We note with great sadness the retaliatory canonical actions of certain members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, a Province of the Anglican Communion, against a Bishop of another Province of the Anglican Communion, the Right Reverend John David Schofield, Bishop of San Joaquin. We applaud, Bishop Schofield’s Primate, (since December 8, 2007) the Most Reverend Gregory Venables, for coming to the defense of one of his bishops.
We further must call into question the use of the particular Canon pertaining to the abandonment of the Communion inasmuch as the American Province is not a Communion. That particular designation is reserved for the worldwide expression of Anglicanism. In an age when Christianity must be increasingly serious in its endeavors to proclaim the received Gospel of Jesus Christ and to take seriously the Great Commission to “go and make disciples of all nations,” by baptizing, teaching, and obeying all that our Savior has commanded, we are distressed by litigious behavior that inhibits mission ministry.
Forward in Faith North America has endeavored to provide a safe place for orthodox Christians, and has sought a variety of measures, such as Alternative Primatial Oversight, as a means of preserving the “Faith once delivered to the saints.”
We commend Bishop Schofield, as one of the founding members of Forward in Faith North America.
Good for Bishop Ackerman!
With all the back and forth I read about TEC inhibiting bishops who are standing firm, this statement hits it in a nutshell.
When read with the Radner piece and the statement from +Iker it is my prayer that there will be some significant public repudiation of the PB’s behavior at the HOB in March. Might this be a last chance for the Windsor bishops to distinguish themselves?
frianm said,
“Might this be a last chance for the Windsor bishops to distinguish themselves?”
I don’t think so. The passive Windsor bishops are ‘cautious’ men, cowering in their fox holes, waiting for the barrage to lift.
I don’t think that the passive Windsor bishops will be receiving and combat decorations for exhibiting ‘moral courage.’
I think Ian has it right. The Windsor group caved in New Orleans. As a unified group will they have the cojones to stand up and say this is wrong and will have no part in such a travesty of justice even at the expense of walking out of the meeting?
Ho-hum. More word games about “communion.”
Isn’t it strange how The Episcopal Church now refers to themselves as a so-called “communion?” But then, there might be a tiny grain of half-truth here, in that TEC is widespread outside our own shores; having spread their influence to other countries.
The inhibition of our bishop……reprehensible though it was……was not unexpected, as we all know. It was also utterly meaningless and useless…….an exercise in spitefulness and futility. I can only think that it made Katherine Jefferts Schori feel good.
It certainly made ME feel good; knowing that +John-David was no longer under her thumb…..as if he had ever felt that he was!
It isn’t abandonment of the Communion, as in the Anglican Communion, but abandonment of communion with this Church (The Episcopal Church). The Canon says nothing about abandoning connection with the Anglican Communion, but abandonment of communion with this Church, the Church to which his vows were made.
Either the good Bishop is misspeaking or he is trying to spin the situation.
Bishop Schofield has clearly “abandoned the communion” (think of this as legal, rather than theological language) of TEC. (With good reason, most of us would agree.) He is not a bishop of TEC, as stated by his superior, Archbishop Venables.
TEC is now going through the formal motions of acknowledging this fact. The forms must be observed (“all hail holy polity!”) but it is very much a case of “firing” someone who quit. I see no persecution here or, for that matter, any meaningful import at all!
The case of +Duncan, however, is of a very different order and a clear abuse of the canons. The bishop of Pittsburgh has remained in TEC (and endured some rather pointed personal criticism by his ostensible friends for doing so!) and remains a member in good standing of the House of Bishops until such a time as he explicitly breaches that relationship. At that point, the “abandonment of communion” (again, of the TEC) clause would kick in, but not before.
Bob G. [#8] is correct about the canonical language, which refers to “abandon[ment of] the communion of this Church.” The context leaves no room for doubt that the phrase “this Church” refers to TEC.
I can’t believe Bishop Ackerman hasn’t read this language. The only possible conclusion is that he is spinning.
