The House of Bishops is proceeding with disciplinary action against three of the six bishops who have resigned from The Episcopal Church during the past year. The bishops were briefed on active cases during an executive session of the fall meeting held Sept. 20-25 in New Orleans.
An ecclesiastical trial against the Rt. Rev. William Cox is still pending, despite the fact that he transferred to the Anglican Church of Southern Cone last March. Bishop Cox told The Living Church he was not aware that he was still a target of interest to the ecclesiastical court.
Bishop Cox served as Bishop Suffragan of Maryland from 1972-1980 and assisting Bishop of Oklahoma from 1980-1988. He previously admitted ordaining two priests and a deacon at Christ Church in Overland Park, Kan., in 2005 after he was asked to do so by the Primate of Uganda. A month later, he returned to Christ Church and led a service of confirmation.
“The canons of The Episcopal Church require bishops to receive permission to resign from a majority of bishops with jurisdiction. Bishops Herzog, Pope and Steenson did request and receive such approval. Bishops Bena, Cox and Fairfield wrote Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori informing her of their transfers, but they did not request approval for their actions from the House of Bishops.”
The way charitable adults could handle this would be for the HOB to approve these transfers.
The way Christians might handle this would be to wish them Godspeed and be thankful for the spreading of the Gospel through these men.
The way a corporation might handle this is to see this as an attack on an exclusive franchise and take legal action.
Which action seems closest to the response of the PB?
The way charitable, Christian adults could have handled this was to simply seek permission rather than running from potential presentment or just leaving a note.
The imbecility of this is amazing. Just consider the time and money that will be (and already has been) expended on “trying” these bishops, the end result of which will be nothing with respect to them (they’ve left the Episcopal Church). Of course it will produce an expensive slap in the face to the rest of the Communion, and a genuflecting toward the god Polity. Even in raw political terms it’s stupid, as it creates more “martyrs” to drive home the point of how petty and vindictive these so-called liberals are to those who don’t succomb to their Soviet-style insistence on conformity. Is this really the way the average pew-dweller wishes his or her tithes to be spent? On the one hand, these bishops can just ignore these trials as stupid and irrelevant. On the other, perhaps a public trial that would show the world how nasty KJS and her winged monkeys in the HOB and 815 are, and how unconcerned they are with anything approaching the Christian faith.
What is the penalty for leaving TEC? Getting thrown out after you have left?
“Bishops Bena, Cox and Fairfield wrote Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori informing her of their transfers, but they did not request approval for their actions from the House of Bishops.”
And they waited until now exactly for what reason? Absolutely no integrity on Schori’s part or HoB in hearing this stuff.
“On the other, perhaps a public trial that would show the world how nasty KJS and her winged monkeys in the HOB and 815 are, and how unconcerned they are with anything approaching the Christian faith.” That about says it all.
Bp. Bena, you have friends and defenders. Hold up your head. You are loved and prayers surround.
What is the penalty for leaving TEC? Getting thrown out after you have left?
Actually, the distinction matters very specifically in this instance. The ABC has recognized the polity of TEC. Because these bishops have gone to other Anglican Provinces they would normally be considered bishops in the Anglican Communion. However, because they did not follow the rules of their releasing jurisdiction, if they are deposed then the ABC will recognize that deposition. Then, even if they are re-ordained by their new Province, they will not be recognized as bishops of the Anglican Communion. This isn’t an issue for bishops transferring to other denominations.
And they waited until now exactly for what reason? Absolutely no integrity on Schori’s part or HoB in hearing this stuff.
Again, the question is easily turned on the departing bishops. They lacked integrity by trying to leave quickly and without approval.
One of the problems witn this is that both sides in the cases of Bishops Herzog, Pope and Steenson agree that there has been a jurisdictional shift on the part of the individuals involved.
