I am beside myself with grief over this unnecessary action taken against my predecessor especially at a time when he is mourning the death of his son this past Friday. I am particularly saddened that with the exception of the Bishop who initiated this action those involved in determining this course have never spoken with Bishop MacBurney directly.
In the midst of this difficult time for Bishop MacBurney and his family I am really much more concerned about the implications of St Matthew 18:15-17 as it relates to how reconciliation is pursued than I am with Title IV, Canon 1, Section 6 as it relates to disciplining my dear brother.
In the meantime we are ministering to the needs of the MacBurney family.
X Keith L Ackerman, SSC
Bishop of Quincy
President, Forward in Faith North America
Matthew 18:[blockquote] [size=1]15[/size] “If another believer sins against you, go privately and point out the offense. If the other person listens and confesses it, you have won that person back. [size=1]16[/size] But if you are unsuccessful, take one or two others with you and go back again, so that everything you say may be confirmed by two or three witnesses. [size=1]17[/size] If the person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church. Then if she won’t accept the church’s decision, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector. [/blockquote] [size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
What do you expect from people who reject Scripture? Why should they care about any words of Jesus in Matthew, they probably don’t think He really said them.
They are certainly showing by their actions that they are the true legalists with little true understanding of the Gospel.
Schori’s action in this is utterly beyond the pale! Sure, she’s recently pulled out tools from her belt that weren’t actually in her tool belt, but her callous treatment of the saintly Bp. McBirney in his hour of personal need crosses the line between simply illegal and utterly immoral.
“Who will rid [us] of this turbulent priest[ess]?”
[i]elves don’t find the “who will rid us of this turbulent priest” quote very helpful. It’s been repeated over and over again of late. Express your desire for others to initiate presentment charges or some such, but merely throwing around this quote is not helpful since some will deliberately read it as condoning violence. Let’s avoid that controversy please![/i]
Prayers for Bishop McBurney and his family in their grief and loss – and prayers for the brokenness and hard-heartedness of the Episcopal Church.
Can anyone help me with why Bishop McBurney would have been inhibited now?
[i]One liners, especially those that merely attack KJS are unhelpful.[/i]
Never mind. I found out.
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2008/3/26/retired-quincy-bishop-faces-church-trial
Who was the Bishop who initiated the action and who did speak to him?
Is she/he not also due to be called to account?
The charges were instigated by complaints of Mathes of San Diego.
MargaretG, I believe that every revisionist in the House of Bishops needs to be called on the carpet for the crime they’ve committed. Yes, I call it a crime……and I don’t much care what others think about my remark. This pack of ravening wolves turned on one of their own for nothing more than he committed what they see is an unpardonable sin of ministering to nine people by bringing them to Christ and His Church!
It’s time for the conservative bishops to gather together and strt deposing Schori and her minions. Sure, it won’t mean anything canonically. But what does these days?
I have missed something. Why was he deposed? What had he done? Larry
The Living Church article referenced by #7 above says that MacBurney must respond to the presentment by mid-April, with a trial schedule for the fall. Why did the deposition suddenly go through now?
Sorry, this appears to be an inhibition, not a deposition. For the moment.
The revisionist “bishops” remind me of feudal lords who insist that no one infringe upon their “turf”.
Bishop McBurney confirmed “several people” at a church (Trinity) that had voted “overwhelmingly” to leave TEC and affiliate with the Southern Cone. Was + McBurney there at the request of the Bishop of the Southern Cone? I suspect that he was, though I don’t know for sure.
“Bishop” Mathes reminds me of a goldfinch I saw this morning on my bird feeder. The bird was actively chasing off any other birds trying to feed. He was so busy doing this, he had no time to eat himself. In birds this is humerous, in supposed men of God, depressing.
If a bishop had a cousin in another state who was a Methodist and has passed away, and the bishop participates in the funeral service. Would this constitute abandonment of communion if he didn’t get permission from the local bishop? Has such a situation happened?
REDO OF # 6. ABOVE. Using more than one line and some of them from the Bible:
From I Cor. 5:
11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or GREEDY, an IDOLATOR or a SLANDERER, a drunkard or a SWINDLER. With such a man do not even eat. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? (emphasis added.)
This woman gives no evidence of being a Christian, much less a bishop. Are not those inside the church required to judge her? And, if they reach the same conclusion, remove her?
From I Tim 1:
18 Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, 19 holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. 20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.
