonished to discover that this applies to TEC and himself.
Does this take courage, as someone above asserted? It does not, for he thinks the law is on his side, that he has the muscle and the clout to make the dissidents feel real pain, and it is clearly his intention to put their feet to the fire. Courage?
I think rather you are reading the threats of a self-righteous bully. LM
Irenaeus,
Even if 815 is completely lawless, it does not free us, who bear Christ’s Name, to act in the same manner. Even if we are taken advantage of and rebuked, we are to uphold the rule of law within the Church. So, it would not be a good idea for conservative bishops to inhibit liberal priests or declare them out of communion just because liberal bishops do so to conservative priests.
I may not like with Bishop Howe said in his letter. I may want to fight hard and dirty because of my irritation and anger at how the reappraisers have faught. But I am not at liberty to do so.
I looked up some relevant (to me at least) quotes from [i]A Man for All Seasons[/i] –
More to Norfolk- “What matters is not that it’s true, but that I believe it; or no, not that I believe it, but that I believe it.”
And more [pun intended] to the point –
More: “And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Heaven for doing according to your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing according to mine, will you come along with me — for fellowship?”
Recall the scene between More and Richard Rich when More warns about cutting down all the laws as if they were a forest of trees, then having nothing to defend you from the devil himself.
Lastly, “but for Wales [TEC, CANA, . . .]”? We all must guard our souls here, wherever we may be in the controversy.
“There are some matters which may not legitimately be addressed by a Diocesan Board or Convention, among them the continuing accession on the part of a Diocese to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Churchâ€
Hmm. Applying this principle to the Act of Supremacy one wonders how Bishop Howe justifies his separation from Rome.
#21 Bravo, I applaud your statement. The biggest danger I believe we all face is from our OWN reactions to reappraiser/HOB injustice. There are much more horrid corruptions of the soul that come from within than come from without (pride, envy, jealousy, greed).
If we are who we say we are, God’s faithful people on the pilgrim trail, perhaps about to be cast into the desert at His command, then we should tailor our methods of combat to ones He would approve. Adopted the methods of the enemy is clearly out of bounds for any Christian.
Are we fighting with one hand tied behind our back? Undoubtedly. But what is that before the power of God?
Or as my favorite Priest ever says, It is not our job to be successful; It is our job to be FAITHFUL. Success is God’s business.
That was the most pathetic, unpastorly, legal brief-like bishop’s letter that I have ever read. It is interesting that three of the candidates for bishop of Nevada are ex-lawyers. The episcopal church is dead, dead, dead. The lawyers have taken over and will suck up all the pension funds, property sell-offs, trusts, etc. Monies that should have gone to advancing the kingdom.
One quibble with the lawyer Howe. There is a difference between what is right and legal. Even if the courts decide that the TEC Corp has legal rights to the property, it is still the right thing to do to make them fight for it.
[blockquote] If the “compromises†of The Episcopal Church are such that one can no longer remain a member of it, if s/he can no longer function under its Constitution and Canons, then there really is no alternative but to leave: “Go in peace, to love and serve the Lord.†But, please do not try to find ways to take property that does not belong to you. That is dishonest and illegal.[/blockquote]
If taking property that does not belong to you in a hierarchical system is dishonest and illegal, then perhaps the Church of England should give its properties back to the Roman Catholic Church. TEC should also consider doing the “honest” thing by giving back all the properties prior to the American independence to the Church of England.
That hasn’t happened and will not likely because there are other rules that can overturn established rules of law–that being the rule war and the challenge to established precedent. The rule of war speaks for itself in that winner takes all (i.e., Europeans taking Native American land via genocide). The challenge to established precedent allows for actions to be “legal” until it has exhausted the legal system. That’s how bad laws are overturned. Those laws seem established until they are reversed by the Supreme Court.
If orthodox episcopalians sincerely believe that TEC has gone apostate and a sincere attempt to settle property issues have reached an impasse, I would advocate a legal challenge through the secular courts, even in states where deference to hierarchical rules have been established. Secular rules of law are not written in stone–they can be changed no matter how embedded it seems.
If an orthodox parish can sustain the fight emotionally, spiritually and financially, it may be better to fight and lose (with the possibility of winning) then to walk away and lose the property anyway.
“It is my hope that this is the seed for the reclamation of the TEC from the radical ideologues that have captured it and are proceeding to destroy both it and the Anglican Communion.
It is my hope that Rowan Williams sees this also, and that the end result will be that he recognizes only those Windsor compliant dioceses as being “in communion†with him and that these dioceses then do exactly as you suggest”.
Ditto for me. jamesw and Dr. Radner, thank you both for your comments and your work.
After reading the excellent commentary above, I would point the writers to the Central Florida American Anglican Council webpage located at http://WWW.CFLAAC.com. Therein you will find, under the documents tab, resolution R-1 passed by the Diocese of Central Florida which, in my opinion, demonstrates that the Diocese has already addressed the accession matter and said that it does not have to acceed to TEC. This was passed 9/20/03 at a Special Convention. I thought you all would like to review that item given the discussion above.
Brian Bolton, Chancellor, CFLAAC
As I said, this is not a letter from a Bishop to his flock, but a letter from an attorney to his clients. He confuses legality with rightness. He expelled a vibrant community from their worship space. Legal? I guess so. Right? Unquestionably not. What part of 1 Cor 6:1-8 does he not understand. Paul spoke to the legal versus right directly when he said, “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?” The people that Paul was speaking to were apparently legally right as well. And what did Paul say of those people then and of Bp Howe today? “[Y]ou have been completely defeated already.” Paul’s words hold true of Bp Howe no matter what his conservative credentials are.
For what purpose? To convert a place of worship to an empty building which can be liquidated to fund other lawsuits. Completely defeated.
Also, his example of the Anglican church that is flourishing does not diminish the evil that is done by him and the rest of the TEC hierarchy. I visited the Los Angeles Church that recently lost a ruling brought by Bishop Bruno. If the appeals process favors Bruno but the church goes on to another venue and flourishes, does that diminish the evil? We have all seen examples where evil occurrences result in good in the end. Does that mean the evil was good? Certainly not. Completely defeated.