In the cases of Bishops Bena, Cox and Fairfield, there is no such unanimity, as the aforementioned bishops consider themselves still to be under provinces in union with Canterbury. Why the Presiding Bishop can’t simply ask them not to exercise their episcopal office on behalf of an “Episcopal” congregation (and then proceed to trial if they decline) is puzzling.
It would seem Bishop Wimberly will get to cast the deciding vote on whether to go to trial (since presumably Frade and Lee will concur), so it may cast an illuminating light on where one of the Windsor bishops stands.
This is truly atrocious.
“if they are deposed then the ABC will recognize that deposition”
I wonder.
I think a point is coming where a lot are going to say is this a church which conducts itself in a Christian manner. Do we want to be in Communion with them.
Actually pageantmaster, I think you are right. The ABC has done such a poor job at leading that I think schism is now simply unavoidable. The vast majority of the current Anglican Communion will become something else. The remaining Anglican Communion will indeed be very small (probably just First World countries plus South Africa, Brazil and a few others).
Brian – I think that would be very sad. But the military trains keep heading for the border.
I also wouldn’t assume that the north will go off with TEC – I am not sure anyone is very impressed with the way they have handled this.
The ABC remains in my confidence and my prayers.
Brian fm T19,
Your attempts to ‘spin doctor’ as much news as possible in favor of Ms Schori and her fellow revisionists causes me to just ‘scan over’ your comments.
The serious implications, that is, the immediate effects and lasting after-effects, of a national level trial trial being conducted by ECUSA’s radical leadership cannot be ‘papered over’ by ‘spin-doctoring.’
If the accused bishops attend court and stand and face their accusers and then are permitted to explain their cases, then this event will have tremendous impact within ECUSA and the greater Anglican Communion. Particularly if the ‘poorly buried’ evidence of heresy within ECUSA over the past 40 years is made public in a clear and unequivacable manner during the trials.
The facts of what has happened over the past 40 years is a ‘clear-cut case’ of “the evidence speaking for itself.” And these trials are a clear-cut example of ECUSA’s radical leadership attempting to ‘consolidate’ their political gains within ECUSA.
The most important outcome of this ‘Trial of the Bishops’ will be its public information impact upon all who are still Episcopalians. This might start a ‘civil war’ of sorts within ECUSA.
For example, Bishop Dave Bena is a much loved and much trusted bishop within the Diocese of Albany. This orthodox Anglican diocese might conceivably remain quiescent, because of the nature of its people, during much of the dissension going on on both sides in ECUSA, but if the ECUSA’s radical leadership harms +Dave, watch out!
I believe that many other such situations exist among the rank-and-file Episcopalian in ECUSA. The followers of T19 surely know of them.
I have a hard time taking the enforcement of “canon law” seriously when this is the same church that has significantly altered four sacraments (ordination, baptism, eucharist and marriage) without “approval” from any sort of legislative motion or official ecclesiastical polity. What a freakin’ joke.
I would be so sad to have leaders that press charges against a godly, spirit filled octogenarian. What an embarrassment. Bp Cox tried to avoid this PR disaster for the revisionists by graciously resigning. Now, the politycos want to argue that he didn’t resign “properly.” Go ahead, shoot your self in the foot.
[blockquote]The remaining Anglican Communion will indeed be very small (probably just First World countries plus South Africa, Brazil and a few others). [/blockquote]
Well, I certainly hope you and all your revisionista bretheren are happy in your tiny little communion. You could have been a part of a large and vibrant worldwide communion but for your insistence on carrying on actions that were guaranteed to torpedo the old Anglican Communion.
the snarkster
“The remaining Anglican Communion will indeed be very small (probably just First World countries plus South Africa, Brazil and a few others).”
Don’t count on South Africa with its new archbishop – or even England. Its the wicked evos who are keeping the CofE alive – and they are in no mood to be kicked around. They have the numbers and the money – & they’ll use them.
My grandfather (1886 – 1977) practised law for 66 years, 28 of ’em as a judge. He observed, quite trenchantly, IMO:
“When you abandon the absolute standards of right and wrong, you lose any basis for justice. What remains is a raw struggle for power in which those who adhere to classic standards are at a profound disadvantage.”
