Dear Deputies and First Alternates,
Greetings and Peace to you in the Name of Jesus Christ.
I am writing to you again after, what I perceived to be, a very holy conversation this morning with Deputy John Burwell.
I believe that my letter of yesterday to you may have been misunderstood. I can see how that would be the case. Please let me clarify my intention in writing to you as you approach the special convention in the Diocese of South Carolina.
It is my practice as President of the House of Deputies to write to all deputations as they approach their diocesan conventions and special conventions. I familiarize myself with the content and theme of their convention, and comment upon it, always wishing deputies well and thanking them for their continued service.
The special convention in the Diocese of South Carolina focuses in some measure on whether you or your successors will continue to participate in the councils of the Episcopal Church. Your departure would be a significant loss to me personally, as I deeply value the relationships we have begun to build. It would also be a deep and significant loss to the Episcopal Church as a whole. My desire to keep you within the councils of the Church was at the heart of my letter.
I also felt that it was important, in the spirit of open dialog and mutual accountability, to let you know that my interpretation of the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church, are quite different than the interpretations which inform the resolutions that will come before your special convention. After talking with Deputy Burwell, I can see that discussing this point at such length may have obscured my primary purpose for writing, and for that, I am truly sorry.
I do pray that you and your diocese will continue to send a deputation to the General Convention. I pray, too, that our common call to mission partnerships across God’s church throughout the world will be lived and enacted together as members of The Episcopal Church.
In Jesus we walk together because it simply is so. Thank you for all that you are and for all the gifts you so freely give on behalf of our Beloved Savior.
Peace,
Bonnie Anderson, D.D.
President, The House of Deputies
Well that was a very large crow to swallow and whole — so gracious and narry a burp.
One wonders what John Burwell said.
It would seem that Fr. Burwell practices what he wrote in the material he provided as candidate for bishop in Upper South Carolina:
[blockquote] Conflict is a normal part of life and when dealt with appropriately, conflict can strengthen all
concerned. We are sinners and we all make mistakes, but we live in a culture permeated by divorce, by ego, by consumerism which believes that the customer is always right. Consequently, we love to resign, to withdraw pledges and rise high above those terrible people who do the things that we would never do. When we have grievances with someone, we need to immediately go to the person whose behavior has impacted us and talk to them directly. More often than not, those hurt or offended talk to a multitude of people who have no means of settling the conflict. The multitude then talks to others. Some of this is often done under the seal of confidentiality, which then makes the matter irresolvable. Bishop Edward Salmon was fond of saying that gossip is a form of terrorism. He would remind us that we have terrorists in the Church. They are the people who gossip without any intent of reconciliation. Within the Church we each need to be held accountable for our speech. When people have been wronged, we need to set the matter straight on both sides of the fence as soon as is humanly possible. We all need to assume the responsibility and burden of resolving conflict as Christ on the cross assumed the burden of bridging our separation from God. [/blockquote]
Kudos to Fr. Burwell.
In reading her original letter she seemed particularly concerned about the diocese declaring the actions of the general convention null and void and says that a diocese is not permitted to do that. However, I think she is mistaken. It seems to me that as long as the action of general convention doesn’t impact the constitution and canons of the church then a diocese can declare them null and void because a diocese only agrees to comply with those documents. So in fact, general convention can say whatever it wants to say but those statements are only expressions of that body and are not binding on anyone unless they make it into the constitution and canons of the church or any of the documents referenced by them (such as the BCP). However, I suppose if those in charge misinterpret their own documents to favor their postions then none of that matters anyway and the only rules are the ones they say exist and make up as they go along.
I am amazed at how many tout the authority of scripture, who in a blog like this are so sarcastic as to deny the authority of the second great commandment “and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”. John Burwell is one who takes that seriously, and it shows. He and I can disagree without rancor or “gotchas”!
Oh, drat! I was rejoicing at the tone of Ms Anderson’s first letter (which was clearly penned by an attorney!) – sentiments such as Chancellor Beers – oops, I meant Ms Anderson- expressed therein could not but encourage the faithful remnant to escape TEC, or at least to realize that their continued membership within that organization helps to fund the litigation against us who have already crossed the Red Sea.
Dr. Anderson writes, “It is my practice as President of the House of Deputies to write to all deputations as they approach their diocesan conventions and special conventions.” That would be a fair and reasonable thing to do as President of the HOD, but I am not aware of ever hearing of or seeing such a letter before any of the conventions that I have been to in this diocese. As a priest, I may have missed it. Can any delegate in any diocese confirm that they have received such a letter on the occasion of other conventions? Such confirmation would certainly strengthen her letter following Fr Burwell’s conversation.
‘…and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyselfâ€.’
I’m sure my neighbor would prefer that I give him far more benefit of the doubt that I give myself, and beat up on his mistakes far less than I beat up on my own.
I would like to hear opinions from this august group on a line from the first letter which is not disavowed in this one. A hurried reading of the comments in that post didn’t pick up an answer. In the previous velvet-covered hammer, Anderson wrote that GC decisions are “binding” on dioceses. “Binding” would seem to have only one meaning and it is a strong one.