Dale Rye and I agree on one point: the rule of law is paramount. We disagree on what rule of law must be followed. I lean toward the rule that real property is owned by the person shown as owner on the recorded title documents. If that is the parish, and the parish is a legal entity capable of owning property, so be it. An implied trust is usually an argument from desperation, when you are not the record owner. I am not saying it would always lose, but it needs to be established from some act of the record owner, not merely the acts or contentions of a separate legal entity.
You said, “…the Diocese has already addressed the accession matter and said that it does not have to accede to TEC.”
R-1 said no such thing. It said the diocese “dissassociates itself from these erroneous actions” of GC 2003 listed in the four whereas’es. Nothing more, nothing less.
The fourth “whereas” declared the obvious: GC 2003’s radical revisionism created a point of conflict with the accession clause in the preamble to the diocese’s constitution, which commits the diocese as a matter of “sworn duty” to “provide for the tradition of the faith.” R-1 simply made it clear the diocese didn’t want to be associated with the GC 2003 actions that went against the faith the diocese is sworn to uphold.
I stopped looking seriously at his letter after seeing his use of “s/he”. It may seem a small thing but it demonstrates a willingness to have one’s language, and hense one’s thought, controlled by the new order. It is a small act of intellectual surrender which establishes the precendent for further surrenders just as a small leak in a dam paves the way for a larger rupture.
Bp Howe hasn’t slipped anywhere.
Of course, to where one has slipped, without definition, will only find agreement with those who think their definition is presumably the same.
So, just what exactly does that mean, “slipped to the other side”?
Is it meant to be “obvious”, as in bought into the apostate agenda of so many in TECusa leadership?
Or to the non-scriptural allowance for leadership recognition given to those who are openly engaged in homosexual behavior?
Or to the side that says same-sex unions are just fine?
Or to “the dark side”, and some confusion with Star Wars theology?
Or slipped over (on the conservative side) to the idea that any good can possibly come out of TEC?
Is this a judgment that Bp Howe is slipping over to that side of this Church that refuses to believe in any or all of the tenets of the Nicene Creed?
What’s ludicrous is thinking that one see’s Bp Howe “sliding” to any one of these “sides.” However, if what one thinks is that he is beginning to “side with” an Episcopal leadership that seems intent on creating a monochrome Church, gladly saying good-bye to those who would rely on the Word of God to challenge and uphold God’s will and intentions as God intended them for the Church, then perhaps you are simply saying you don’t like the fact that there might be any other option except leave TECusa. You are wrong. But while you are trying to press your point, don’t villify those who are standing right next to you on the side of Jesus, his Gospel, and His Kingdom.
In light of that exhortation, to derogatorily change his vocational title from Bishop Howe to Lawyer Howe will be seen as unwarrantedly offensive to all those Christian lawyers out there.
And, again, how hypocritical of those who on one hand excoriate “reasserter” bishops for not being the leaders they should be by making use of the episcopal authority and powers given to them, and then excoriate Bp Howe (and perhaps others) for making use of their given episcopal authority and powers by giving direct instructions based on their own valid convictions.
One of the most difficult and uncomfortable directions from the Word of God, is the unqualified statement, as in Paul’s words, to submit to those who rule over you as God has placed them there. Seeing that through obviously will mean personal sacrifice in many cases depending upon the ruler.
I’m not defending any misperceived perfection.
I’m saying quit dismissing out of hand those who are sold out to the same Lord Jesus you are, but with whom you disagree about how to defend the Faith.
Father Rob writes, “But while you are trying to press your point, don’t villify those who are standing right next to you…” As I [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/4665/#86706]said[/url], it doesn’t matter what his conservative credentials are (advisory board member of ACI, Windsor bishop, etc), he knows the injunction of Paul, and Paul condemns him in no uncertain terms for his bringing the lawsuit against [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/4418]All Souls Anglican church[/url].
Well, I’ve read Bishop Howe’s letter three times now and it seems pretty clear to me where he stands. Some folk in the diocese sought to change the paperwork to enable the DIOCESE to leave the church with property if it wished to do so. Doesn’t mean they will, or they won’t the effort was simply to give them the OPTION at a later time, depending upon what happens in September. Bishop Howe openly admits nothing good will happen in September; TEC will NOT reform. Despite that, he prevents the DIOCESE from having an option to leave, realizing that TEC WILL NOT return to beliefs that he supposedly has and KNOWING that the TEC claim on property is not near as robust when it is faced with the departure of a DIOCESE as opposed to a DIOCESE enforcing a property claim against a parish.
Yep, Its pretty clear where he stands; he stands in favor of preserving treasure for his apostate church. And for what its worth, its clear also where I stand–against him.
The church sued by Bp Howe was apparently “Church of the New Covenant” in Winter Springs not the All Souls lawsuit which Tony rightly points out was in the Diocese of Florida by Bp Howard. There is a big difference between the two churches and lawsuits. The suit by Bp Howe was dropped when they came to an amicable settlement.
+Howe is following a certain consistency, slavishly, I would argue. Do we applaud him for his consistency? What +Howe has done, it seems, is elevate 815’s Law to the level of Scripture for Episcopalians. It follows that there is no choice of whether “to obey God or man” inside TEC. One must obey 815. And this consistency is OK with +Howe and far too many “traditional-minded” folk. I understand he thinks there is freedom to opt out of the system, and cease to be Episcopalian, and only then can one be free from equating 815’s Canons & Constitution with Scripture.
If I’m right, shame on +Howe for his idolatry of TEC’s Canons, and shame on those who refuse to challenge such “consistency.”
If I’m wrong, and we “orthodox” dioceses are free, in extreme circumstances, to claim there is a difference between following the covenant of God and the covenant of 815, I have two questions.
First, if we haven’t yet come to the point where there is difference in following God’s authority and 815’s authority, when would we?
Second, seriously, isn’t question one a crock? — for isn’t it clear that it is dishonoring to God, with what we know, to leave the option on the table (for individuals, parishes or dioceses) to say it still is a possibility that fully obeying TEC is perfectly consistent with obeying God?