William – I do agree. That is the reason that the three elder bishops with jurisdiction did not approve Katherine’s request for inhibition. I will say, however, that through much of +Duncan’s rhetoric over the last year or so, I can certainly understand why anyone could already conclude that he is intent on leaving TEC – thus abandoning communion with this Church.
Whether he actually does it or not is yet to be seen. Whether he does it or not with his diocese is yet to be seen, too.
Bob G+, I hope and pray that he does!
In a related “house cleaning” move, TEC has declared that Ted Yumoto, currently serving as president of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, has “vacated” his TEC Executive seat and will be replaced.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_94249_ENG_HTM.htm
Re: +Quincy’s statement, hear hear!
[url=http://aconservativesiteforpeace.info]Blog.[/url]
#8 & #10 ~ It’s too bad, really, that TEC can’t get it right with this “Church” thing. It really should be “denomination.” There is, in truth, only ONE Church. Then again, there are none so blind as those who will not see …
T
How about we declare TEC has abandoned the Anglican Communion and therefore no longer considered part of it.
Tikvah (#15) – the interpretation of that phrase has not changed since our beginnings. To try to spin the terms to mean something that they have never meant, which is what some who want to replace TEC in the USA and kick-out TEC out of The Anglican Communion are trying to do, is innovation. Two wrongs do not make a right.
But, BOB, it’s TEC that has declared itself out of step with the rest of the Communion, by her own actions and declarations. Why shouldn’t those faithful to the Word revealed, handed down, etc. be allowed to remain in Communion while taking a stand for the Lord, and those who choose to walk apart (TEC) be allowed to form their own denomination apart from the Communion?
libraryjim (#18) – We may desire all kinds of things and demand them to be so. The fact has been, and still is, that TEC is still in the Anglican Communion and is still recognized as so officially by all the Instruments of Unity, despite what individual primates proclaim. We still are in a democratic Communion, and no group has “kicked us out.” Anyone is “allowed” to remain in Communion, but there are formal ways and means of being in the Communion. These are being terribly tested right now, but nothing has as of yet officially changed.
Whether any of us like the direction or policies of the leadership of TEC or not, the House of Bishops has continued to indicate that it wishes to remain part of the Communion. The ABC abides by that, as have the four Instruments at this point. TEC has not declared itself to be or formed anything other than what it has always been, regardless of the heresy of some or the faithfulness of others. And, despite the want of individual or groups of primates, bishops, priests, deacons, or lay people.
We live by the Rule of Law and democratic forms of governance Communion-wide. That hasn’t changed.
Which means that it is time for a change, then.
By the way, there also has to be a means in place to ALLOW dioceses who wish to disaffiliate from TEC and remain part of the Communion to do so. Individual dioceses have such measures in place (such as in San Juaquin and Fort Worth), and these need to be respected and honored by TEC and the ABC. Just because they voted once-upon-a-time to join TEC shouldn’t mean that they are members for life no matter what! That’s not democratic.
Bob G+ You just don’t get it. You are talking about what you believe is corporate law and calling it Communion. The reasserting bishops and the majority of their flock are talking a different language. When you say democracy, you also seem to take a position against Amendment I of the Constitution and the very spirit of the concept of freedom of religion. Please let the Churches take their own property. It is theirs! A bishop’s first loyalty is to God as his conscience so dictates. If you take this by the numbers and the court of public opinion within Christendom, I think you will see that these men have the support of the majority of the Anglican Communion, the Orthodox Church, the evangelical protestant churches and the Holy See of Rome (have I left anybody out?). What you say may make sense to you in a secular way, but not within the nature of the brotherhood of Christianity. By inferring that these men are rebels by discussing only polity, you totally leave out the concept of conscience and a larger loyalty. It takes courage to put conviction first, and I totally admire these men who know where the Lord is leading.
Cole – I do get it, although you don’t think I do.