Can anyone here spell “rejected the faith”, or “shipwrecked their faith”?
The only way I can pray for this shipwrecker of the faith is to hand her over to Satan that he might give her some correction.
Note to Elves:
I realize this is in no way as gentle as the deleted one-liner. However, it is what I see in scripture and discern and judge in this instance. Delete it if you must.
— Stan
I must say I am most perturbed by the timing of this inhibition, if, in fact, the poor man’s son just died. He’s retired and in no immediate danger of further breaking canons or turf encroachment or whatever he’s being charged with. This whole thing just seems gratuitous.
Now, in the 70’s it was retired bishops who were called “prophets” when they first ordained women in Philadelphia, and broke every rule in the book to do so. Pike got away with literally everything. Retired Anglican bishops are supposed to be the lightning rods. What has changed is some are now on the wrong side of the flow of theology. If a retired and ailing bishop had ordained some new and hitherto unheard of variety of cleric (and those categories are awfully hard to come by these days), he would get a medal and an hour on Oprah. There is that guy/woman/whatever who’s pregnant; he/she isn’t ordained yet? I don’t think it’s Bishop Mcburney’s style, though.
SF has put up a thread with a marvelously blunt editorial about this incident from that fine new Anglican blog, Hills of the North. The horrendous timing of this “monstrous” act by the PB is indeed callous in the extreme. In fact, this wicked and dastardly deed is positively Satanic. And by that I mean that the PB has been utterly deceived and is doing the Devil’s work for him (like Judas).
It shows that the PB and her vile henchman David Beers are increasingly acting like school-yard bullies, and trying to intimidate their opposition. But that only shows how insecure and desperate they really are. And like all bullies, they will get their comeuppance someday, if only on the Day of Judgment.
David Handy+
I am struck the end of the quoted passage that if all else fails we are to treat the offender like a tax collector. This is found only in Matthew’s gospel of all places. I’ll bet it was said with a wink at the evangelist.
Pray for these people who are listed as Judges:
Rt. Rev. Andrew Smith, Bishop of Connecticut, will serve as the presiding judge. Other judges are Bishops Bruce Caldwell of Wyoming, Gordon P. Scruton of Western Massachusetts, George Wayne Smith of Missouri and Catherine M. Waynick of Indianapolis; the Rev. Marjorie Menaul of Central Pennsylvania and the Rev. Karen Montagno of Massachusetts; Maria Campbell of Alabama, and Jane Freeman of Ohio.
From a Forward in Faith press release, written subsequent to the above statement:
“It is a sad day when godly bishops are no longer free to provide pastoral care for those beyond our formal institutional boundaries.†FiF NA President
Last year MacBurney was invited by the Presiding Bishop & Primate of the Southern Cone, the Most Reverend Gregory Venables, to make a pastoral visit to a Southern Cone parish in San Diego, California, on his behalf. In a spirit of Anglican unity and Christian generosity, Bishop MacBurney agreed to respond to the pastoral needs of those outside TEC with whom TEC claims fellowship.
“This is an alarming move against a godly man who, without publicity, rightly helped a brother bishop provide care for his people,†said the Right Reverend Keith Ackerman, President of Forward in Faith NA and current TEC Bishop of Quincy (IL). This move against Bishop MacBurney is a clear warning that the leadership of TEC is endeavouring to bring the days of the biblically orthodox within TEC to a close. “Schori clearly has no intention to ‘live in tension with people who don’t agree with you about everything’ as she was quoted in Saturday’s interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune reporter, Sandi Dolbee. “While Schori extolled the imperative to worship together, her Inhibition is to prevent others from worshipping with Bishop MacBurney,†said Father Keith Acker who was also interviewed by Dolbee on Schori’s weekend visit to San Diego.
The Right Revd Keith L. Ackerman
President of Forward in Faith North America
The press release mentioned above can be found in its entirety here: http://www.forwardinfaith.com/artman/publish/article_401.shtml
A clarification about my #20 earlier,
By referring to the PB and DBB as “bullies” I was trying to imply that they tend to pick on people they perceive as weak and vulnerable, including elderly, retired bishops Cox and now MacBurney. They avoid going after the stronger bishops still in office, lest they face a real fight. Such is the way of school yard bullies.
In other words, not only does the PB lack all integrity, she even lacks real courage. She and her despicable chancellor are cowards, as well as heretics.
I have absolutely no respect for either of them. None whatsoever.
David Handy+