Therefore there are three options for individuals/parishes/dioceses:
1. Flee.
2. Stay and be idolators to TEC (even if one prostrates with gritted teeth, it is still prostration). In other words, “stay and accede, legitimize, facilitate, and enable (all, of course, while frowning).”
3. Stay and obey God rather than man (“man” = whatever of man that contradicts God–man-made laws, heretical leadership, heretical/ungodly majority decisions, unrepentant, stiff-necked injust authority). This would mean holding others accountable for their sin: tough love that does not capitulate to unrepentant sin, even if such sinful heresy and behavior seeks refuge behind man-made canons and constitutions. In other words, “stay and be willing to face the wrath of 815 through their ungodly lawsuits and ungodly “church” discipline.”
#33
If you say so. However, I think it says more, indicates a position that accession is pliable, optional. Either you acceed to TEC or you don’t. My interpretation would serve to empower the Bishop, says he can exercise the option to take out the Diocese if he wants. A local priest stated that she thought that R-1 created a departure in and of itself. I tend to agree with her on that interpretation. Others will differ. Special Convention said it cannot acceed to TEC for the reasons stated. As a litigator of 22 years, having studied these trust issues in depth and having represented The Church of the New Covenant in the 2004 lawsuit filed against it by the Diocese of Central Florida and, after having heard from numerous clergy who drafted and voted on that resolution, the intent of R-1 was pretty evident and it was written forcefully. Feel free to call me and I will be happy to discuss it, I am listed in the Orlando directory.
Babyblue, while Bp. Howe may have used the following in a sermon:
1. Begin small
2. Trust God for the vision
3. Money is secondary
4. Everything under God depends on the quality of the persons selected for the task
I believe that the proper attribution of this is Bp. Alf Stanway, the founding dean of Trinity School for Ministry.
Sometimes, in the marketing world, it is imperative within an organization to “re-dream the dream” i.e. go back to square one and remember what our primary obligations are, to which “customers” and to remember why we started this enterprise in the first place.
For Bishops, I would submit the following:
This is a true saying. If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. {BCP 1928 P 549, Ordering and Consecration of Bishops}
and let’s not forget this classic, to be answered “I am ready, the Lord being my helper.”
Are you ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to do the same?
There is the Standard for a Bishop. How many today in the HOB would comply with this standard? Not too many, I’m sure. But that’s why I stay, to be a thorn, remind them, and hold them to this standard in their Holy Office. They would seek to reduce it to “job” or “governance”. Nothing could be further from the truth. I hope they get tired of hearing from me. That will be a sure sign I’m on the right trail.
Alfonso,
Going through your 3 options I noticed some a couple of things that could be further clarified, like, I’m sure you are referring here to reasserter individuals, etc., and not revisionist or reappraisers in TECusa, ’cause they might have their own list of options. Also, in your first option, “Flee”, we could say a) Flee with the key, or b) Flee with out the key. As well, I didn’t see anything in the 3 options that included the biblical concept of submission, which I think is different than capitulation, or even “changing sides.”
But I did feel left out by the time I got finished reading #3, which started “Stay and obey God (rather than man).” Using that phrase, though and inverting it, says something about my choice: “Obey God, and stay.” That would be option 4, if you would accept that friendly amendment. You understand what I mean?
It is rather late in this thread, but let me pose a question to Ephraim Radner (#13):
What if John Howe publicly declared himself out of communion with all those bishops of TEC who have violated Scripture and the teaching of the Communion and refused to have any further dealings with them save formal necessities. I made the argument eight years ago that such a declaration was a way orthodox bishops could exercise spiritual integrity and make their witness for Christ without formally tearing the fabric of the Church. See
Two bishops responded to my call, both of them retired.
Now the obvious answer to the question, “what if?†is: a bishop who broke communion in this way would be put up for trial and deposed. Perhaps so, in which case I refer you to the conclusion of John Howe’s book, “Our Anglican Heritage,†chapter 2: “Queen Mary’s own death came on November 17, 1558. It is certain that the martyrdoms during her reign did more to spread the sentiment for reformation than all previous governmental efforts.â€
As the Anglican Church was able to break away with its property from the Roman Church, I believe the following words regarding obedience to an unlawful entity should be considered: “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, having 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.” I think our wise founding fathers had it right for what to do in such situations. To paraphrase: If the governing body of the Church becomes destructive by turning away from creedal basic beliefs, it is the right of its members to bring it back to orthodoxy, so as to keep the Church holy, catholic and apostolic.
Rev. Prof. Noll, because we have the same taste in basketball coaches I know you write from Uganda. Ironic that you would compare an action Bishop Howe will never take with martyrdom given the history of your adopted country. What are the orthodox willing to give up for the faith once delivered, besides having meetings and issuing statements? Interesting question, is it not?
[blockquote] William#2 wrote:
What are the orthodox willing to give up for the faith once delivered, besides having meetings and issuing statements? Interesting question, is it not?[/blockquote]
You mean besides two hundred orthodox lay volunteers being personally sued by 815 and the Bishop of Virginia? Does that count?
Just remember what the Windsor Report said, what Dramamine said, what Dar Es Salaam said (and nevermind just pooh-poohing statements and meetings, someone get Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin on the phone) – to TEC, warning them of the consequences of their actions. It is the orthodox who trying to find a way to stay Anglican as the Episcopal Church seems determined to walk away, tearing apart the fabric of the communion and then scapegoating the orthodox. TEC is the one that ignored it’s own House of Bishops Theological Committee (which John Howe served on), and all the instruments of unity, including Lambeth, that warned TEC to stand down, and still TEC went ahead and passed “local option” and enthroned Gene Robinson in 2003. TEC still didn’t comply with the Windsor Report and Dramamine in 2006.
Now we have the September 30th deadline. Who wants to make bets that someone else will be laid to blame and TEC will see itself as the victim? Odds anyone? And just to make it interesting, who will be 815’s Scapegoat Poster Child? Nominations are now open on the floor.
I supposed The Episcopal Church is more interested in pursuing their own Deathly Hallows, as J.K. Rowling puts it so well – then pursuing peace and reconciliation.