Can a bishop in the Church of Rome decide to leave and take the parish buildings and everything else with him? Of course not. Can an Orthodox bishop decide to take all his parishes and buildings and endowments and leave the Orthodox jurisdiction for some other one? No! When the Church of England was established it kept the Episcopal form of governance – a Church of Bishops under Canon Law. This is our legacy and the way churches catholic are governed. The Episcopal Church incorporated a bit more democratic forms than some of the other Provinces in the Communion, but we are still Episcopal and hierarchical – a church of Bishops. Always have been.
Why do people insist that we should suddenly be like the congregationalists or Protestant-American-Evangelicals in governance? The parishes do not “belong” to the local clergy or people, as in ownership, in TEC anymore than they do in the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches. Secular courts may side with congregationally minded Episcopalians/former Episcopalians who want to take the parish property and go off to another jurisdiction, but the ruling would be in line with secular thought and congregational polity – not traditional Anglicanism or episcopa/catholic forms of governance.
People have freedom to go and do whatever they want to go and do with reference to religion wiot – and any other freedom prescribed to us by the Bill of Rights. Freedom of Speech does not mean I can yell fire in a theater. Freedom of Assembly does not mean I have the right to gather to plot the destruction of a federal building with my compatriots. Freedom of Religion does not mean I have the right to engage in blood sacrifice. We all live within the tension for freedoms and responsibilities under the law. We are a people who live by the Rule of Law, no matter whether we like the particular laws or not. Chaos only results – to our detriment.
In the Episcopal Church, we function under Canon Law. If we don’t like the canon, there are ways and means to change the law. If a minority doesn’t get its way, then there is the principle of the Loyal Opposition and they continue to try to convince the majority to vote their way. This is how our federal government functions, too. What the group that lost the vote cannot do is “take all the marbles and go home” or take the city and declare independence from the USA or take a parish or diocese out of TEC.
I am bound my an oath to obey my bishop. If I can no longer obey my bishop, I resign and move on. To pretend like I am part of a congregational church and can do with buildings, money, or people is I see fit is being an agent of chaos. The stuff is not mine, the buildings are not mine, and the people are not mine. The parish is the extension of the diocese and the clergy function as representatives/agents of the bishop at the local level. That is the way we have been governed.
Now, that is the Church. If you want to talk about the “brotherhood of Christianity” or the mystical Body of Christ, well those transcend boundaries and jurisdictions and parochial laws, but it does not give license to those under ordination vows to do whatever they want with property that is not theirs to begin with.
You want to do the honorable and courages thing, the thing that takes even more faith? Then have the clergy resign your vows, leave the keys with the rightful owners, and start anew. That takes faith! I have far more respect for those clergy and lay people who have done such a thing then for someone like +Schofield.
OK Bob G+, you gave a long answer, but it is still based on a secular corporate understanding. The fact is that when we get into this discussion we are not talking just about +Schofield, but others that are in different parts of the time line of divorce. Your argument would make sense if the diocese in question was really doing a new thing. It, and they, are not. They are functioning internally administratively and faithfully (to God) as they always have. They overwhelmingly have the support of their clergy and the majority of their laity. In that simple sense the property does belong to them. Of course I have to use ethical logic here and if you don’t buy, so be it.
Now if I told you that my maternal grandmother and her sister were baptized and confirmed in the church that I belong, I guess I can say I feel it is my church. If I write a condition on my pledge that none of my money will go to TEC because TEC has nothing to do with my faith, then I may demand my money back if it falls into the wrong hands. This is just some personal logic that I might use. I’m sorry that you take the same position used as a defense at the Nuremberg Trials. I know that statement seems harsh but the issue there was the difference between loyalty to State and its political party in power and the loyalty to moral behavior. That is why we are speaking a different language.
I want to give another analogy: If I told the women athletes at my university that if they don’t like getting second consideration in the athletic programs, they can go elsewhere. If I told a paraplegic that if he didn’t like not having handicap access, he can go elsewhere. Well, I think title VII and IX, or the ADA would say something different. That is why I bring up the First Amendment. That’s my logic.
