Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori notified Keith Ackerman by mail and email October 16 that she has accepted the former Bishop of Quincy’s voluntary renunciation of ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church.
In a statement released by the Presiding Bishop’s office October 16, JeffertsSchori cited Title III, Section 7 of the Canons: “I have accepted the renunciation of the Ordained Ministry of this Church, made in writing to me in July 2009 by the Rt. Rev. Keith L. Ackerman, Bishop of Quincy, Resigned who is, therefore, removed from the Ordained Ministry of this Church and released from the obligations of all Ministerial offices, and is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred on him in Ordinations.”
According to the statement, Jefferts Schori had thanked Ackerman in an October 7 letter “for your follow up note regarding your plans to function as a bishop in the Diocese of Bolivia in the Province of the Southern Cone. As you know, there is no provision for transferring a bishop to another Province. I am therefore releasing you from the obligations of ordained ministry in this Church.”
[Comment deleted by Elf]
Re: Comment #1 — So much for [i]ad hominem[/i] attacks, elves!
Re: Keith Ackerman: Prayers ascend for him in his new ministry outside the Episcopal Church.
We have it on good authority that Bishop Ackerman did NOT write the PB to say he had renounced his orders.
Nasty game but then again would Bishop Ackerman be officiating in Episcopal churches anyway? He can frame it and put it on his wall.
#2, given the related post by Dean Munday clearly shredding the Ms. Schori’s defense #1 is not “ad hominem”, he is spot on!
Sorry, Susan, not buying that you are sending prayers ascending for Bishop Ackerman’s success. Just not in the realm of possibilities. It’s a nice line, though.
Another in a long,long line of Generous Pastoral Responses by Mrs. Schori.
Intercessor
Susan Russell:
That’s [i]Bishop[/i] Keith Ackerman.
Given your past indignation over the lack of proper titles, how about a little fair play?
It is astounding that, after her experience with the error made with her dealing with +Scriven, +Schori should make the same mistake again. Dean Mundy states that +Ackerman told him that he (+A) had specifically told the PB that he was not renouncing his orders. It is astounding that the PB was unable to understand the meaning of the word ‘voluntarily’ and its correct usage on this occasion.
I find it staggering that +Schori finds herself unable to make use of (or incompetently ignorant of) the correct canon which is Title III, Canon 10, Section 2.
I think it appears to many that she does not regard her activity with respect to +Scriven to have been in error. Unless one of her allies can explain otherwise, she does not believe in ‘mistakes.’ This is the consequence of seeking an outcome no matter what, and in disregard of the parameters of the office according to the TEC constitution. Most conclude she does not care about such constraints and simply does whatever is necessary. As others have pointed out, provisions exist for transferring clergy from one province to another. But renunciation is the category she is exploiting, because it is the instrument to hand, not because it is appropriate or because it has actually been followed (+Ackerman did not renounce in writing his orders). I do believe this is the first time she has stated something as fact (he wrote to renounce his orders) that can easily be determined as truthful or not. It appears that her liberal allies simply believe that legality is not critical if one is pursuing ‘justice.’ I cannot think of another explanation.
[blockquote] renunciation is the category she is exploiting, because it is the instrument to hand [/blockquote] When the only tool in your hand is a hammer, everything else looks like a nail. +Schori has two hammers in her toolchest: the other one is the lawsuit.
I know Rev. Russell usually makes flyby comments and never responds, but I would like to hear some response. How can the Presiding Bishop state that she is accepting Bishop Ackerman’s “voluntary” renunciation, when he did no such thing? I remember an earlier discussion on the HOB/D Listserve over what a wonderful example of Christian forgiveness and grace that was when the UK let the convicted terrorist return to Libya. How does that compare to the scorched earth philosophy exhibited by TEC against the “dissidents and schismatics”? There are proper canons that could be used for these cases, but to blatantly misuse a canon clearly meant for a clergy person that has left for the Baptists or Rome, is so opposite to what our Christian witness is supposed to be. And to claim that these priests and bishops have “voluntarily” renounced their orders and she “accepts themâ€???