What strikes me repeatedly is the degree to which ECUSA has devolved to mere power politics. They may toss out God-language all over the place, but have obviously become little more that a very worldly bunch of power-mongers.
What comes from KJS and 815 these days … comes from the sue-ers.
Any doubt that 815 (Schori and Beers) are pursuing a scorched earth policy should be banished.
Question: If a suffragen bishop is elected/hired by a non-TEC diocese in the Anglican Communion (assuming for a moment that no sacred boundaries are being crossed) is that bishop still required to get permission from TEC bishops to leave — or are there other canons that apply? In other words, are these charges again a selective or misappropriated use of the canons?
I don’t normally think this way, but all trust is gone for 815.
Brian, in my opinion, TEC just shot themselves in the foot……the fools!
If a suffragen bishop is elected/hired by a non-TEC diocese in the Anglican Communion (assuming for a moment that no sacred boundaries are being crossed) is that bishop still required to get permission from TEC bishops to leave—or are there other canons that apply?
Yes. S/He must get approval before leaving TEC for another Anglican Communion Province. If they got to a Province or denomination not in the Anglican Communion, they should do the right thing like +Steenson et al did, but it wouldn’t make any practical difference (unless they wanted to later return to an AC province).
“If the accused bishops attend court and stand and face their accusers and then are permitted to explain their cases, then this event will have tremendous impact within ECUSA and the greater Anglican Communion. Particularly if the ‘poorly buried’ evidence of heresy within ECUSA over the past 40 years is made public in a clear and unequivacable manner during the trials.
The facts of what has happened over the past 40 years is a ‘clear-cut case’ of “the evidence speaking for itself.†And these trials are a clear-cut example of ECUSA’s radical leadership attempting to ‘consolidate’ their political gains within ECUSA.”
Well said # 13. #14 too.
That Spong, Pike, et al can go on and on without presentment but this brings action is transparent hypocrisy and shows the empty purple shirts and hearts of these 815 types.
We see again clearly that liberalism and intolerance are one and the same. It was Aristotle who once said, “Where there is no conscience, there is only law.”
>i?Brian fm T19,
Your attempts to ‘spin doctor’ as much news as possible in favor of Ms Schori and her fellow revisionists causes me to just ‘scan over’ your comments.
Except for this one.
The serious implications, that is, the immediate effects and lasting after-effects, of a national level trial trial being conducted by ECUSA’s radical leadership cannot be ‘papered over’ by ‘spin-doctoring.’
No. There is no question that it will have after-effects, but the question is how serious they are. If rogue Primates like ++Akinola complain, it will fall on deaf ears. The only important opinion is Canterbury’s and we know his will be more impotent than important.
If the accused bishops attend court and stand and face their accusers and then are permitted to explain their cases, then this event will have tremendous impact within ECUSA and the greater Anglican Communion. Particularly if the ‘poorly buried’ evidence of heresy within ECUSA over the past 40 years is made public in a clear and unequivacable manner during the trials.
First, they won’t bother to attend. They and their reasserting supporters will cry foul and not bother (ala Don Armstrong). Second, they have no defense. They can’t claim heresy as it is not a defense. They can’t claim they would not have gotten permission because they didn’t wait to see.
Additionally, do you really think that the high profile comments, articles, letters, ultimatums, etc. published by learned bishops from all over the Anglican Communion have had any impact, let alone a tremendous impact?
The facts of what has happened over the past 40 years is a ‘clear-cut case’ of “the evidence speaking for itself.â€
OK.
And these trials are a clear-cut example of ECUSA’s radical leadership attempting to ‘consolidate’ their political gains within ECUSA.
How does this consolidate gains within TEC?
The most important outcome of this ‘Trial of the Bishops’ will be its public information impact upon all who are still Episcopalians. This might start a ‘civil war’ of sorts within ECUSA.