Cole, it is not based on secular corporate understanding – it is based on at least a millennia of catholic ecclesiastical understanding. This thread is about governance within TEC/Anglicanism. I’m not trying to be condescending or accusatory, but I need to ask this question just so I know where you are coming from: Do you understand episcopal ecclesiastical governance within the Church catholic? Do you understand congregational forms of church governance? You may be an expert in them, I just don’t know. Either we are talking past each other or I’m not sure you understand catholic/episcopal polity.
Now, really Cole, I take the same position that the Nazis did at Nuremberg? That’s absurd and you know it. Why do you need to make such outlandish accusations?
The governance of the Church is not subject to personal logic or personal feelings, despite what members of the Church might decide for themselves. If makes no difference in terms of governance whether I think the parish “feels like mine” or not. The governance of the Church is subject to its Canons. This tread is about governance issues – the Diocese of San Joaquin and +Schofield, not personal piety or hot-button moral issues (even though both impact all that is now transpiring within Anglicanism concerning governance).
Cole, there are all kinds of moral issues that the entire Church has always faced and will always face. As the bishop, clergy, and people of the Diocese of San Joaquin leave the Episcopal Church for another jurisdiction, that jurisdiction will face moral issues and will change. The issue of whether homosexuals have a place in the Church or not will not end in the Province of the Southern Cone, or any church/denomination. This is nothing new, never has been, and will not change until we see our Lord returning.
The way TEC is right now is not be the way it will be 10 years from now. Some people think it will be worse off, some think it will not be worse off. Many of those who think it will be worse off are leaving, as is their right and in some cases responsibility. Those of us that think the Church will be better off 10 years from now are staying – and for me it is because I believe in the comprehensiveness of Anglicanism (it maintains theological and practical balance) and I have made vows to my God during my ordinations. Those vows are not conditional, by the way. If I can’t uphold them, I will resign from the jurisdiction through which I pledged fidelity and obedience, but again I cannot take stuff with me that I do not own.
I can function perfectly well as a moderate-conservative within TEC and the official theology of the Church as expressed in the Prayer Book is quite orthodox, even though I do think the direction the Church has been going is a problem and that some of the leaders are certainly heterodox if not heretical. I may not be too popular is some circles or may not be asked to serve on certain committees. So what?
If it comes to the point that I need to leave because of conscience, I will – but not by trying to take property or people or whatever else that does not belong to me. I’m not a Congregationalist or an anarchist.
Your last analogy is not what I am talking about. TEC has not kicked any one out. Those who are leaving may not at all like where the leaders of the church currently stand for or the way the Church is being governed, but if a conservative (which I am, although more moderate than some here) wants to function as a conservative, they certainly can. My parish does in a liberal diocese with ease. The diocese of my canonical residency, a more liberal diocese, is not trying to expel conservatives. Of course, just like there are crazy conservatives there are also crazy liberals who really would rather all those “fundamentalist” conservatives get out of their nice club. That isn’t the majority of the Church or its leadership, despite the rhetoric of some.
Bob, One point on this thread I made is about conscience vs power. The people screaming the most about the way the people of conscience are leaving against TECs terms, are implying that they are excommunicating themselves. Excommunicating themselves from what? A church that has lost its way? One that actually violates its own canons as it sees fit. Believe me they (those fleeing) will not be lost to the wider understanding of the CHURCH! How can I say that? Well maybe I have met enough people first hand, or have understood about enough communications just immediately and personally given to me second hand, that I believe you are throwing your allegiance to the wrong side. I guarantee that there will be several Anglican Dioceses parallel to TEC no mater who ends up with the property after all the lawsuits are settled. The way to judge the winners, secularly, is not a measure of who has the property, the precious treasure, the golden ring, but who has the souls. I can be typing here until I’m blue in the face giving statistics about where churches are growing, where they are declining and where there is an uncharitable and brutal organization more interested in raiding endowments than not violating the basic decency of Christian behavior.