When GC declared that *God* has called and may call partnered gays (whose unions are “holy love”) to any order of ministry, how does that “bind” the Diocese of SC? *Must* SC begin to function according to this binding declaration of the action of God?
The implied force of “binding” sends chills up my spine for the election of a bishop in my diocese (Upper SC–so near and yet so far away from the historic diocese of SC). Three of our six nominees will evidently seek to follow the path of GC on gay ordinations. Two of these are very strong candidates–one being the Dean of the Cathedral.
Friends, please help me, even if it is the coup de grace.
I am no fan of Ms. Anderson or her theology. But I think this letter should be taken at face value and accepted with charity. When someone says “I’m sorry” that’s pretty much the end of it from a Christian perspective. Time to move on.
Under the mercy,
John
Bull Street
It is my understanding (and I may be entirely incorrect) that what is “binding” in GC resolutions are the actions required and not the beliefs or sentiments. For example, whether God has called or may call those in partnered homosexual relationships is not a “binding” position because it requires no action (such as mandatory ordination) from the Diocese.
[blockquote]Dr. Anderson writes, “It is my practice as President of the House of Deputies to write to all deputations as they approach their diocesan conventions and special conventions.†That would be a fair and reasonable thing to do as President of the HOD, but I am not aware of ever hearing of or seeing such a letter before any of the conventions that I have been to in this diocese.[/blockquote]
I believe there is confusion here between the diocesan deputies to General Convention (who receive the letters before their diocesan convention) and diocesan convention delegates as a whole (who do not, unless they are deputies to GC).
Well, regardless of what Ms Anderson says, I saw the first “threat” come out a few minutes ago.. On a list that will NOT be named, a fellow from NJ said we should warn our priests that signing on/voting yes on either Resolution 1,2, or both could make them subject to deposition.
What do we have here, good cop/bad cop?
Grandmother
Consider the following:
On October 26, 2009 Anderson tells Deputies and Alternates that
-declaring these resolutions “null and void and having no effect in the diocese is contrary to our polity and our Constitution and Canons†referencing the unqualified accession to the TEC Constitution and Canons.
-actions of the General Convention “are binding on dioceses regardless†of whether they “agree with them….â€
-a diocese may voice disagreement with it but may not declare it “to be null and void and of no effect in the diocese.â€
Contrast the previous with the following on the same issues in two letters to the Archbishop:
On July 16, 2009 regarding D025, she and the presiding bishop tell the Archbishop of Canterbury that:
“We understand Resolution D025 to be more descriptive than prescriptive….â€
Webster’s states that prescriptive is “to lay down a rule : dictate†while descriptive is : “informative rather than normative, prescriptive, or emotiveâ€
On July 17, 2009 regarding CO56, she and the presiding bishop tell the Archbishop of Canterbury that:
-the “Book of Common Prayer remains unchanged, the marriage rites are unaltered and the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer define marriage as a “solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God.â€
-the resolution “does not commit any future General Convention to formal adoption of any rites.â€
-“This resolution neither forces nor demands any bishop, diocesan convention, congregation or clergy to take any action it considers contrary to its will.â€
In summary,
To the Archbishop [/b]
DO25 is informative but not a rule.
C056 doesn’t change the Book of Common Prayer, may never be given the full force and effect of the Canons for it may not get adopted in 2012 and does not require any bishop , convention, congregation to follow it if “contrary to its will.â€
VS
To the Delegates to the Diocese of SC Special Convention [/b]
the resolutions are binding regardless of whether agreed with or not, despite the present lack of change in the Book of Common Prayer and even though they may never make it into the Canons.
saying they are “contrary to the will†of the diocese is contrary to the polity, etc of TEC.
AlanR, thank you for putting those quotes side by side. I’m getting really tired of this.
Deception is an ugly thing!
#11 Thank you–I believe you may be correct. But I still have not heard anyone say that yes they have received this kind of letter previously in any diocese. I will be asking one of our GC delegates this same question. I want to accept the apology as sincere and straight forward, and hope that it truly is.
It would appear from this that she has learned that she shouldn’t write quite so clearly or people will be able to get her meaning. So, she needed more practice. The obfuscation is, however, not impressive and she needs a third try. Last strike and all that sort of thing.
Ever since GC Ms Anderson has been flexing her muscles as the Prresident of the SENIOR house at GC. Apparently here her forays went over the line.
#4 – I assume your remarks are against comments like mine.
Yet my understanding of Bonnie and Katherine is much like that so well framed by AlanR in #13. Jesus had choice words for such behavior by leaders in the church in his day. I suppose he was being unloving and therefore breaking the second great commandment? And please don’t say yes to that.
I find Bonnie’s remarks repugnant, [“Your departure would be a significant loss to me personally,”] they are so disingenuous.
And John (Ad Orientum) there is simply too much water under that bridge to take this second letter “at face value.” The last several years of TEC leadership proves that this letter can only be taken for its political value. Being wise as serpants precludes such generosity.