And it might warrant a smal blurb in your local paper. No one cares AnglicanFirst.
For example, Bishop Dave Bena is a much loved and much trusted bishop within the Diocese of Albany. This orthodox Anglican diocese might conceivably remain quiescent, because of the nature of its people, during much of the dissension going on on both sides in ECUSA, but if the ECUSA’s radical leadership harms +Dave, watch out!
There isn’t any harm, he is simply being held accountable for wrongful action. The same as any of us would expect to be.
I believe that many other such situations exist among the rank-and-file Episcopalian in ECUSA. The followers of T19 surely know of them.
No doubt.
I would not bet on Cantuar recognizing their depositions in the long run. Maybe it’s just me, but the reading I’ve gotten from RW is that he will let the communion as a whole make the determination on this. It isn’t as though he hasn’t been sending clear signals that ECUSA’s polity is not going to pretect them from chastisement.
It would appear that the article emphasizes the wrong canonical point here. Looking at Canon III.12.7ff, it’s hard to imagine that failure to notify the PB or the HoB could possibly be a triable offense, since in most cases from the tenor of the Canon, approval of the resignation is automatic absent some substantive objection from a member of the HoB.
Likewise “Abandonment of Communion” is inapplicable, since TEC regards itself as still in communion with all the other Provinces.
The appropriate section would appear to be III.12.8h — [blockquote] (h) A resigned Bishop may only perform any episcopal act at the request of or with the permission of the Bishop Diocesan within that Bishop’s Diocese. A resigned Bishop may, by vote of the Convention of any Diocese and with the consent of the Bishop of that Diocese, be given an honorary seat in the Convention, with voice but without vote, or be given an honorary seat in the Cathedral of any Diocese, by and subject to the authority competent to grant such seat. The resigned Bishop shall report all official acts to the Bishop Diocesan and to the Diocese in which the acts are performed. These provisions shall also be applicable to a resigned Bishop of another Church in communion with this Church, subject to the approval of competent authority within the other Church, where such approval may be required.[/blockquote]
— which is iIrc the same canon under which +Cox has been charged. Have these bishops actually performed any episcopal acts yet?
Craig
The canon is a triable offense
Likewise “Abandonment of Communion†is inapplicable, since TEC regards itself as still in communion with all the other Provinces.
It’s communion with TEC, not the AC. Our canons only apply to us.
After all is said and done, it’s simply a case of getting “fired” after you’ve “quit”.
That Spong, Pike, et al can go on and on without presentment but this brings action is transparent hypocrisy and shows the empty purple shirts and hearts of these 815 types.
I agree with you that +Spong and some others should be brought up for presentment, but don’t put all the blame on 815 (which is only the PB anyway).
At the time of the trial of +Righter for ‘heresy,’ I had a conversation with a reasserter bishop who was one of the presenters. If you recall, there were 5 bishops that were going to be brought up on presentment charges and +Righter was the first. He was chosen first because his ‘offense’ was the earliest. Among the 5 bishops was +Spong. The trial was not easy and the reappraisers made it a difficult path to travel. At the time, I was a reasserter. We were all upset at the trial court’s decision that a bishop could only be found guilty under that particular canon for violating ‘core doctrine.’ This basically eliminated 4 of the 5 bishops from being found ‘guilty.’ In my conversation with the reasserter bishop, I asked why they were refusing to go forth with the presentment of +Spong. After all, they had a definitive ruling on ‘core doctrine’ and +Spong violated that doctrine in several of his writings. The bishop told me that it would just make +Spong more of a national figure and help him sell books. So, the reasserters did then (and do now) have a slam dunk case against +Spong, but none of them have the will to do anything about it.
“The vast majority of the current Anglican Communion will become something else. The remaining Anglican Communion will indeed be very small (probably just First World countries plus South Africa, Brazil and a few others).â€
Hah! you just have to laugh at the idiocy of this statement!