[i] Comment encouraging readers to leave TEC deleted by elf. [/i]
Apparently it was obvious to 815 that an explanation was called for, and it fell to Canon Charles Robertson to give it. Canon Robertson’s explanation was that research (apparently about three months’ worth) had indicated that “there are no provisions†for the type of arrangement Bishop Ackerman wanted to undertake. Apparently Canon Robertson did not realize that an explanation premised on a need for research itself undercuts any argument that Bishop Ackerman had made a declaration that could trigger the procedures under Canon III.12.7.
We believe the PB’s purpose is to instill fear in remaining conservative bishops that the ax falls quickly to those who displease her.
Did Schori “voluntarily renounce” Mark MacDonald’s orders when he “transferred” from the Diocese of Alaska to the Anglican Church of Canada as it’s National Indigenous Bishop?
Enquiring minds want to know.
If there is no process for transferring a bishop from one province to another, then surely she must have done so. Right?
Anyone? … Anyone? … Bueller?
Or, +Burton to Dallas.
I suspect 815 is now just operating in a zone that says ‘we shall do what we need to do.’ But this attitude comes to grief in the real world all the time. The Psalms (see Ps 37) major in this reality and, over against it, speak of strong bulwarks/victories. God’s name be praised.
It’s got to be incredibly stressful for any ordained folks who work at 815, what with having to spend their days constantly saying things like, “Good morning, Bishop Schori, I am not renouncing my orders,” or “We’re ordering lunch, Bishop Schori, I am not renouncing my orders.” And Heaven help the poor canon who orders the pastrami from a delicatessen Bishop Schori doesn’t happen to like.
Let’s see…a request for transfer (a passive action) is taken as a renunciation (an active one). Money is involved. With goings on like these, wouldn’t there be the potential for a class-action suit somewhere…?
I think it important to note that +Keith did not state that he intended to exercise his episcopate in congregations within the US which have asked the Bishop of Bolivia to grant them oversight. He is an assistant bishop in the Diocese of Springfield. He wished to transfer to the Diocese of Bolivia and offer his continued service to TEC dioceses which wished to “employ” him. TEC has given permission to a number of African bishops who came to the US, often to escape persecution, and wished to serve in TEC dioceses without “renouncing” their ties to their “home” jurisdictions. Two current TEC bishops have exercised their episcopate in the Canadian Church without being “deposed.”
Is there now a new policy which would require such bishops to renounce their Orders in foreign jurisdictions in order to serve in TEC? If so when and where was such a policy adopted? Is it no longer possible for a “foreign” bishop here to study to exercise episcopacy where asked while living in the US? Will TEC no longer permit Bishops from other Provinces seat and voice in the HofB if they are asked to serve as assisting bishops in our dioceses?
Now it may be that the PB thought that +Keith might exercise his episcopate in “Southern Cone” allied groups in the US. But in justice +Keith would have to have so done before being “deposed”. A possibility is not a fact.
+Keith Ackerman is a gentle and holy man, whose relationships in the House of Bishops even with those he disagreed with have been grace filled and kind. There ought to be common revulsion that he has been so badly used. Whatever his intention this action has forced him out of TEC and fully into the ranks of those outside our church. One is reminded of the Restoration Church of England’s action against Richard Baxter, a holy and good man whose loss to the Church was a tragedy.
Amen, wvparson.
Where are the brother and sister bishops, while these good and godly men (+Ackerman is only the last in a long list) are being abused by the Presiding Bishop? Who speaks for them, or is everyone either cowed by her threats or completely in her pocket?
Calling all Bishops – aren’t you supposed to be UPHOLDING the Canons of the church?
16,
+Burton’s case does not apply as he is coming from Canada and not leaving TEC. Also, he is a parish priest and does not exercise episcopal functions in TEC.
