The head of the Episcopal Church has warned Pittsburgh Bishop Robert W. Duncan Jr. that he will face civil suits and possible expulsion as bishop if a proposed resolution enabling the diocese to leave the denomination passes during today’s diocesan convention.
A diocesan spokesman said the letter from Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, sent by fax to the Pittsburgh Diocese office late Wednesday, was “intended, honestly, to intimidate the convention.”
The 142nd annual convention is being held today and tomorrow in Johnstown.
Gee, I thought she called it “reaching out”! Are the media as confused about this as they were about the HOB response? Nasty media … no nuance.
My impression has been that these types of threats tends to make parishioners want to get out of TEC all the more.
“Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks” —Matthew 12:34
I find some of the ethics in these coversations interesting. We have a system of hierarchical authority in the Episcopal Church. It is somewhat based on democratic principles that are guided by a set of agreed upon rules/ canons. They aren’t new by any means. In some way order is to be kept and people who hold certain offices are to keep that order under the system. However flawed this is it is how it works from mission congregation all the way up to 815.
Bishop Duncan is well aware of this set of agreed upon rules and canons. While he is protesting how those rules allowed something that is not in keeping with many people’s interpretation of scripture and tradition, none the less he is bound by the same hierarchy.
I suppose it depends on the lense one looks through, but I think a presiding officer of a house of bishops who knows a bishop is working to violate the agreed upon rules who gives fair warning and calls them back- is setting boundries and holding order. It is no differnt than a boss telling a worker his limits and boundries in the work place, a parent giving instruction to children, etc. While Bishop Duncan might think his presiding bishop is not worthy, she is the presiding bishop and this is exactly her role in the hierarchy.
The action is then on Bishop Duncan. He has been duly warned. If he allows this to proceed, then he know the consequences. He has a choice. If he violates the canons, as a holder of office who is bound to uphold the unity of the church, then a process ensues. If he doesn’t then he goes on in his ministry as before.
I pray he makes a the right choice.
[blockquote]It is somewhat based on democratic principles that are guided by a set of agreed upon rules/ canons[/blockquote]
It used to be based on Scripture, Tradition & Reason. /sarcasm
[blockquote]It is no differnt than a boss telling a worker his limits and boundries in the work place, a parent giving instruction to children, etc. [/blockquote]
Except that when the boss becomes abusive, there is a union or a state labor board. If a parent becomes abusive, there is CPS. What does one have when a PB becomes abusive?
Oh, yeah – polity and canons.
#5…Protestantism is not void of constitution, canons, and polity (see Schaff). It even exists in congregationalist systems. I wonder if all this anarchism is a ploy to get one’s way without having to deal within a system. If so, it’s not what Protestantism is about.
As far as abuse, if a leaders upholds the rules, that isn’t abuse, it’s duty.
Plainsparsons,
I think the real crux here is that through democratic action TEC has attempted to make unconstitutional changes by majority vote. Ie replace traditional Christian belief with a new age “New Thing”. Such changes going against the faith once delivered – one could argue should compel people of good faith to view TEC’s hierarchy as a rouge government ie Facism or Communism. Resistance to TEC may be seen as a biblical imperative and allowing TEC to retain property could be viewed as immoral.
[blockquote]If it does pass, Bishop Jefferts Schori could ask a review committee to consider a presentment charge against Bishop Duncan for abandonment of the communion. If the charge is approved, he would have two months to recant his position. If he failed to do so, the church’s House of Bishops would consider the charge. There is no appeal and no right of formal trial outside of a hearing before the bishops.
If the charge is approved by the House of Bishops, the bishop would be deposed, his position in the diocese declared vacant and a new bishop elected.[/blockquote]
This is where I would expect the action to lie – I have not seen a canonical requirement that the legal entity (e.g., a non-stock corporation) of a diocese [b]must[/b] stay a member of GC. Thus, TEC will result to the abandonment of communion argument, which the HoB would likely rubber stamp – even as its constitution claims membership in the AC and the bishop would likely fall under a different portion of the same communion.
Once the see is declared vacant, I would expect the Dio. of Pgh dissenters to sue the diocese seeking election of a new bishop.
Some civil suits may center on an attenuated DFMS/815 Dennis Canon claim (i.e., in contrast to a diocesan claim), or possibly any available procedural irregularity at the conventions.
“result” should be “resort”
To take the comment a bit further than #5, If the boss tells me to cook the books, I walk. I have to be prepared to take the consequences of finding a new job, but my conscience is clear. +Bob has the vast majority of the diocese behind him.
[blockquote]As far as abuse, if a leaders upholds the rules, that isn’t abuse, it’s duty.[/blockquote]
Funny, Warren Jeffs was just sent to prison for enforcing his “church” rules.
But, we shouldn’t worry about that. I mean, so what if a boss enacts rules that endanger employees’ safety, parents enact rules that include daily beatings, or a nation enacts Jim Crow laws. After all, as long as we’re all following the rules…
#10 – Indeed! Well put! 🙂
[i] Comment removed by elf for trying to change topic. [/i]
.
I am unclear why an employment model would be relevant? Membership of a diocese in TEC is more akin to that of membership in an association of legal entities, with the association having certain rules of self organization. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the diocese and the bishop of Pgh are not violating any clear constitutional or canonical requirement (n.b., the accession clause is only required for admission to GC – I have found no obligation of maintenance or obligation of continued membership).
Instead, PB/815/DFMS is threatening to define the charge of ‘abandonment of communion’ to include taking steps that might be used to remove a diocese from TEC/GC.
If they had a better defined canon to use, I am sure they would use it.
As things stand, the various statements, threats, and actions, speak for themselves with respect to integrity, honesty, principle, and biblical standards.
[i] Comment deleted by elf. Off Topic. [/i]
So, in some people’s mind, TEC is no longer part of Christ’s church, under His authority, so it can do whatever it damn well pleases. According to +Duncan and others, TEC is supposed to be under authority as well. Once it declares itself the authority it has lost whatever authority it might have had.
For those making comparisons to our democratic process, might I remind them of a thing in our democratic process called THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE? Here’s the money qoute:
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — 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 here is my application of it:
to secure the propagation of the Gospel, the Church is established on earth, deriving its just authority from the authority of Christ, — That whenever any Form of ecclesiastical Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right and duty of the People to alter or to abolish it
Consider me an Anglican and a patriot