For the sake of the faithful who read widely in the Anglican blogosphere]… I thought it best to address a number of inaccuracies found within the TEC report circulated at the C of E Synod. As a bit of preamble, I am thankful to God that He sees fit to make me a target of such libel, and that my Lent begins with His blessing: “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account” (Matthew 5:11). I am flattered to receive this much ink from TEC! The document seems to imply that I secretly changed the parish charter immediately after my arrival in 1992. Actually, the change in our charter came in 2006, upon a unanimous vote from our Vestry, according to the established by-laws of the parish an in accordance with the existing canons of the Diocese of Georgia, which did not require episcopal notification. The change in charter did not alter our ecclesiastical status, but rather defined our parish theologically, not institutionally, which is the way it had existed from its founding (in 1733) until 1918. The change in charter also brought us up to date with various aspects of Georgia corporate law. The Vestry of Christ Church had for several months requested conversation with the Bishop of Georgia in order to discuss several of our theological concerns with him. After not responding to multiple requests over several months, the Bishop did indeed meet with us, and these(unproductive) discussions present the historical context of our change in our charter, though not necessarily its cause. If I was such a seditious priest, why was I appointed to assist in bringing speakers and programs to diocesan clergy conferences, or appointed dean of the Savannah Convocation (clericus), or even asked to preach at one of the Diocesan Conventions, upon the last-minute cancelation of the invited preacher? Of course, the kicker is, why would the vestry call me and the Bishop of Georgia (then the Rt. Rev. Harry Shipps) interview and approve me if I were such a destructive priest? Keep in mind that TEC was in a different place in 1992, and I am certainly willing to admit so was I. The continued theological fragmentation of TEC continued, and I believe, by God’s grace, my ability to recognize and speak to that fragmentation grew clearer.
The decision to appropriate funds from our Endowment was duly inacted through the Endowment Agreement, which is the legal instrument governing the Fund itself. It required prior public written notice to the congregation, and could have hardly been secretive.
The vote to disaffiliate from TEC was not required by our polity, but was exercised to discern a sense of confirmation from the congregation. Public notice for several weeks was put forth, describing from the by-laws what constituted a “voting member in good standing.” Anyone who wished to vote was allowed to vote, but those votes which were cast by individuals not found on our member-in-good-standing roster were received as provisional votes. The votes was 87% in favor of coming under the ecclesiastical protection of the Province of Uganda, and 13% opposed. There were 28 provisional votes cast. If every provisional vote had been in the negative, the vote would have still been well beyond a “super majority” in favor of disaffiliation. Recently, those provisional votes were opened and counted: 22 in favor of disaffiliation, 6 against. There were over 280 votes cast on that particular Sunday in October, 2007. As far as we can recognize, 22 individuals who may be recognized as somewhat active in Christ Church at the time of the vote are currently worshipping at Christ Church Episcopal.
The figures cast about regarding parish membership are most misleading. Membership roles of old congregations are hard to manage well. An on-roll membership of about 900 would be a good estimate for Christ Church today, though it means little. Our mailing list would be larger; our “members in good standing” list would be smaller. Average Sunday Attendnce (ASA) is probably the best indicator of parish involvement and common life. I checked our worship records, and our ASA for the two years prior to my arrival in 1992 are around 320-350 on a given Sunday, though the numbers were higher from September to May and quite lower in the summer. Today’s ASA at Christ Church is approximatley 375-80 per Sunday, and the variance between summer and the rest of the year is less. In our 2010 stewardship campaign, we received 28 new pledging units, the largest single-year increase in my tenure. This last Sunday, we welcomed five new families into Christ Church. We are very grateful to God for what He is doing in our midst””it is all by His grace and to His glory.
I’m not sure about intimidation. We have had a number of families leave Christ Church over the years, for all sorts of reasons. I can say this: I have never personally sued anyone; but I, along with fourteen other vestry members are being personally sued by the Diocese of Georgia and TEC, as well as Christ Church Episcopal. Would that count as intimidation?