You didn’t like my German political example. I’m being careful not to use loaded words that carry a much more severe connotation. Imbedded in it was a relevant point. In your last post you declare what is relevant to discuss in this thread – Legality and not ethics or morality. You have to decide where your loyalty ultimately ends up. Decide whether you serve TEC or serve God. If you serve God then you should be like Pharaoh and let our people go without prejudice. Not without any provisions to survive in the desert, but with what was bought and paid for by the faithful people who do not want to disband their parishes. And don’t tell me that the parishes are what TEC says they are, but rather they are a collection of the good and faithful people who populate them. Waiting it out? Until there are no conservative bishops left or approved, and LA is the norm? Get real!
On a lighter note, I’m sure we are the last two people on this thread.
24- In re: “TEC has not kicked any one out.”
Then how would you characterize [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2806] what happened in Connecticut not so long ago?[/url]
22- In re: “Can a bishop in the Church of Rome decide to leave and take the parish buildings and everything else with him?”
Two historical examples:
1. How the CoE started is precisely in this manner. (contrary to your interpretation)
2. How the PRC controlled Catholic Church separated from the Vatican.
You might note that in both of these examples the secular authorities were actively encouraging such secessions, but that reflects the simple fact that if Communion is broken, then matters are resolved on the basis of secular law or policy. In general, I found the rest of that paragraph extremely weak, factually.
In re: “The parishes do not “belong†to the local clergy or people, as in ownership, in TEC anymore than they do in the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches.”
This is a dramatic oversimplification of state law and local circumstance. In some cases you are wrong, in others correct. If matters were so certain as you are [url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=19132] the situation at Pawley’s Island might have been resolved at less cost.[/url]
Tom –
The CoE did not start by bishop(s) taking diocese(s) out of the Church of Rome, rather it started by the king exercising his “divine right” as a king to appoint bishops of his liking within his realm (among other things). The Archbishop of Canterbury on his own (with other clergy or laity) did not tell Rome, “We are longer under your authority and we are starting the Church of England.” It was the king that told the bishops what they were going to do, and if they didn’t obey they were dealt with. The “secular” authorities forced the break with Rome, not the ecclesiastical authorities (although I’m sure the king had clergy sympathizers, particularly those influenced by the Continental Reformers).
I’m not sure what “PRC” means???
Guys, I’m not talking about secular law – I’m talking about ecclesiastical law, the polity of Anglicanism, and doing the honorable thing when clergy or laity can no longer submit themselves to this Church. Within Catholic tradition, the clergy and/or laity of the parish do not own the parish and its assets. This is the tradition that governs Anglicanism and as such TEC. Yes, within the secular state, laws pertaining to deeds, etc., certainly can have an impact. All deacons, priests and bishops ordained in our jurisdiction vowed to uphold canon law in this Church (TEC), which includes the Dennis Canon regardless of whether it is liked or not. It is canon law and needs to me followed, and if in good conscience he/she/they cannot follow this Church’s canon law (or its direction) then he/she/they need to do the honorable thing and resign his/her/their orders and leave (which some have done) without attempting to circumvent Canon Law because he/she/they think they can win in the secular courts. If the secular courts decide a Church’s canon law can be overruled by the State, then where do we really go from there? The Church is subservient to the State and we are back in England under Henry the VIII when the “secular” king overruled Rome.
We are not Congregationalists now matter how much of a fit we want to throw! Any clergy person who is/was ordained in TEC or any Anglican jurisdiction (as far as I am aware) knows this. The laity should know this, too, but the clergy have done a terrible job explaining our polity.
I’m sorry these are so long, really.
Cole – people are not being excommunicated. If clergy or laity with authority are violating their vows or the canons, they may be removed from their positions of authority under canon law, but they are not being excommunicated! “Excommunication” has a very technical meaning and is rarely done in TEC. People are leaving and they have the right to do so. I wish they wouldn’t, but I wish them well if they chose in good conscience to go.
Of course those leaving will not be lost to the wider understanding of the “CHURCH.” Anglicans do not believe that we are the “only game in town.” People are free to leave TEC as I was free to leave the Assemblies of God, as are we all.