As far as the renunciation goes, +Ackerman knew what he was doing when he wrote the note and he knew exactly what the consequences would be. Those on the thread who feign surprise must have been cloistered for several years. So we are left with only two possible motives for +Ackerman’s note: 1. he is simply ignorant of TEC and its new policies or 2. he is trying to stir up things by making this political move. To claim that his action was ‘innocent’ and not intentional is disingenuous. He has gotten the result he wanted and we’ll see if he gets what he hopes for in the aftermath. However, if he’s looking to the 7 CP bishops for support or some action to be taken by members of TEC, he’ll be waiting forever.
Brian: You have a window into +Keith’s soul? Now do tell me what these “new policies” are, when adopted and by what authority. IF +Keith was trying a political move then it must be established in “justice” by his activities and actions. Has he exercised his episcopate in a manner which violates our Canons and specifically in exercising his sacramental episcopate in confirming, ordaining or consecrating in bodies not part of TEC in the USA? If he has so done he is in violation of our Canons. If not he is not et subect to canonical action. Asking to be transferred to serve abroad in another Province is not a violation of our discipline. Should I seek a license to serve in the CofE in which my son is a priest during periods when I stay in England while remaining a priest of TEC in the Diocese of Northern Indiana, would my being so licensed involve my deposition here? Certainly if I subsequently seek to employ my being licensed in the CofE to serve a dissident parish in the US I would be rightly subject to discipline. But I would have to perform the act to be subject to discipline. Or have we decided we are not part of the Anglican Communion?
[i] Comment deleted by elf. [/i]
[blockquote]Or have we decided we are not part of the Anglican Communion?[/blockquote]
Actions speak louder than words, don’t they?
wvparson
No window into +Ackerman’s soul. Simply a logical conclusion based solely on this situation. You, as well as anyone who has at least a mild interest in the goings-on of TEC, know what the new policies are. How they were passed and by who is completely irrelevant because they ARE. This is the crux of the problem that the reasserters are facing right now. REALITY is different than JUSTICE or what is RIGHT. There are those who are taking action and admit the consequences (++Duncan), those who take action and do not admit the consequences (+Schofield) and those who take no action tacitly agreeing to the new policies (the Communion Partner bishops). None of these strategies appears to be working for the reasserters. All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. +Ackerman did something. Let’s see where it gets him.
REALITY is different than JUSTICE or what is RIGHT. Try that line on Integrity.
1. would it matter if +Ackerman did not write a note renouncing his orders? or is Brian’s point that lawlessness is simply the way it is? I cannot tell;
2. nothing prevents +Burton from exercising episcopal functions as he has been licensed to do so by +Dallas; he remains Bishop Burton as rector of Incarnation; the point is that he can also exercise Episcopal functions in Canada, with permission; he did not ‘renounce his orders’ because he moved in the Communion (the point WVA parson is making);
3. is the point that Brian simply wants a different denominational ‘anglicanism,’ determined by geography, and also that power (not law) to get that is OK? I cannot tell. This seems like a pernicious outcome, but it does not seem to be so for Brian.
4. I suspect we have not heard the end of this story re: Ackerman. Especially if the ‘renunciation in writing’ is a fiction.
There is a simple way to solve this: produce the document, Print the letter +Ackerman is supposed to have written. Is that so hard? (Only if it doesn’t exist.)
[Comment deleted by Elf]
RE: “or is Brian’s point that lawlessness is simply the way it is? . . . ”
It appears so.
I think one of the sources of Brian’s tone though is that he marvels that people continue to speak out about the lawlessness. We’re supposed to suck it up, or leave TEC or something. But continuously droning on about the lawlessness and pointing it out appears to be what he marvels at.