This is a little like the fingernails in the waste-basket consoling each other that they are the true “body”. That big lug with the hair, head, neck, torso, waste and legs walking around the bathroom, is merely a cast-off…
The very idea that several hundred thousand secularized old people (the community Brian’s rump church will devolve into within the next two decades) are the “TRUE” anglican community and those 90+million actual-Christians around the world calling themselves Anglican are the pretenders… Hah!
On reflection “idiocy” is a poor choice of words and I apologize. I should have said “silliness”.
“And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, ”
And meanwhile, the foot exclaims to the eye: “whew, we’re finally free of that constricting body!”
Cabbages
Numbers do not make you Abglican, only being in communion with Canterbury makes you Anglican. It may indeed not be Christian or faithful, but it will be Anglican. As for the ‘actual-Christians,’ in this case a rose by any other name will not smell as sweet 😉
This is just another deplorable action from TECCorp and it is what we have come to expect from them. Brian, you can spin it any way you like, it still comes out to TECCorp protecting turf. As someone else has pointed out (#14), TECCorp has a selective and idiosyncratic way of applying canon law.
#30 Cabbages — personally I’d go along with either term.
#26 Brian — In canons dealing with sacramental function, “churches in communion with this Church” is carefully specified — see for example IV.9.1. I don’t understand the basis for your assertion.
#29 That is lacking in kindness. BrainT19 is very wrong, but he is a brother.
Albany*
He apologized in #30, but I wasn’t offended.
Thanks though!
“Numbers do not make you Abglican, only being in communion with Canterbury makes you Anglican.”
Now we’re just playing with definitions. It’s telling though that to reasserters, theology (i.e. do you even believe in God, much less the divinity of Christ) and scripture are secondary (if even that) to what it means to be an Anglican, while adherence to a hierarchical structure (and cannons against “border crossing”) are of primary importance. I guess if you don’t believe in anything, but see the instutution as simply some sort of club with neato rituals and incense and whatnot, the rules of the club “as a club” would be more important than whatever the original mission of the club was(that whole Christianity thing, in this instance)…
#26 Brian—In canons dealing with sacramental function, “churches in communion with this Church†is carefully specified—see for example IV.9.1. I don’t understand the basis for your assertion.
Craig, after reading the canon again I think you are correct.
Cabbages
That’s a rather simplistic reduction of what reappraisers believe. Many of us believe in things similar to what the reasserters do. However, we do preach a different Gospel, but a Gospel nonetheless. Most of us recognize the divinity of Jesus. Most of us recognize the Scriptures as Divinely Inspired Word of God. The devil is in the details, so to speak.
#37 Cabbages:
Somehow, in the event of such a split as Brian predicts — and I agree that it seems to me like one of the more likely scenarioes, although not the only one — I doubt that the provinces-in-communion-with-Nigeria-et-al are going to be too stressed about whether they’re the “real” Anglican Communion. They will probably call themselves the Southern Anglican Communion or the African Anglican Communion or the Orthodox Anglican Communion or some other such name and get on with their lives.
But Brian is right: historically, the most common definition of membership in the Anglican Communion has been being in communion with the See of Canterbury. If the realignment is such that TEC, Canada, and England are on one side, and Nigeria, Uganda, etc., etc., are on the other side, then it’s obvious that the latter portion will have by far the greater number of members — nobody is disputing that — but they won’t be part of the Anglican Communion as it has historically been understood. They’ll be a new communion of churches in the Anglican tradition.
And they’ll be Anglican Christians to the core…….with the emphasis on “Christians.”
I am puzzled by this extraordinary assumption that either the CofE or our bishops are prepared to be relegated to a ‘rump’ Communion with TEC even if the ABC were able or minded to do so, and I see no evidence to suggest that he would be. Perhaps the perspective in the States is different but in the UK I see the everyday links with provinces and dioceses across the Communion and I do not believe for a moment that we are prepared to see those severed, much as we love our troublesome American cousins.