Cole, there are already several “Anglican” diocese/jurisdictions parallel to TEC – they are referred to as Continuing Anglican denominations/churches. But they are not in the Anglican Communion. The ABC has not recognized CANA or AiMA as legitimate, regardless of what Nigeria or Rwanda (or the Southern Cone) want to demand. TEC is the Anglican Communion province in the USA, as determined by the entities that make such decisions. It may cease to be, but as of right now and in the foreseeable future it will remain so. This is the reality. It makes no difference what we want to be when what we want to be is not the actual situation.
Cole, God has the souls whether they are in TEC, Anglican Church of Canada, CANA, AiMA, The Reformed Episcopal Church, Province of Christ the King, or any other jurisdiction. I can give you statistics, too, since that is my job right now. There are conservative and liberal churches that are dying and there are conservative and liberal churches that are thriving.
No one denies that TEC has problems, and some of the problems are profound. The solution, however, is not what we have been doing to each other, but to follow Jesus by loving God and neighbor and doing unto others as we would them to do unto us.
Cole, my loyalty is to God – and part of that loyalty is to abide by the VOWS I made. We have lost the profound severity of vow-making in this hyper-individualistic culture of ours. We are all acting very American, but not very Christ-like.
I can serve God very well in TEC, even if I disagree with the direction of the Church of some of its decisions at this time. Our parish is growing quickly with lots of young folks – God is the one that gives the increase. If you can’t stay, that’s understandable and you will need to decide whether or when to go (if you haven’t already). Yet, if for moral or ethical reason you (and others) decide to separate from this Church, the clergy or laity that are separating still cannot rightfully take parishes out of the Church unless the secular authorities allow them to. Again, Anglicans are not Congregationalists.
PRC = Peoples Republic of China.
I find that your analysis of Henry VIII and his clergy is fine up to the point where you ignore the self evident fact that those clerics did, in fact, switch their affiliations from Rome to the CoE as an independent entity. Their motivations to do so were mixed, but in your original argument motivations are irrelevant. You argue that catholic, hierarchical churches have no secessions. Well, they did and do. Another example would be the filioque schism of 1054, which from the Orthodox perspective was Rome leaving the Orthodox Communion.
“Our polity†………..??….. (Sorry, I’m one post behind you.) I don’t think the Global South are concerned as much about “our polity†as they are concerned about the faithful in North America being abandoned by those in power. This is not an insignificant little group. As for the bishops and clergy in question, they feel it their duty to lead their faithful. ‘ A difficult and uncertain course. They may lay at night thinking about the mess they are in, or how it may impact their careers and families, etc, but I’m sure they have reached the conclusion with a sense of peace and conscience that holding to the Faith is more important than holding to Pharisee Law. A bishop’s primary charge is to uphold the Faith. Unfortunately too many in TEC have lost their compass. Since we don’t have a Pope, plus the person who appointed the ABC decided to leave the CoE himself, and ECUSA thumbed it’s nose at the Primates, I guess we have a pretty lawless group. So in what direction does one turn their loyalty? Some feel the only answer is to God.
Bob, I don’t know what parish you lead or what gospel you teach. I only know that if you are who you say you are theologically, you should just wish the departing “God’s speed†and not criticize with such enthusiasm how they do it.
Tom – Whether in the PRC or England, the break with Rome occurred because secular governments made the decision, not the ecclesiastical authority. In our situation, the US/State government, whether through the courts, legislatures and executives (if possible), would have to make the decision to split a congregation or diocese from TEC if the analogy of England or China worked. The courts may make that decision, but then what we have is the secular State declaring that its authority supersedes the Church’s authority under Canon Law.
English clergy under Henry either changed their allegiance, resigned their Cure, or were forcibly removed at best. There was not a mass movement of clergy to reject Rome and establish a new ecclesiastical authority. Under Queen Mary, they were all ordered back to Rome, and Mary killed plenty who refused. Under Elisabeth, they once again where removed from under Rome’s authority under order of the secular authority.