I, of course, think of Solzhenitsyn and smile. ; > )
I spent a good deal of time responding to Dr. Seitz+’s questions (and Sarah’s for that matter), but the elves deleted-they gave no reason nor chose to edit. Sometimes the truth needs to be hidden to protect those who haven’t swallowed the Kool-Aid 😉
[Hello Brian – if you post comments which are couched less aggressively toward other commenters we are less likely to get involved. Your assistance is appreciated – Elf]
The distinction that Dr. Seitz+ is looking for is one in law between de jure, de facto and desuetude:
-The Constitution and Canons of TEC are the written applicable law (de jure)
-++Katharine’s interpretations of the Constitution and Canons, however implausible, are accepted because they are not challenged through presentments or other Constitutional or canonical means (desuetude)
-++Katharine’s interpretations of the Constitution and Canons, however implausible, are now the applicable law (de facto)
20. GillianC wrote:
[blockquote]Amen, wvparson.
Where are the brother and sister bishops, while these good and godly men (+Ackerman is only the last in a long list) are being abused by the Presiding Bishop? Who speaks for them, or is everyone either cowed by her threats or completely in her pocket?
Calling all Bishops – aren’t you supposed to be UPHOLDING the Canons of the church?
[/blockquote]
If you really want an answer to your question, I suggest you read up on the history of the trial of Bishop Righter. Not only the trial, but the events leading up to the trial–including Bishop Browning’s behavior in the House of Bishops and toward the eleven presenting bishops. You will doubtless run across the name of at least one presenting bishop who is today a Common Partner bishop. I’m sure he has told the partners what they can expect if they try to discipline Schori.
While I do wish that they would disturb the peace of 815, the Executive Council and the Presiding Bishop, it is a fool’s errand–full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It will go nowhere. The “Integrity” [sic] crowd is in full control of the machinery, and will turn any effort to restore discipline to TEC to naught. There is and will be no justice or right in TEC.
Possibly Ackerman could find justice in the civil courts, since Schori lied and acted to cost him any income involved in his assisting role in Springfield. But I fear that he is too much a Christian to do that.
One can, of course, draw up quite a laundry list of indictable offences on the part of the Presiding Bishop:
1. Deposing bishops without canonical due process.
2. Evicting members of four diocesan Standing Committees.
3. Calling special diocesan conventions.
4. Appointing “provisional” and/or “interim” bishops.
5. Pursuing lawsuits against laypersons, clergy, bishops, parishes and dioceses.
6. Misappropriating trust funds to pay legal expenses.
But it won’t happen.
Calling all Bishops – aren’t you supposed to be UPHOLDING the Canons of the church?
We shall have to see whether this kind of cynical assessment also amounts to a cynical outcome. Brian fails to remember that the PB is playing on a larger stage than TEC. Actions like these are noted widely. If Communion finally means anything for Anglican Catholic Christianity, the cynical denomination that Brian is prepared to accept and defend may become just that, showing itself by what it contrasts with. Lawlessness does not lead to desuetude. It leads to corruption of those so acting. This is basic Bible 101. It is not clever to map out an outcome of de facto lawlessness and then ask all to acknowledge the cleverness of the map. It simply maps out the logic of Brian, as against the Christianity of Anglicanism world-wide. Which would I wager will survive this season? The latter. Do I believe that anglicans within the US who wish to belong to this will be thwarted by a logic with de facto lawlessness as its end product? No. Brian, your denominational world view needs stretching. Anglicanism isn’t 750K attending church on Sunday in the United States. If you believe that TEC has the power to bring this down by the map you have produced, we can be thankful that God does not operate within these narrow political confines. Never has, and never will. I suppose the saddest question of all is: why would anyone wish to follow Jesus within the logic you chart out? I’d find it spiritually deadening.
#27 writes “4. I suspect we have not heard the end of this story re: Ackerman. Especially if the ‘renunciation in writing’ is a fiction.”
I can’t imagine the truth actually having any consequence with TEC or the AC’s or ABC’s posture toward TEC. Unfortunately, this will probably be another example of their dishonest and vicious ethics that bears no consequences for them.
Dr Seitz+
We’re getting closer to an understanding.
Brian fails to remember that the PB is playing on a larger stage than TEC. Actions like these are noted widely.