As far as I can see the ABC has, as he has said many times, done his level best to give people the time and space to reflect and continue talking and there is no doubt that this has been productive particularly with Canada, but also to a degree with TEC. We do not know how the PB replied to the ABC’s request to confirm whether the JSC understood correctly what the HOB had told them.
Unfortunately the resumption of the Terror by TEC, clearly planned by the HOB even as they were meeting with the JSC and with the ABC in September and in the Executive Council recently when they claimed to be discussing mission and the MDG’s just makes one question whether they were just playing the ABC and JSC to keep them onside while they consolidated their new Terror campaign.
BfT19, the call for abiding by standards of behavior is singularly rich coming from you in defense of ECUSA/TEC. Let me thank you for your addition of much humor to my day. I do appreciate it!
By the by, do you have the scoop on what the new small ‘communion’ will be named? I’m betting on TEC, myself, with the rampant hubris of the ECUSA/TEC, but I suppose, in an attempt to signal its “inclusiveness” it could be the GLBTT?TEC (though I’m not sure how to pronounce that) in honour of its gospel. Though, I confess, RumpTEC has a certain charm and – if I may say so – picturesqueness not often found in truth-in-advertising. The latter certainly has truthiness, too.
Brian, legal proceedings against retired/transferred Bishops is much like the sound of one hand clapping in the woods.
I grieve: My old Church keeps making herself look more and more silly, more and more vindictive, more and more desperate, more and more apostate, more and more non-relevant. It breaks my heart.
But you’re exactly right about the case against Mr Spong and the reasserters’ failure in disciplining him (#28). That descision has certainly turned around and bit them. They should have done the right thing and let the Holy Spirit deal with the fallout.
One VERY good development, though: Lately it looks like ++Akinola is begining a move in the direction of a new focal point for the Anglican Communion, away from the ABC and towards the Primates assembled. Rowan can holler, and Ms Schori along with him, but the true locus of the Communion is the Primates *IF* they are united enough to assert themselves.
The “historical understanding” of the Communion as centered around the ABC can easily change and may be in the process of doing so.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><
There’s no reason Spong couldn’t be hauled up on a presentment charge. The first necessity for such a presentment based on theology and doctrine was accomplished many years ago when a formal “Disassociation” was accomplished by members of the HOB. As far as I know, that still stands.
RGEaton
Well, then, why not? Maybe Ms Schori would think she had to discipline someone since her letter to +Iker like she did with Mr Bennison before her letter to +Duncan? At least, it might put someone opn the spot?
Why not? Politics? Loss of courage?
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><
By the by, do you have the scoop on what the new small ‘communion’ will be named?
Yes. The Anglican Communion.
The “historical understanding†of the Communion as centered around the ABC can easily change and may be in the process of doing so.
I hear this a lot and I always ask the same question: Do you know what the word ‘Anglican’ means?
I am puzzled by this extraordinary assumption that either the CofE or our bishops are prepared to be relegated to a ‘rump’ Communion with TEC even if the ABC were able or minded to do so, and I see no evidence to suggest that he would be.
The policy of the ABC has consistently been to let others act. Following this pattern, when members of the Global South decided to brak away, he will say: “Well, I am sad and troubled that they did that.” and then get on with the business of the AC.
[blockquote]However, because they did not follow the rules of their releasing jurisdiction . . .[/blockquote]
Hey, Brian! They’re RETIRED WITH NO JURISDICTION!!!
BfT19, love your chutzpah, Dude. Long live the Reveolution et alia.
I believe you feel a tremor of reality in the offing. But you surely prefer RumpTEC, correct? ;>)
Perhaps TEC will find the real Anglican Communion, following ++Akinola’s/Venables’ initiatives, will have walked away from them leaving them behind… and they’ll have to come up with a Name for their “communion” !^_^! RumpTEC, while it does have a certain ring to it, probably won’t suit TEC’s sense of “dignity”. One wonders what they’ll choose!
Would a contest help?
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><