The only way that parishes and dioceses within TEC and most all Anglican provinces (or Rome or an Orthodox jurisdiction as other examples) can unilaterally separated from TEC is to appeal to the secular courts and hope that the secular courts will interfere in the governance of the Church and overturn Canon Law.
Do we really want the secular courts telling the Church what its canons can be and whether they can enforce them or not? That means that the courts can interfere with CANA, AMiA and tell +Venerables what authority he can exercise over parishes in the US he claims as his own! Do we really want this? If not, that means that the clergy and laity within the jurisdictions need to abide by their Canon Law and if they can’t, then they need to do the honorable thing and resign their Cures and move on.
Cole – of course they aren’t concerned about our polity. What do you think the Archbishop of Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) would do if a parish or diocese decided that it was going to change its allegiance to TEC or the CoE? It would not be allowed; its bishop and clergy would be removed and the laity would not be allowed to keep whatever assets the parish may have. Why, because their canons do not allow such a thing and Akinola wouldn’t stand for it, and I suspect the civil authorities would back up the Church. If he wouldn’t stand for it, why should we?
Besides, we are talking about Episcopal bishops and clergy that violate the Canons of the Church they vowed to obey. Yes, of course they feel obligated to lead their faithful, as they should. So do so by resigning their Cures or bishopric and move on to lead their flock outside TEC, which means outside the parishes of TEC.
Cole, the Primates Meeting is not a law within Anglicanism. It just isn’t! The Primates Meeting cannot tell +Akinola or his Church in Nigeria what to do and neither can it tell TEC what to do. I may agree that the way TEC has handled this whole affair has been less then exemplary (and not very catholic, but that is slowly changing), but the other side has not conducted itself well, either. There is a profound lack of understanding of how Anglicanism actually works among too many people.
I don’t fault +Schofield, the clergy, or laity for feeling that they need to change they allegiance, but I do fault some of them for the way they is trying to do it.
I serve a vibrant parish and we preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You can judge or think what you like. It doesn’t affect me or how we experience the saving grace of God. I’m not trying to be a jerk; it’s just the truth.
32- In re: “Do we really want the secular courts telling the Church what its canons can be and whether they can enforce them or not?”
Yes, because I think that ecusa’s claims in many cases are patently illegal, along with being scripturally unsound. I note you switch from what happened, upon which you repeatedly give the same answer in different manners, to what I want. The latter is simple. But how you can claim that the Henry VIII’s decision was final for all clerics ignores not only the dissident Anglicans, but also the continuing Roman presence in England. Under your neat either-or conceptualization of how real history plays out, your explanation founders upon the facts that the Roman presence in England has continued and in fact prospered. At this point in history, one more monarchical succession might well bring on what the Romish Stuarts sought, ironically from the descendants of the Hanoverians that ran them out of Britain. I find your vision of the supremacy of a hierarchical church, in its earthly implementation, fantastic. The only hierarchical Church which really exists is not of this world, just as His Kingdom is not of this world. At best, our parallels of that Church are smoke and mirrors, as Schori’s antics clearly indicate.
Matthew 7:15-20 “Beware of false prophets, … Therefore by their fruits you will know them.”
and
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”
-Lord Action to Bishop Creighton, 1887
are relevant, to any church in this context, and hierarchical churches in particular.
Tom (#35) – Of course, part of all this is my attempt to put into words my own thoughts and feelings, thus I certainly agree with Matthew and with Lord Action and your concern about false prophets and corruption of authority!
How are we to know whether they are false prophets or not? As you quoted, by their fruits (and of course if the prophecies prove to be wrong in hindsight). What fruits? The Fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) and the obedience to the commandments of Christ – which are the two Great Commandments (Mt 22:35-40) and the “Golden Rule” (Mt 7:12). How is “love” defined for the Christian? I Corinthians 13:4-7 has the answer. While I truly agree with many of the grave concerns of conservatives, (politically, morally, and theologically), I also have to admit that some of the worst violations of Jesus’ commands are by my fellow conservatives. Liberals are certainly not guilt-free, either!