We thought we had a way forward with the Bishop of Virginia – and we did – but that was lost when 815 slammed the door on reconciliation so suddenly in January. Perhaps Bishop Lee will find a way to reopen the door. I pray for that every day.
Babyblue, it definitely counts; I left awhile ago, and let ’em keep all their stuff. We aren’t in the same crew, but we know the same people. I love you guys up in VA. Keep on keepin on!
Brian B,
It seems to me that by Bishop Howe’s first point, the 2003 special council, by voting for resolution R-1 exceeded its authority and effectively the delegates who voted for the resolution left the TEC and are no longer members in good standing.
“There are some matters which may not legitimately be addressed by a Diocesan Board or Convention, among them the continuing accession on the part of a Diocese to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church”
If these diocesan bodies can’t do it, can anyone in the diocese: e.g., these bodies plus the bishop? Bp. Howe’s phrasing suggests not.
I met Bp. Howe long ago, when he headed FOCUS. He seemed confident, independent, and fearless.
I would little have expected the deference (indeed, prostration) to David Booth reflected in this memo.
All very sad.
It appears that John Howe is slipping slowly but surely to the other side of the aisle. He gives the game away with this:
which is absolutely ludicrous.
Second, he’s beginning to issue threats in the grand tradition of David Booth Beers, when he says this: “I have cautioned [Eric Turner] not to attempt to go around the Chancellors. … I urge you not to go looking for lawyers who will support a position you would like to see prevail.†This is ironic, given the list of people Howe consulted: almost to a person, those that would support the position Howe favors. The exception, of course, is Bishop Wantland – who is also the only advisor given the “honor†of having his advice singled out for rejection by Howe.
Does Bishop Howe not see that it is no longer an argument but it is already an unCivil War? It brings more “Hell” to avoid conflict than to bring the full might of ones resources to bear for a complete and decisive battle.
“War is hell,” is descriptive, not metaphor. It is a hard truth. Is the last half of Is 6 is unfolding before our very eyes once again?
Phil
I read the language you quoted to be referring to the Diocese of Central Florida, not ECUSA. It is ambiguous, however. Otherwise, I agree completely with your second paragraph and with Irenaeus.
The deference isn’t to the national chancellor, but to the rule of law… to the notion that an organized society is free to adopt rules and to abolish them, but that the members of the society really only have the choice either to comply with the rules or to accept the consequences of breaking them. However disorganized TEC may be in a factual sense, it is a corporate body that has established rules to govern its members. Anyone who cannot comply with the rules is free to leave, but is not free to accept the benefits of membership without also accepting the burdens of membership. People are Episcopalians, and local churches are Episcopal parishes, by virtue of their accession to the authority of the corporate institutions (the Constitution, Canons, and General Convention). If they repudiate that authority, they also forfeit their status as members-in-good-standing of the organization, including their entitlement to possess or use assets of the organization. The American Civil War (and its ecclesiastical analogue in the attempted formation of the P.E.C.C.S.A.) basically told us that a state government or state convention that has acceded to the national constitution is not free to secede unilaterally.
Disagree with him if you must, but this man of God is clearly not a coward nor someone’s dupe or shill. Would that we had more of this kind of bishop still among us. May he continue to seek and discern the Lord’s will in this time of trouble.
Bp. Howe has not and imo will never slip to the other side. However, he has certainly not taken the kind of stand that stalwarts in his diocese have asked him to take. He has certainly not distinguished himself among the orthodox in the battle for orthodox Anglicanism in the US. I am sorry to say that he appears closer to Peter Lee than to Bp. Duncan these days.
I think that Bishop Howe knows where his loyalty rests. He is compelled to allow the process to work itself out, and he knows that process is not in itself sacred. I’m glad that he will attend at least part of the meeting of the Network bishops.
#8 I suppose you could be correct. Often the Lord ‘tricks’ me into going somewhere I don’t want to be to fulfill His bidding and there maybe some delusion here. I hope so, +Howe has been a faithful servant, even if he’s a ‘Communion Conservative’ there are elements which just seems like he has taken leave of his senses in last two letter T19 has posted.
Mark McCall, you’re probably right, so I stand corrected. On the other hand, the requests Howe cites were not made to his diocese, but to the entire Episcopal Church. Saying that he has personally complied (as it were) puts his head in the sand, since the body of which his diocese is part hasn’t complied by a long shot. He’s not off the hook as long as he remains part of ECUSA.
Of course, it looks as though ECUSA will be getting off scot-free and leaving the Communion in pieces in its wake, so I suppose this is academic.
“Anyone who cannot comply with the rules is free to leave, but is not free to accept the benefits of membership without also accepting the burdens of membership. People are Episcopalians, and local churches are Episcopal parishes, by virtue of their accession to the authority of the corporate institutions (the Constitution, Canons, and General Convention).”
That’s rich, coming from the institution that ordained women, practices open communion and consented to Shannon Johnston’s election to the episcopate, all in violation of its canons.
Having had personal dealings with Bishop Sauls, I’m not surprised that Bishop Howe is taking great care to protect his flock.
Although I disagree with the main theoretical premise with which Bishop Howe is operating regarding the relationship of diocese to “national†church, I applaud the bishop’s clarity, integrity, and more fundamental commitments regarding Communion membership, due process, and (as Dale writes) the “rule of law†(which is itself a Scriptural injunction in a general way).
The question of “secession†(on the analogy of the Civil War, as Dale argues) does not, it seems to me, apply to the present case, where the General Convention has not in fact followed its own Constitution (however, this is something still in the process of the wider ecclesial adjudication). A diocese is under no obligation to remain “in union with the General Convention†(to use our church Constitution’s phraseology) if the Convention itself has undermined its own law and acts against it. It is certainly under no moral obligation to do so. Indeed, it is the General Convention that is now “out of union†with its constituent dioceses. This is the situation we are now in, and have been since 2003. It is not clear where that leaves a diocese, “legallyâ€. However, from an ecclesial standpoint – as well as an historical one, within Anglicanism and beyond – it would appear that the diocese under its bishop is now a self-governing entity awaiting a new ordering of its common ties to the church catholic. Much as Connecticut/New England was under Seabury, before its participation in and incorporation within the new General Convention. Or, perhaps it is a matter of those dioceses that still in fact, morally and theologically, “accede†to the Constitution of the Episcopal Church gathering to form a re-constituted General Convention, truly compliant with its own law. (I would urge this last course.)