The matter with The Rev. Susan Harrison is the most egregious mis-statement of all. Though we had substantial theoloical disagreements, it was Susan who came to me (in 2005) personlly and informed me that she would be leaving Christ Church and re-assigned to another ministry by Bishop Louttit. We prayed together, hugged one another, and she left. I kept up with her and we prayed for her regularly in Sunday worship during her battle with cancer. Upon hearing of her death, with clear support from Vestry leadership, I offered Christ Church as the venue for her funeral. When I made the phone call, the priest in charge of Christ Church Episcopal and other lay leadership from that congregation were present and discussing funeral plans. Susan’s husband graciously took my call. I went by later to visit the family and was personally informed by him that, while they were most thankful for the offer of Christ Church, they had decided upon a different venue. They repeated their thanks for our offer. I and a significant number of Christ Church parishioners attended Susan’s funeral, though I was unable to receive communion, given our sad divisions.
It is a bit awkward to launch into such personal matters on behalf of my defense. I truly believe in my heart that the Lord Himself is my defense, and though a “miserable offender,” I stand under His most gracious Lordship. Nevertheless, I believe in these conflicted and chaotic times that God is best honored with the truth, and I have done my best to offer it to the readership of Stand Firm for your edification and God’s glory.
May this lenten season bring you God’s peace and grace.
””Marc Robertson
(still) Rector of Christ Church, Savannah
Facts, like the Canons, are irrelevant to TEC.
A note of clarification about Christ Church not being available for the consecration of the bishop elect: The two bishops of Georgia (Louttit and Shipps) were consecrated not at Christ Church; rather they were consecrated at the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist, a gorgeous Roman Catholic Cathedral located in Savannah. The RC Church politely declined the request to host this consecration. No reason was given, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why. It was the decision of the diocese not to use another Episcopal church; rather they spent an enormous amount of money renting a tourist arena. Perhaps the parishioner was simply misinformed or misrepresented.
CBH (#2),
Thanks for the clarification. It was indeed significant and symbolic that the local RC bishop in Savannah refused to let this last Episcopal consecration happen in his place, when the two previous ones had.
Ralph (#1),
I agree with you. Although what Fr. Marc Robertson’s rebuttal reminded me of was John Adams’ famous line (before he became President), [i]”Facts are stubborn things.”[/i]
It’s important that the record be set straight. This kind of false smear campaign by TEC leaders only boomerangs against them and provides further evidence that the duplicitous leaders at 815 care nothing for the truth. You can almost hear the cynical echo of Pontius Pilate long ago in their thinking, Truth? [i]”What is truth?”[/i]
David Handy+
Given the timing of these “depositions,” perhpas +Ohl did this as part of his Lenten [i]self-denial[/i]? You know, like “Hey! Bishop Ohl, what did you give up for Lent”? “Oh, after meditating on it, I decided to give up most of the conservative priests and deacons who are in my [i]provisional[/i] See. I’m hoping this extraordinary act of self-discipline will be an inspiration to others…”
I believe we are looking at a lot of ignorance on the part of TEC. They remind me of the present administration’s misunderstanding of the Tea Party Movement. DGA and TEC can not admit that there are a large number of folks who disagree with them and that these folks are not (in the words of the new bishop) virulent fundamentalists.