Episcopal Church bishops are bound by canon law – canon law that is decided democratically in General Convention made up of clergy and laity. There are provinces within the Anglican Communion that still have “prince bishops” that do hold all the power, period. I believe Nigeria and +Akinola fall into that category, as examples.
So, if we take Lord Action’s warning seriously, wouldn’t those provinces where primates are “prince bishops” be more prone to fall into corruption than those provinces where primates serve limited terms and are elected by bishops that are elected by clergy and laity?
Yet, we are a people that are governed by laws – civilly and ecclesiastically. We don’t have license to ignore or violate those laws (despite the fact that some do, and many of those who do don’t like having to pay the consequences for their law-breaking). Thankfully we do have liberty to petition within our governing structures that laws be changed – civilly and ecclesiastically.
Bishops in California brought a presentment against +Schofield, and it was ruled out of order because he had broken no canon law. +Katherine tried to inhibit +Duncan, and the three bishops did not allow it because +Duncan has not yet violated any canon law. Now +Schofield and his clergy have violated canon law and +Katherine is right to act (with the initial consent of three senior bishops with jurisdiction and with the final consent of the House of Bishops – no “prince bishops” here!)
+Akinola or +Venerables or +Kolini or +Orombi wouldn’t put up with such attempts – they wouldn’t put up with what +Schofield is trying to do within their own jurisdictions. Why should +Katherine and our House of Bishops?
Again, if morally or ethically the clergy or laity can no longer remain within TEC, then so be it – liberal or conservative. They have the absolutely right to seek changes in canon law, to elect leaders more inline with their beliefs, and all that. They have the utmost right to act on their consciences and try to find another church or parish that enables them to feel more comfortable. They don’t have the right to attempt to circumvent canon law, no matter how they feel about moral, ethical, or theological problems.
Tom – If the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York decides and tells Pope Benedict that he is taking the Archdiocese of New York over to some other jurisdiction other than Rome, what would happen? The archbishop, bishops following him, clergy following him – they would all be reprehended and if they didn’t recant they would be defrocked/excommunicated and they would not be allowed to keep the property, even if a vote were taken by the laity of a local parish to leave with the clergy and bishops. The same thing would happen within Orthodox jurisdictions.
Because Anglicanism is episcopally governed, like the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox (although with more democratic forms), why do you expect any Anglican jurisdiction to act differently, unless you want to deny our episcopal governance?
Of course loyal Roman Catholic clergy remained in England, but they were not part of the Church of England under monarchs that denied Rome’s authority – from the very mother Church of Anglicanism from which we came and through which we are part of the Anglican Communion.
Bob G+, I wanted to say this last night, but Tom seemed to be carrying the ball. You have been saying Law, Law, Law and I have been saying Pharisee, Pharisee, Pharisee. OK, I want to give it a rest. But you assume or invoke motives or actions toward bishops and archbishops that I don’t think is fair. I can’t imagine seeing ++Orombi busting into a tribal village and throwing a Christian congregation out of their buildings. I have met and talked to the man and heard his story. The Africans know where their eyes are pointed. The US reasserting bishops (at least I know of two) have told their progressive churches that they can do as they wish with their allegiance and keep their property. Even when they are totally out of step with the diocese and suing their bishops in secular courts. Nigeria is on the battleground of civilizations and is too complicated to compare in these discussions.
Cole – The way all of these problems in the U.S. and overseas have not been conducted in a very good way, all the way around. I do think that +Orombi would intervene if one of his bishops or clergy attempted to pull a diocese or parish outside of his Church. It is his duty to do so. Something may be worked out with that parish by +Orombi, like provisions have been made by some US bishops with their departing congregations that wanted to keep their buildings. In my opinion, that is a better way unless there is a good number of parishioners within the dissident parish that vote to remain Episcopalian. Bishops and diocese are a different matter, I think, because of the role of bishops as a unifying factor within the Church.