However, I applaud Bp. Howe’s clear sense that the data necessary to proceed with this kind of argument and its practical implications and demands are not yet on the table, with respect to various decisions still facing various bodies within both ECUSA and the Communion; and his commitment to following out in order and prayerfully the succession of these decisions, while maintaining a careful and clear commitment to the enunciation of the Christian Gospel in witness and ministry.
One element that seems to have forcefully influenced the bishop’s thinking here is the reality of legal combat that threatens any diocese as it seeks to move faithfully within this mess. This is less a matter of “opinion†than simply of noting historical fact. And the care with which the bishop evidently seeks to avoid such litigation does not strike me as a sign of weakness, vacillation, or betrayal of the Gospel itself, but rather as an expression of his desire to maintain before the world a testimony of graciousness, faith, and consistency with our Lord’s own command that “as you go with your accuser before the magistrate, make an effort to settle with him on the way, lest he drag you to the judge, and the judge hand you over the officer, and the officer put you in prison†(Lk. 12:58). The Primates’ call in Dar es Salaam to set aside litigation was aimed at all parties, not just David Booth Beers: those who precipitate lawsuits, and those who bring them.
Of course, as many have pointed out, such “combat†is probably not something that can be put off indefinitely. But prudence is a virtue, in this case especially, and while there may come a “right time†for such legal engagement, it may also be the case, as the bishop implies, that a stepping down or away altogether from a “litigating church†may be the most faithful course in the end. Indeed, that would be my guess at this point.
While this letter from Howe convinces me that he is certainly trying to chart a faithful path, I do think that his statement
[blockquote]
“Go in peace, to love and serve the Lord.†But, please do not try to find ways to take property that does not belong to you. That is dishonest and illegal.
[/blockquote]
is further reason to doubt the sanity of any orthodox individual who gives a dime to their local parish UNLESS there is an ironclad guarantee that no funds are given to the diocese or national church as a result. I will go even further – I flat out will not give ANY MONEY to a TEC parish anymore. I will give my time, I will give my money to other ministries. But if 815 is deemed to be the “owner” of whatever I give to my local parish, then “thank you very much, but no!” I have better causes to give to!
“The deference isn’t to the national chancellor, but to the rule of law” —Dale Rye [#5]
There is precious little rule of law in ECUSA. The ruling reappraisers do what they please as they please, largely without constraint. And you rarely if ever find fault with that.
Dale Rye and Dr. Radner applaud Bishop Howe’s adherence to what they call “the rule of law.” When the so-called “rules” are repeatedly selectively enforced or not enforced to suit those holding power, they lose their moral authority, gentlemen. Do you both concede the many historical and recent examples or would you like a list?
The light has been extinguished from the lamp stand as well. But your church does have power–over those who choose to submit–such as Bishop Howe.
[i]When, in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes,
I all alone beweep my outcast state
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries
And look upon myself and curse my fate,
Wishing me like to one more rich in hope,
Featured like him, like him with friends possess’d,
Desiring this man’s art and that man’s scope,
With what I most enjoy contented least;
Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising,
Haply I think on thee, and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day arising
From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven’s gate;
For thy sweet love remember’d such wealth brings
That then I scorn to change my state with kings.
W. Shakespeare[/i]
Dr. Radner – there is a reason why “people listen when Dr. Radner speaks.” At least I do, and I dare say I am not alone.
I was very pleased to see your comment
[blockquote]
Or, perhaps it is a matter of those dioceses that still in fact, morally and theologically, “accede†to the Constitution of the Episcopal Church gathering to form a re-constituted General Convention, truly compliant with its own law. (I would urge this last course.)
[/blockquote]
It is my hope that this is the seed for the reclamation of the TEC from the radical ideologues that have captured it and are proceeding to destroy both it and the Anglican Communion.
It is my hope that Rowan Williams sees this also, and that the end result will be that he recognizes only those Windsor compliant dioceses as being “in communion” with him and that these dioceses then do exactly as you suggest.
He declares with grave piety that if a thing is improper it should not be done regardless of whether others have done so or not. There is a bitter, bitter irony in this that he cannot see or hear, that TEC has done what is improper over and over and is not likely to change its course. And,s he correctlh observed, tht there has been no punishment in the past does not mean there will be none in the future – except he would be astonished to discover that this applies to TEC and himself.
Does this take courage, as someone above asserted? It does not, for he thinks the law is on his side, that he has the muscle and the clout to make the dissidents feel real pain, and it is clearly his intention to put their feet to the fire. Courage?
I think rather you are reading the threats of a self-righteous bully. LM
Irenaeus,
Even if 815 is completely lawless, it does not free us, who bear Christ’s Name, to act in the same manner. Even if we are taken advantage of and rebuked, we are to uphold the rule of law within the Church. So, it would not be a good idea for conservative bishops to inhibit liberal priests or declare them out of communion just because liberal bishops do so to conservative priests.
I may not like with Bishop Howe said in his letter. I may want to fight hard and dirty because of my irritation and anger at how the reappraisers have faught. But I am not at liberty to do so.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I looked up some relevant (to me at least) quotes from [i]A Man for All Seasons[/i] –
More to Norfolk- “What matters is not that it’s true, but that I believe it; or no, not that I believe it, but that I believe it.”
And more [pun intended] to the point –
More: “And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Heaven for doing according to your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing according to mine, will you come along with me — for fellowship?”
Recall the scene between More and Richard Rich when More warns about cutting down all the laws as if they were a forest of trees, then having nothing to defend you from the devil himself.
Lastly, “but for Wales [TEC, CANA, . . .]”? We all must guard our souls here, wherever we may be in the controversy.