Father Robertson’s submission raises a number of points that have been discussed elsewhere in other contexts. I haven’t gone back to re-read the document to which he is responding, but his comments touch on a recurring theme in these separations. There has been a pattern of activity in parishes and congregations where there exists either a widespread dissatisfaction with the Episcopal church at the clergy/vestry level or throughout the parish or both (although my limited experience is that this usually starts with a consensus or near consensus at the clergy/vestry level and then is radiated outward from there) of vestry and clergy taking measures to effect not just a decision to leave, but to put in place mechanisms to leave with property. Such matters as incorporating or otherwise changing basic governance or property documents is part of that process. Another element is put in place voting mechanisms and procedures, including a paring of the rolls of persons eligible to “vote” on the question of separation. This latter is, as Father Robertson indicates, something that probably should be done in any event, because over time, the church membership rolls will accrete a lot of people who are in rare attendance or who have left for a variety of reasons. Nonetheless, I am unaware of any church running up to a separation vote whose stated membership didn’t plummet immediately prior. My parish leaders used to openly glory in a membership figure that was roughly double the number that they posited for the actual voting membership when the separation vote came around (in most jurisdictions, these votes are, as Fr. Robertson indicates, simply a request for affirmation. In Virginia, the votes arguably have legal significance under that state’s unusual statute. In either context, the “votes” come at the end of a process totally designed and controlled by persons who have made a decision to leave). Father Robertson’s discussion of the vote indicates that there were 280 votes for disaffiliation. He provides no figure for total adult (over age 16?) eligible voting members at the time of the vote, but indicates that current membership might be around 900 with ASA of around 350 to 375. The important figures in these votes are the “Yes” votes compared to total membership. It probably is the case that a majority of regular attendees voted as the process was designed for them to vote, but the figures in many of these cases obscure that a number of eligible people don’t vote at all and that the Yes/No figure is not a fully accurate indicator of persons’ passions on the subject.
A point that I have made previously, but think bears repeating despite its resounding unpopularity in certain quarters, is that when clergy and vestry have made the decision in their minds and hearts that they have to leave, they should leave. All the process that Father Robertson describes is process undertaken and created by people who have turned a corner of conscience and are, from that point forward, designing ways and means to take members and property with them. This, I submit, is an ethically untenable position. I have not been persuaded that numerous depositions issued by the national Church are necessary or even legal, but I think that a large part of the stimulus for such measures is that there have been a number of priests who continue to fly the flag of being part of the Episcopal Church long after they have made the decision that they must go. There also have been instances in some dioceses around the country (Pittsburgh, Texas, and California come to mind) where even after clear acts of separation, the departing factions have clung to the nomenclature of things “Episcopal.” I can think of no motivation for such behavior, particularly given the stated disdain the departees hold for The Episcopal Church, other than to cloud legal title and rights of possession to accounts and physical property. The ambiguity of that situation prompts Diocesan or national church authorities to do something to impose some clarity on the situation.
Where the clergy and vestry come to a decision to leave, and then spend months or years remaining in the church devising ways to leave without any (or minimal) sacrifice of property or members, we have a situation that Father Robertson describes, perhaps accurately, but not particularly admirably, in my personal opinion. Vestry members who use their office, particularly where there is no argument that the Diocese itself has left the church (which is the situation affecting Fr. Robertson’s church), to effect alienation of property and accounts surely know that they are taking legal risks. Whether it is wise to assert legal remedies against them is a decision that may vary with circumstances, but it cannot come as a surprise to fiduciaries that they can be held accountable at law for actions that deplete the assets over which they have charge. I don’t see this as having anything to do with “intimidation”. It is a readily predictable consequence of particular behaviors. And I very much doubt that anyone who feels strongly that their decision to leave the Episcopal Church is correct is intimidated in the least by it.
In my opinion, your premise is altogether wrong. It was the national church who “left”. The members of those churches have an obligation to those who
have built and supported those churches to defend and preserve them on behalf of the Great and Glorious God who blessed them and revealed Himself to them mercifully for oh so many years, centuries. They did not join a “club”.
p.s. that comment was respectfully intended for #6, NoVA Scout
Actually, CBH and NoVa seem to agree that those who no longer agree should have the integrity to leave. But it is also true that it is the TEC leadership that has left the faith. If Spong, Robinson, Schori, etc. had any integrity (ironic , no?), they would have admitted that they did not embrace the faith of the church and left long ago. Instead they have stolen an entire national church without apology. No amount of rationalization can cover the fact that such reappraisers have not upheld their vows to the “doctrine, discipline, and worship” of TEC.
#9. I think I was misunderstood. I see no reason to abandon our churches until every last effort is made to restore and sustain the historic faith that has been handed down to us. Certainly I would not suggest that we abandon our churches to those who do not now nor ever have loved them.