I actually do note this. However, I also note that similar actions have happened under ++Frank and ++Edmund. And as you have pointed out in several posts, the resolution of matters internal to a Province is not addressed at the Communion level. I agree that we are an embarrassment on a grand scale.
If Communion finally means anything for Anglican Catholic Christianity, the cynical denomination that Brian is prepared to accept and defend may become just that, showing itself by what it contrasts with.
You claim that I am prepared to accept and defend TEC as it exists today, but that is not true. TEC today is run solely by ++Katharine. I believe that there are good people who do evil things and that there are people who are simply evil in their intent. ++Katharine is, IMO, evil. Her sole purpose is to destroy and not to build up. All ministries at the national level are being dismantled. However, as I have said before, she is a gollum created by the HoB and the HoD. It is a critical mistake to ignore this fact
Lawlessness does not lead to desuetude. It leads to corruption of those so acting. This is basic Bible 101. It is not clever to map out an outcome of de facto lawlessness and then ask all to acknowledge the cleverness of the map.
It leads to both. Take an example from German history. Hitler at first tried a putsch which failed and lead to his imprisonment. He learned from this and used the Constitution to gain control. Did he read the Weimar Republic constitution correctly? Did he abide by the law? No. He won power, brokered it and changed history. ++Katharine has done exactly the same thing. She won power, brokered it and now has changed history. The world is watching. Where is Britain? Where is the US? Where are Bonhoeffer and von Stauffenberg? They are not here and the reason they are not here is that no one is willing to recognize who and what ++Katharine is. Again, it is a critical mistake to ignore this fact
It simply maps out the logic of Brian, as against the Christianity of Anglicanism world-wide. Which would I wager will survive this season? The latter…If you believe that TEC has the power to bring this down by the map you have produced, we can be thankful that God does not operate within these narrow political confines. Never has, and never will. I suppose the saddest question of all is: why would anyone wish to follow Jesus within the logic you chart out?
It is precisely because we follow Jesus that we must understand what is truly happening. An astounding darkness has descended on TEC and a minority of leaders are lighting matches. I am a reappraise, tried and true, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This is bigger than resolutions and position papers. This is shining light on spiritual darkness. I am not in a position to shine much light, but I burn as bright as I can. Those in leadership positions need to start a bonfire.
Will they, Brian? Based on what we’ve experienced so far at the hands of those who could have made a difference at General Convention, I doubt that they will. When reasserter delegates are routinely outmaneuvered and out voted by such huge margins, when those in power see to it that everything is run their way at the expense of those who disagree with them and their agenda, nothing will ever be done. When they permit one small but powerful well-endowed lobby to exercise such inordinate power over the Episcopal Church, any attempt to reform the Episcopal Church and return it to the path from which it has departed, nothing will ever be done!
A reappraiser who judges the PB evil; who calls for resistance a la Bonhoeffer, and instructs (CP) or rejects (ACNA) those who are resisting; and apparently wants this resistance *so reappraising TEC will be, what, healthier for it?* It is difficult to know what position this represents and who shares it. It is not an end game I recognise, nor is it clear who your allies are, or what the point would be. A ‘more moral’ reappraising leader in place? I confess I did not realise that this was the position you were espousing.
RE: “I can’t imagine the truth actually having any consequence with TEC or the AC’s or ABC’s posture toward TEC.”
I agree with that. It took some years to convince me, but I grant that none of this will have any consequence with TEC, the AC, or the ABC. The ABC has spent much time over the past six years explaining that there is nothing that he — or the Primates Meeting, or the ACC, or [obviously] Lambeth — can do, and I now take him at his word.
I am intrigued by what Brian is saying — or at least what I *think* he is saying.
RE: “An astounding darkness has descended on TEC and a minority of leaders are lighting matches.”
I’m curious about several things.
None of these questions are “trick questions” — I don’t have any answers or ripostes in mind and I genuinely want to know Brian’s opinion.