Peace & blessings,
-miserable sinner
“There are some matters which may not legitimately be addressed by a Diocesan Board or Convention, among them the continuing accession on the part of a Diocese to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Churchâ€
Hmm. Applying this principle to the Act of Supremacy one wonders how Bishop Howe justifies his separation from Rome.
#21 Bravo, I applaud your statement. The biggest danger I believe we all face is from our OWN reactions to reappraiser/HOB injustice. There are much more horrid corruptions of the soul that come from within than come from without (pride, envy, jealousy, greed).
If we are who we say we are, God’s faithful people on the pilgrim trail, perhaps about to be cast into the desert at His command, then we should tailor our methods of combat to ones He would approve. Adopted the methods of the enemy is clearly out of bounds for any Christian.
Are we fighting with one hand tied behind our back? Undoubtedly. But what is that before the power of God?
Or as my favorite Priest ever says, It is not our job to be successful; It is our job to be FAITHFUL. Success is God’s business.
KTF!….mrb
That was the most pathetic, unpastorly, legal brief-like bishop’s letter that I have ever read. It is interesting that three of the candidates for bishop of Nevada are ex-lawyers. The episcopal church is dead, dead, dead. The lawyers have taken over and will suck up all the pension funds, property sell-offs, trusts, etc. Monies that should have gone to advancing the kingdom.
One quibble with the lawyer Howe. There is a difference between what is right and legal. Even if the courts decide that the TEC Corp has legal rights to the property, it is still the right thing to do to make them fight for it.
Again, I say that letter is pathetic.
“Even if 815 is completely lawless, it does not free us, who bear Christ’s Name, to act in the same manner”
True. But ECUSA’s lurch towards lawlessness casts doubt on whether the law really is what David Booth Beers says it is.
[blockquote] If the “compromises†of The Episcopal Church are such that one can no longer remain a member of it, if s/he can no longer function under its Constitution and Canons, then there really is no alternative but to leave: “Go in peace, to love and serve the Lord.†But, please do not try to find ways to take property that does not belong to you. That is dishonest and illegal.[/blockquote]
If taking property that does not belong to you in a hierarchical system is dishonest and illegal, then perhaps the Church of England should give its properties back to the Roman Catholic Church. TEC should also consider doing the “honest” thing by giving back all the properties prior to the American independence to the Church of England.
That hasn’t happened and will not likely because there are other rules that can overturn established rules of law–that being the rule war and the challenge to established precedent. The rule of war speaks for itself in that winner takes all (i.e., Europeans taking Native American land via genocide). The challenge to established precedent allows for actions to be “legal” until it has exhausted the legal system. That’s how bad laws are overturned. Those laws seem established until they are reversed by the Supreme Court.
If orthodox episcopalians sincerely believe that TEC has gone apostate and a sincere attempt to settle property issues have reached an impasse, I would advocate a legal challenge through the secular courts, even in states where deference to hierarchical rules have been established. Secular rules of law are not written in stone–they can be changed no matter how embedded it seems.
If an orthodox parish can sustain the fight emotionally, spiritually and financially, it may be better to fight and lose (with the possibility of winning) then to walk away and lose the property anyway.
“It is my hope that this is the seed for the reclamation of the TEC from the radical ideologues that have captured it and are proceeding to destroy both it and the Anglican Communion.
It is my hope that Rowan Williams sees this also, and that the end result will be that he recognizes only those Windsor compliant dioceses as being “in communion†with him and that these dioceses then do exactly as you suggest”.
Ditto for me. jamesw and Dr. Radner, thank you both for your comments and your work.
Prayers continue…
Hmmm – does this mean that the CofE’s churches are going to be returned says Pageantmaster provocatively?
After reading the excellent commentary above, I would point the writers to the Central Florida American Anglican Council webpage located at http://WWW.CFLAAC.com. Therein you will find, under the documents tab, resolution R-1 passed by the Diocese of Central Florida which, in my opinion, demonstrates that the Diocese has already addressed the accession matter and said that it does not have to acceed to TEC. This was passed 9/20/03 at a Special Convention. I thought you all would like to review that item given the discussion above.
Brian Bolton, Chancellor, CFLAAC
As I said, this is not a letter from a Bishop to his flock, but a letter from an attorney to his clients. He confuses legality with rightness. He expelled a vibrant community from their worship space. Legal? I guess so. Right? Unquestionably not. What part of 1 Cor 6:1-8 does he not understand. Paul spoke to the legal versus right directly when he said, “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?” The people that Paul was speaking to were apparently legally right as well. And what did Paul say of those people then and of Bp Howe today? “[Y]ou have been completely defeated already.” Paul’s words hold true of Bp Howe no matter what his conservative credentials are.
For what purpose? To convert a place of worship to an empty building which can be liquidated to fund other lawsuits. Completely defeated.
Also, his example of the Anglican church that is flourishing does not diminish the evil that is done by him and the rest of the TEC hierarchy. I visited the Los Angeles Church that recently lost a ruling brought by Bishop Bruno. If the appeals process favors Bruno but the church goes on to another venue and flourishes, does that diminish the evil? We have all seen examples where evil occurrences result in good in the end. Does that mean the evil was good? Certainly not. Completely defeated.
Bp Howe: I and Paul say shame to you.
Dale Rye and I agree on one point: the rule of law is paramount. We disagree on what rule of law must be followed. I lean toward the rule that real property is owned by the person shown as owner on the recorded title documents. If that is the parish, and the parish is a legal entity capable of owning property, so be it. An implied trust is usually an argument from desperation, when you are not the record owner. I am not saying it would always lose, but it needs to be established from some act of the record owner, not merely the acts or contentions of a separate legal entity.
#30 Brian
You said, “…the Diocese has already addressed the accession matter and said that it does not have to accede to TEC.”
R-1 said no such thing. It said the diocese “dissassociates itself from these erroneous actions” of GC 2003 listed in the four whereas’es. Nothing more, nothing less.
The fourth “whereas” declared the obvious: GC 2003’s radical revisionism created a point of conflict with the accession clause in the preamble to the diocese’s constitution, which commits the diocese as a matter of “sworn duty” to “provide for the tradition of the faith.” R-1 simply made it clear the diocese didn’t want to be associated with the GC 2003 actions that went against the faith the diocese is sworn to uphold.
w.w.