There are two assertions that stand out to me:
#1 That it is the obligation of Bishops/Priests to share in the councils of TEC not walk away from them. This seems to be more of the hollow prevailing view that says ‘dialog’ is the path to holiness. Ms Anderson, everyone has a line in the sand they will not cross. A withdrawl from the ‘councils of the church’ isn’t *taking our marbles and going home* … it is withdrawing from a conversation that is now clearly and only one-sided.
#2 As far as I am concerned the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed are basic. If you cannot affirm their plain meaning and their summary of Christian faith then you should not be wearing a collar or a mitre. Their inclusion in the resolutions is not a mistake, I’m sure. Ms. Anderson corrects them here as if their addition is a mistatement on the part of SC. What if the Dio of SC WANTS to affirm the creeds as essential? Perhaps the addition is a clear assertion on the part of the Dio of SC to reject the notions that: faith has no limits, Jesus is one god among many, we can’t agree on what to believe, we don’t want to state what we believe because it might ‘exclude’ someone, what we believe doesn’t matter as much as what we ‘do’. Yay for SC in wanting to include statements of belief as important pieces of identity!
Alan R, Thanks for bringing these quotes from the *Prez* into clear focus by including them and how the Prez interprets them.
Duplicity is defined by Meriam-Webster as: contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action; especially : the belying of one’s true intentions by deceptive words or action. Yep, no doubt, duplicity is her game. Just one small point, October 26 is Monday. I think you meant October 23 for that date.
Rev. Hale,
Agreed, if you can not affirm the plain meaning of the Creeds, you should not be wearing a clerical collar or mitre nor even wear a cross if you don’t believe and can’t affirm the plain meaning of both of these ancient creeds ? I always thought as Christians we believe those ancient creeds as summary statements of Christian faith.
You are right in that this diocese has been “differentiating” itself from the *national church* for some years now. Yes, i think it would be easily agreed by many if not all in this diocese that these creeds are indeed important statements of belief that describe our common beliefs and are part of our 218 year identity as a diocese.
Never forget that this diocese predates PECUSA/TEC. [An aside:Anyone remember the saying- “I brought you into this world, I can take you out.” I think this is a Bill Cosby saying.] Anyway, I just wish there were a way that the founding dioceses could declare TEC heretical and dissolve the whole thing and reform according to what we have always received as our apostolic faith.
Interesting. I never received letters from her in Florida, Quincy or Louisiana.
This may be way off and I could be totally out of touch and out of it, but I am sensing some fear somewhere in high places of some sort of class-action suit for certain employment terminations that would seem to violate the set procedures set forth in a certain employer handbook…a book called the canons. In any investigations of this sort, and indeed in all of life’s circumstances, documents have meaning that neutral observers can evaluate for themselves. One thing seems certain…certain blogs are being read, marked and inwardly digested.
#6 — as on ’06/’09 general convention deputy, i can indeed confirm that bonnie anderson sends out letters just before diocesan convention. most recently, i received one dated 10/8/09 in preparation for our convention just a week ago.
#9 — thank you for your wisdom. i agree; dr. anderson apologized that her letter led to misinterpretation and clarified herself. that is all. one should accept the genuine apology with grace.
#10 — if gc requires some kind of action, then indeed they become binding on dioceses (e.g., the move toward the revised common lectionary).
#11 — you are correct. the gc deputies from each diocese receive letters, but diocesan delegates (who are not gc deputies) would not.
most everyone else — it saddens me that a gracious letter like this would be so twisted and misrepresented to further ideas that ms. anderson is a sneaky, double-dealing monster. come on, that is really just asinine.
“one should accept the genuine apology with grace.”
Yes. Always. But it does in fact need to be genuine. Too much water under that bridge to think genuine words are suddenly coming forth from Bonnie, Katherine or 815.
Yes, the letter is very gracious. I wish I could correct my errors so well. But we on the orthodox side are jaded. We no longer believe the person that slaps us then says sorry is genuine. There are just too many slaps to believe the “gracious” apologies any longer. Perhaps it is a bit of guilt by association? I think not.
Re # 25
[blockquote] “one should accept the genuine apology with grace.â€
Yes. Always. But it does in fact need to be genuine.[/blockquote]
I don’t remember reading that exception in Scripture. I must have missed it.
“The sign of sincere love is to forgive wrongs done to us. It was with such love that the Lord loved the world.”
-St. Kosmas Aitolos
“Those who busy themselves with the sins of others have not yet begun to see their own.”
-St. Maximos the Confessor “Discourse on Love”
Under the mercy,
John (the first among sinners)
Yes, John, that is why confession of pre-my-generational sin is so popular. Link it to others doing the penance by paying reparations and you have a full-scale Episcopal shindig.
Bonnie Anderson’s past actions are sufficient to understand her original letter’s intent without recourse to any other twisting. This was not actually an apology of a recognizable sort in the vulgar meaning of the word, but it is an apologia for her threats inadequately veiled as seen through the eyes of historical actions taken by her. Any one else remember the bonny Bonnie hit squads for women’s ordination compliance? General Convention cannot bind any subsequent General Convention, remember.