After a long and fruitless search for an opportunity to continue active ministry within The Episcopal Church, the Rt. Rev. David C. Bane, Bishop of Southern Virginia from 1998-2006, has “joyfully and gratefully” accepted an invitation from Archbishop Gregory Venables to be received as a bishop in the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. He will serve in the Anglican Church of North America as an assisting bishop in the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
Long-simmering divisions in the Diocese of Southern Virginia culminated in Bishop Bane’s decision to resign in 2006. In a March 9 letter to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, Bishop Bane said he believed that his “remaining as bishop would prevent the diocese from healing and moving forward as so much of the blame and animosity continued to be focused on me personally.” He said his decision to resign also was predicated on assurances that there would still be opportunities for him to exercise his vocation within The Episcopal Church. The Living Church received a copy of Bishop Bane’s letter.
Before he and his wife, Alice, relocated to the Diocese of East Carolina and joined an Episcopal parish near their new residence, Bishop Bane said he contacted that diocese’s bishop, the Rt. Rev. Clifton Daniel. He said he had to contact Bishop Daniel three times before he was able to arrange a meeting and that since then, Bishop Daniel has initiated no contact, nor has he returned his phone calls or letters. Bishop Daniel also has refused to include him on the clergy mailing list. Bishop Bane said he learned second hand that Bishop Daniel had intervened to remove his name from consideration as an interim at a nearby parish.
more “inclusiveness” from 815 is on full display. 1 of 35 Bishops responded to him, removed from mailing lists, etc – what does that say about ECUSA? Perhaps someone can think of a positive spin here, I certainly can not.
I really don’t know anything about what the problems were. However, the treatment he was given sounds like someone who is a moral pariah, and yet nothing like that was reported that I recall, and if he were morally unfit, surely the Southern Cone people would not be welcoming him. This doesn’t look good.
This is not particularly different from treatment commonly received by un-tenured non-liberals in academia. Marginalise them, ignore them, squeeze them out, make them go away.
I guess I should be surprised by the apparently widespread mean-spiritedness, pettiness and vindictiveness of that alleged Christian church but I’m not.
I think the interesting thing is that Bishop Bane seems surprised . . .
I think there are a whole lot of bishops and clergy in TEC who are conservative and yet have no clue at how much they are hated and loathed by revisionists. They just haven’t grasped — yet — that revisionists are at war, and will give no quarter at all.
Bishop Bane’s departure filled the revisionists in SOVA with joy. They won. They weren’t at all sorry to see him go — they were thrilled. And they wished never to see him again.
The fact that he didn’t realize that until, perhaps, the consecration of Bishop Hollerith — who I understand was instrumental in Bishop Bane’s departure — says much about his naivete and cluelessness of the nature of the revisionists and their mission and goals in TEC.
What a pity.
The diocese of Southern Virginia never really liked Bishop Bane – neither side of the political spectrum. He wasn’t the most effective leader which is unfortunate given the opportunity presented to him. Maybe he’ll be more successful in his new church.
+ Bane never stood a chance in Southern Virginia. On the one hand there is the old guard who fancythemselves as the legacy of Jamestown circa 1607. On the other hand there are the newbies who are attracted to historicity, but don’t have the roots to suit the first families. These views squabble politically as it is, and mix in a stream of Yankees moving South and you’ve got a fine mess theologically and culturally. Then, Bane’s bane was also in the person of Carol Gallagher who represented the NewThing. Bane never stood a chance because he was too plain-spoken for all concerned and wanted that diocese to be truer to its Anglican roots. For pity’s sake, he was within a stone’s throw of the birthplace of Western Heminsphere Anglicanism (Jamestown). He (rightly IMHO) believed that unworthy and unhelpful people were carrying the flame. Now they have Holly Hollerith who will do nothing except what the wind and bucks say, and sneak in the New Thing ala-Gallagher style.
Should he have been grateful he hadn’t been deposed, perhaps? Or treated with the love and affection shown bishops like Cox? Now, he’ll undoubtedly get the full benefit of the inclusiveness of the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC.
Wow. Given that someone who thinks +Bane wasn’t “the most effective leader” is about the most negative thing someone has yet to say, this makes his post-SVA treatment look brutal, as the article paints it. So much for love, compassion, and so on. A good place couldn’t be found for a bishop willing to serve whose first spot wasn’t the right one? Support and brotherly love couldn’t be extended to someone like this?
Bane was a welcomed change after (“…much to learn from my friend Jack Spong…”) Vache and (“…the story of the prodigal son reveals how sexist the first century mind was…”) Vest. Bane is an example of the highly touted “moderate” that is facing rapid extinction in TEC:
[blockquote]“Bane, who served a church in New Hampshire for four years, said he knows Robinson well. “He’s a really good man who has all the qualities to make a good bishop,” Bane said.
He said he has no problem with Robinson’s sexual orientation but is concerned that he has lived intimately with a gay man for years.
“I still have a fairly traditional view of sexual relationships, and my understanding of the Episcopal Church’s official position with regard to sexual relationships is that they are to be between a man and woman – Christian marriage. Period,” Bane said.â€[/blockquote]
(ABC News 4 Charleston)
His fate was sealed with the GC2003 no-vote and the selection of Gallagher, who collaborated with reappraising clergy to undermine him.
Curious how someone who was a former military officer, an MBA, and had twelve years in the business world could be ousted by reappraising clergy for his “management style.†Perhaps it is true that he was somewhat plain spoken. Perhaps the reappraisers found his style to be ‘unmanageable.’
|-:
#10: Do the folk in the EDP(SC) know about these quotes? I can not imagine some of the more, shall we say, conservative, priests accepting him as a Bishop. Are the quotes real?
RE: ” I can not imagine some of the more, shall we say, conservative, priests accepting him as a Bishop.”
How so, Eugene? They look pretty good to me.
Wonder what would happen to Alden Hathaway if he tried to serve in a diocese other than South Carolina?
Choir Stall and Tired are very correct. I served in Southern Virginia for a number of years under +Dave and his predecessor. He made the mistake of being a recovering alcoholic in a dysfunctional diocese – and they did not like having their dysfunctional behavior called into question. +Carol was toxic from the get-go, after being elected by a loud liberal (feminist-sponsored) contingent. She undermined +Dave at every step – as did his Canon to the Ordinary.
I wish him the best in Pittsburgh – he will bring some awesome gifts to that diocese.
My father gave me a copy of Kipling’s “If” when I was a child. It currently hangs in my office. I frequently refer to it in times of adversity – one stanza concludes with the following words – “Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken, and stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools.” I hope the Bishop will succeed in helping to build back traditional Anglicanism in his new church home.
Are the theological and moral positions Bp. Bane took in Southern Virginia consistent with those of the ACNA?