I stopped looking seriously at his letter after seeing his use of “s/he”. It may seem a small thing but it demonstrates a willingness to have one’s language, and hense one’s thought, controlled by the new order. It is a small act of intellectual surrender which establishes the precendent for further surrenders just as a small leak in a dam paves the way for a larger rupture.
Bp Howe hasn’t slipped anywhere.
Of course, to where one has slipped, without definition, will only find agreement with those who think their definition is presumably the same.
So, just what exactly does that mean, “slipped to the other side”?
Is it meant to be “obvious”, as in bought into the apostate agenda of so many in TECusa leadership?
Or to the non-scriptural allowance for leadership recognition given to those who are openly engaged in homosexual behavior?
Or to the side that says same-sex unions are just fine?
Or to “the dark side”, and some confusion with Star Wars theology?
Or slipped over (on the conservative side) to the idea that any good can possibly come out of TEC?
Is this a judgment that Bp Howe is slipping over to that side of this Church that refuses to believe in any or all of the tenets of the Nicene Creed?
What’s ludicrous is thinking that one see’s Bp Howe “sliding” to any one of these “sides.” However, if what one thinks is that he is beginning to “side with” an Episcopal leadership that seems intent on creating a monochrome Church, gladly saying good-bye to those who would rely on the Word of God to challenge and uphold God’s will and intentions as God intended them for the Church, then perhaps you are simply saying you don’t like the fact that there might be any other option except leave TECusa. You are wrong. But while you are trying to press your point, don’t villify those who are standing right next to you on the side of Jesus, his Gospel, and His Kingdom.
In light of that exhortation, to derogatorily change his vocational title from Bishop Howe to Lawyer Howe will be seen as unwarrantedly offensive to all those Christian lawyers out there.
And, again, how hypocritical of those who on one hand excoriate “reasserter” bishops for not being the leaders they should be by making use of the episcopal authority and powers given to them, and then excoriate Bp Howe (and perhaps others) for making use of their given episcopal authority and powers by giving direct instructions based on their own valid convictions.
One of the most difficult and uncomfortable directions from the Word of God, is the unqualified statement, as in Paul’s words, to submit to those who rule over you as God has placed them there. Seeing that through obviously will mean personal sacrifice in many cases depending upon the ruler.
I’m not defending any misperceived perfection.
I’m saying quit dismissing out of hand those who are sold out to the same Lord Jesus you are, but with whom you disagree about how to defend the Faith.
RGEaton
Father Rob writes, “But while you are trying to press your point, don’t villify those who are standing right next to you…” As I [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/4665/#86706]said[/url], it doesn’t matter what his conservative credentials are (advisory board member of ACI, Windsor bishop, etc), he knows the injunction of Paul, and Paul condemns him in no uncertain terms for his bringing the lawsuit against [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/4418]All Souls Anglican church[/url].
robroy, who brought a lawsuit against All Souls? Didn’t All Souls leave the Diocese of Florida and then was sued by
Bp. Howard? Is this what you are referring to?
Well, I’ve read Bishop Howe’s letter three times now and it seems pretty clear to me where he stands. Some folk in the diocese sought to change the paperwork to enable the DIOCESE to leave the church with property if it wished to do so. Doesn’t mean they will, or they won’t the effort was simply to give them the OPTION at a later time, depending upon what happens in September. Bishop Howe openly admits nothing good will happen in September; TEC will NOT reform. Despite that, he prevents the DIOCESE from having an option to leave, realizing that TEC WILL NOT return to beliefs that he supposedly has and KNOWING that the TEC claim on property is not near as robust when it is faced with the departure of a DIOCESE as opposed to a DIOCESE enforcing a property claim against a parish.
Yep, Its pretty clear where he stands; he stands in favor of preserving treasure for his apostate church. And for what its worth, its clear also where I stand–against him.
[url=”http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2007/07/blog-post_28.html”]Nearly twenty years ago this is what he said.[/url]
The church sued by Bp Howe was apparently “Church of the New Covenant” in Winter Springs not the All Souls lawsuit which Tony rightly points out was in the Diocese of Florida by Bp Howard. There is a big difference between the two churches and lawsuits. The suit by Bp Howe was dropped when they came to an amicable settlement.
+Howe is following a certain consistency, slavishly, I would argue. Do we applaud him for his consistency? What +Howe has done, it seems, is elevate 815’s Law to the level of Scripture for Episcopalians. It follows that there is no choice of whether “to obey God or man” inside TEC. One must obey 815. And this consistency is OK with +Howe and far too many “traditional-minded” folk. I understand he thinks there is freedom to opt out of the system, and cease to be Episcopalian, and only then can one be free from equating 815’s Canons & Constitution with Scripture.
If I’m right, shame on +Howe for his idolatry of TEC’s Canons, and shame on those who refuse to challenge such “consistency.”
If I’m wrong, and we “orthodox” dioceses are free, in extreme circumstances, to claim there is a difference between following the covenant of God and the covenant of 815, I have two questions.
First, if we haven’t yet come to the point where there is difference in following God’s authority and 815’s authority, when would we?
Second, seriously, isn’t question one a crock? — for isn’t it clear that it is dishonoring to God, with what we know, to leave the option on the table (for individuals, parishes or dioceses) to say it still is a possibility that fully obeying TEC is perfectly consistent with obeying God?
Therefore there are three options for individuals/parishes/dioceses:
1. Flee.
2. Stay and be idolators to TEC (even if one prostrates with gritted teeth, it is still prostration). In other words, “stay and accede, legitimize, facilitate, and enable (all, of course, while frowning).”
3. Stay and obey God rather than man (“man” = whatever of man that contradicts God–man-made laws, heretical leadership, heretical/ungodly majority decisions, unrepentant, stiff-necked injust authority). This would mean holding others accountable for their sin: tough love that does not capitulate to unrepentant sin, even if such sinful heresy and behavior seeks refuge behind man-made canons and constitutions. In other words, “stay and be willing to face the wrath of 815 through their ungodly lawsuits and ungodly “church” discipline.”