1) Why do you think this has happened? If you are sincere about “an astounding darkness” descending on TEC, when and how did that happen, and why? [And no, I don’t have an answer in mind — I have some *shreds* of ideas . . . but nothing solid, unless we move into the apocalyptic.] Of course, one of the shreds of ideas that I would have would be connected with the foundational worldview of revisionists — but even I think that too simplistic an answer, and I understand that you wouldn’t acknowledge that as a possible answer anyway.
2) I do not think there is any way, any longer, for revisionists and traditionalists within TEC to work together on the “astounding darkness.” I think that all trust is gone, and I do not believe that it will ever be restored, nor probably should it be. If you grant the above, then what should the various factions within TEC pursue, separately, if they all agreed that an “astounding darkness” had descended on TEC.
In other words, if there are any revisionists out there who agree about the astounding darkness, what should they be doing? And of the traditionalists in TEC who aren’t leaving, what should they be doing in their corner?
The actual decline in membership in TEC actually began a half century ago. And at the apex of church membership, I was a young, newly ordained priest. And I think the sort of “training” I received in seminary may have been part of the problem. The study of the Scriptures was dominated by “higher criticism” and the shadow of Rudolf Bultmann. The study of church history ridiculed the history of the church. Situation ethics with a dose of the Social Gospel passed as “moral theology” and “Christian ethics”. The underlying “philosophy” of everything was existentialist, coming from the likes of Nietzsche, Sartre, and the like. None of that stuff was new at the time. The “authoritative scholarship” came out of the German universities of the 19th century. But it was the stuff of which priests were sent out into the missions and parishes of TEC. Some had good enough sense not to buy into the indoctrination; you could parrot enough of the poison to get by if you had some grounding in catholic teaching–classical philosophy and a broad knowledge of history helped–you could come out relatively unscathed. It should be noted that many of us ended up in Rome or Orthodoxy. Some just dropped out. But others so indoctrinated rose to the purple.
In reality this had been going on since the early 1900s and before. “Scholars” did not go to Oxford or Cambridge to learn Anglican theology or biblical scholarship; they went to the German universities to get their doctorates so they could teach in the seminaries.
I would also suggest that TEC was ripe for takeover. It has been, for most of its 2 century history neither “low church” (evangelical) or “high church” (catholic) which have always been the minority parties, but classically “broad church”–i.e., not particularly interested in theology or scripture, much attuned to the secular winds of philosophy and culture of the day. As long as you were willing to do Morning Prayer on Sunday (it really didn’t matter what the content of the BCP was) it was a nice place to have your babies baptized, your sons and daughters married, and in the end to have your funeral. Remember that in the early days TEC wanted to remove the Creeds and some other things from its BCP–it was the insistence of the Church of England that saved them for us.
It was these broad church liberal priests (who became bishops) who formed the laity of TEC, from whom men (and later women) were called to be priests, who would be confirmed in this “faith” in seminaries and who would, in turn, infect the next generation of Episcopalians committed to their “cure”.
I know what you’re saying Ken . . . but the “takeover” of the revisionist gospel that folks like you and me think is so horrible is a-ok with Brian from T19. But along with a takeover by people of Brian’s particular foundational worldview and gospel, is also Brian’s idea that “an astounding darkness has descended on TEC.”
In Brian’s definitions that “astounding darkness” cannot be “revisionism” since he would see that as “a great light.” ; > )
I’m genuinely curious as to how and why that “great darkness” has come about from Brian’s perspective. [Not that I disagree with some of your points . . . ]
Ken, I found your post quite helpful, and shared it with some of my fellow students and professors. At Vanguard University of Southern California, we were taught how to use the tools of “higher cricicism” without having to adopt the philosophies of its progenitors. That has served me well.
Of course, higher criticism does not stand still, and now it is supplemented by tools developed by the post-modern era (such as deconstruction et al). The newer tool that I could find no use for at all was “reader response criticism.” In studying the products of this technique I learned almost nothing at all about the text under consideration, while learning more than I wanted to know about the ‘reader’ who prepared the essay.