#33
If you say so. However, I think it says more, indicates a position that accession is pliable, optional. Either you acceed to TEC or you don’t. My interpretation would serve to empower the Bishop, says he can exercise the option to take out the Diocese if he wants. A local priest stated that she thought that R-1 created a departure in and of itself. I tend to agree with her on that interpretation. Others will differ. Special Convention said it cannot acceed to TEC for the reasons stated. As a litigator of 22 years, having studied these trust issues in depth and having represented The Church of the New Covenant in the 2004 lawsuit filed against it by the Diocese of Central Florida and, after having heard from numerous clergy who drafted and voted on that resolution, the intent of R-1 was pretty evident and it was written forcefully. Feel free to call me and I will be happy to discuss it, I am listed in the Orlando directory.
Babyblue, while Bp. Howe may have used the following in a sermon:
1. Begin small
2. Trust God for the vision
3. Money is secondary
4. Everything under God depends on the quality of the persons selected for the task
I believe that the proper attribution of this is Bp. Alf Stanway, the founding dean of Trinity School for Ministry.
Sometimes, in the marketing world, it is imperative within an organization to “re-dream the dream” i.e. go back to square one and remember what our primary obligations are, to which “customers” and to remember why we started this enterprise in the first place.
For Bishops, I would submit the following:
and let’s not forget this classic, to be answered “I am ready, the Lord being my helper.”
There is the Standard for a Bishop. How many today in the HOB would comply with this standard? Not too many, I’m sure. But that’s why I stay, to be a thorn, remind them, and hold them to this standard in their Holy Office. They would seek to reduce it to “job” or “governance”. Nothing could be further from the truth. I hope they get tired of hearing from me. That will be a sure sign I’m on the right trail.
KTF…..mrb
Alfonso,
Going through your 3 options I noticed some a couple of things that could be further clarified, like, I’m sure you are referring here to reasserter individuals, etc., and not revisionist or reappraisers in TECusa, ’cause they might have their own list of options. Also, in your first option, “Flee”, we could say a) Flee with the key, or b) Flee with out the key. As well, I didn’t see anything in the 3 options that included the biblical concept of submission, which I think is different than capitulation, or even “changing sides.”
But I did feel left out by the time I got finished reading #3, which started “Stay and obey God (rather than man).” Using that phrase, though and inverting it, says something about my choice: “Obey God, and stay.” That would be option 4, if you would accept that friendly amendment. You understand what I mean?
RGEaton
It is rather late in this thread, but let me pose a question to Ephraim Radner (#13):
What if John Howe publicly declared himself out of communion with all those bishops of TEC who have violated Scripture and the teaching of the Communion and refused to have any further dealings with them save formal necessities. I made the argument eight years ago that such a declaration was a way orthodox bishops could exercise spiritual integrity and make their witness for Christ without formally tearing the fabric of the Church. See
http://www.stephenswitness.com/1999/03/broken-communion.html
Two bishops responded to my call, both of them retired.
Now the obvious answer to the question, “what if?†is: a bishop who broke communion in this way would be put up for trial and deposed. Perhaps so, in which case I refer you to the conclusion of John Howe’s book, “Our Anglican Heritage,†chapter 2: “Queen Mary’s own death came on November 17, 1558. It is certain that the martyrdoms during her reign did more to spread the sentiment for reformation than all previous governmental efforts.â€
#45 Yes, John Howe does quote Stanway generously in his [url=”http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2007/07/blog-post_28.html”]sermon[/url] from 1988.
bb
As the Anglican Church was able to break away with its property from the Roman Church, I believe the following words regarding obedience to an unlawful entity should be considered: “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, having 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.” I think our wise founding fathers had it right for what to do in such situations. To paraphrase: If the governing body of the Church becomes destructive by turning away from creedal basic beliefs, it is the right of its members to bring it back to orthodoxy, so as to keep the Church holy, catholic and apostolic.
Rev. Prof. Noll, because we have the same taste in basketball coaches I know you write from Uganda. Ironic that you would compare an action Bishop Howe will never take with martyrdom given the history of your adopted country. What are the orthodox willing to give up for the faith once delivered, besides having meetings and issuing statements? Interesting question, is it not?
[blockquote] William#2 wrote:
What are the orthodox willing to give up for the faith once delivered, besides having meetings and issuing statements? Interesting question, is it not?[/blockquote]
You mean besides two hundred orthodox lay volunteers being personally sued by 815 and the Bishop of Virginia? Does that count?
Just remember what the Windsor Report said, what Dramamine said, what Dar Es Salaam said (and nevermind just pooh-poohing statements and meetings, someone get Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin on the phone) – to TEC, warning them of the consequences of their actions. It is the orthodox who trying to find a way to stay Anglican as the Episcopal Church seems determined to walk away, tearing apart the fabric of the communion and then scapegoating the orthodox. TEC is the one that ignored it’s own House of Bishops Theological Committee (which John Howe served on), and all the instruments of unity, including Lambeth, that warned TEC to stand down, and still TEC went ahead and passed “local option” and enthroned Gene Robinson in 2003. TEC still didn’t comply with the Windsor Report and Dramamine in 2006.
Now we have the September 30th deadline. Who wants to make bets that someone else will be laid to blame and TEC will see itself as the victim? Odds anyone? And just to make it interesting, who will be 815’s Scapegoat Poster Child? Nominations are now open on the floor.
I supposed The Episcopal Church is more interested in pursuing their own Deathly Hallows, as J.K. Rowling puts it so well – then pursuing peace and reconciliation.
We thought we had a way forward with the Bishop of Virginia – and we did – but that was lost when 815 slammed the door on reconciliation so suddenly in January. Perhaps Bishop Lee will find a way to reopen the door. I pray for that every day.
bb
Babyblue, it definitely counts; I left awhile ago, and let ’em keep all their stuff. We aren’t in the same crew, but we know the same people. I love you guys up in VA. Keep on keepin on!
Brian B,
It seems to me that by Bishop Howe’s first point, the 2003 special council, by voting for resolution R-1 exceeded its authority and effectively the delegates who voted for the resolution left the TEC and are no longer members in good standing.