Last month Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori informed Bishop Kelshaw by letter that she had accepted his renunciation of the ordained ministry and that he was “deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a minister of God’s word and sacraments.” The action came after Bishop Kelshaw wrote the Presiding Bishop to inform her that he had left The Episcopal Church.
“It means little to me in that I don’t intent to squabble with her over this,” Bishop Kelshaw said, “but I did not renounce my orders. I wrote to her last February informing her that I felt called to request alternate primatial oversight and that my request had been granted by Uganda. I am still a bishop within the Anglican Communion.”
The PB is playing a game.
A game of words and wills it would seem. The PB equates transferring ones orders the same as renouncing them?
Terence Kelshaw and I have been good friends for nearly forty years, and it is a ludicrous assertion by the Presiding Bishop that he has or would renounce his orders and his ministry. It seems to me that we have now reached a point where utter madness has taken over from reality when what a retired bishop plainly affirms about his affiliations is interpreted as him abandoning his ministry and orders.
When the Presiding Bishop deliberately misconstrues Bishop Kelshaw’s words to her, then it would appear that she is much more interested in pursuing a destructive policy that can only further tear the fabric of the Episcopal Church, and do harm in the Anglican Communion.
She may not like Bishop Kelshaw, and she may not like what he has done, but to act has she has toward him can only suggests that her motives are highly suspect.
RK+,
The time is long past when her motives could be considered suspect. There is no room of suspicion left. They are very clear indeed.
APB
All of these depositions and announcements that priests and bishops are no longer priests and bishops although they are recognized by other Anglican Communion bodies make it very clear that TEC is resigning from the Communion. If only the Archbishop of Canterbury would wake up and look at the reality!
The pogrom against the orthodox continues.
So the PB has made another pronouncement. Big deal. As far as I’m concerned, she has nothing to say. The time is coming – perhaps it’s already here – when no one is going to listen to what she says anymore. So let’s just consider the source and get on with what really matters.
Describing Mrs. Schori’s motives as suspect at this point is rather like expressing doubts of the peaceful intentions of the German government on September 2, 1939.
The Spirit of Truth, or the Spirit of deceit?
1John 4:1-6
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already. Little children, you are of God, and have overcome them; for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them. We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error (it’s edifying to look up the Greek “plane” in a lexicon; it means much more than “error”).
What’s going on at 815?
Is it ignorance? It doesn’t appear to be.
Is it stupidity? It doesn’t appear to be.
Is it Christlike?
1 Tim 5:24-25
The sins of some people are quite evident, going before them to judgment, but those of others appear later. Likewise, good deeds are obvious; and those that are not cannot remain hidden.
Acts 20: wolves in the sheepfold; persons speaking perverse things…
[i] Ad hominem comment deleted by elf. [/i]
I really don’t understand the consternation, even if the actions of the bishops or the PB seem to be, what?, arbitrary or vindictive or some-such-thing.
I take responsibility for my actions knowing full well that when I violate a rule or vow that there may be detrimental consequences. If my convictions lead me to act a certain way, then I should know what may happen to me and not blame my superiors for doing what they legal can/must do. I would hope mercy and grace would rule the day, but that isn’t the case regarding both sides in the current Troubles.
My brother-in-law, a lawyer, talks about a legal concept (I can’t remember the Latin term) for when someone knowingly violates the law and is ready to accept the consequences. He runs a red light on an empty highway knowing full well that it may mean that he gets a ticket. It is worth it for him to take the chance, and he will accept the consequences. At least my brother-in-law has the integrity not to go to the judge and demand the law be reinterpreted in a way he demands contrary to legal precedent just to get his own way.
“This Church” and “abandonment of Communion” in the Canons of TEC refer to The Episcopal Church, not the Anglican Communion as a whole. Everyone really knows this. When a clergy member of TEC in the USA is “deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a minister of God’s word and sacraments,” it is the functioning as a clergy person within TEC and its juridical boundaries that is denied, not as I understand it that the person stops be a deacon, priest, or bishop. When a clergy person acts contrary to vows or the canons, why does anyone expect the leadership within TEC to not proceed according to their understanding of their responsibilities under the canons (whether ultimately their understanding at this time is right or wrong)? Take it like a man. Of course, selective enforcement or adherence to the canons is a HUGE problem. Where does this lead us but to chaos and destruction?
I know that there are all kinds of legal arguments about what this or that canon actually means. I know that there are accusations concerning the motives of those who are leaving and those who are enforcing canons. But I wish those who knowingly act contrary to the vows or canons or rules or whatever-concept-fits would have the integrity to take the consequences of their actions without trying to manipulate meaning to get their way. And, admit if they are mistaken. What happened to integrity?
We know that it is not within Anglican polity for a bishop of one jurisdiction to function within a separate and recognized jurisdiction without the approval of the diocesan or the provincial Church. It isn’t appropriate in England, Nigeria, Japan, or the U.S. All kinds of arguments can be made about emergency provisions, but why the outrage when their actions contrary-to-polity-and-canons are resisted? It should be expected, just like if one intentionally runs a red light they should expect a ticket.
Bob G+
It is not the actions of the PB, but her lies and deceit that are causing us consternation. Bishop Kelshaw did not resign his orders. Bishop Duncan has not abandoned the communion of this Church. Bishop MacBurney did not minister as a bishop to a TECUSA congregation without leave of the Diocesan. Bishop Cox did not abandon the communion of this Church. No matter how many times people say these things happened, they did not happen. You can make the argument that +Schofield did abandon the communion of the Church, but he should be given a trial and deposed or just allowed to be removed from bishops authorized to function within TECUSA, not said to be removed from the ministry at all. Just as a resigned bishop (formerly known as a retired bishop) can have his/her letters dimissory transfered to another diocese, why can’t the Diocesans in the cases of +Cox, +MacBurney, and +Kelshaw simply transfer their residence to another province? That would be the pastoral way to handle the situation. Since they have transferred to another province, they will not have vote in the HOB meetings.
Unfortunately, +KJS has elected to act with vindictiveness and lies about these bishops. If she will lie about these things, what other things will she lie about?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#12-Bob G+ Clergy have moved from one province to another for years…that is part of what being in Communion means!!! That’s what +Kelshaw requested, but KJS refused to transfer him and decided to accept his request for a transfer as a request for renunciation….plain and simple HOGWASH!!! There is NO defending her or her actions.
While it’s true that the PB’s pernicious action makes little practical difference, it has significant symbolic value. That’s why these cases are important. They signal very clearly the stark and growing differences between TEC and the majority of the Anglican Communion’s members. For those whom the PB and the Executive Council do not recognize, the Global South DOES recognize.
This sort of gratuitous insult, not only to +Kelshaw, but to the Anglican leaders who do recognize his ministry, will only exacerbate the growing tensions within the AC. And therein lies its true significance. TEC shows no sign whatsoever of really wanting to mend the tear in the fabric of the AC. TEC has clearly chosen to “walk apart.” This becomes clearer with every passing day or every new development. And there can be no real reconciliation, until TEC’s misguided leaders are willing to genuinely repent of the EVIL they are doing (albeit, with the best of intentions).
David Handy+
When a clergy member of TEC in the USA is “deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a minister of God’s word and sacraments,†it is the functioning as a clergy person within TEC and its juridical boundaries that is denied, not as I understand it that the person stops be a deacon, priest, or bishop.
Bob G+ (#12) If your statement were TEC’s position then I would have no problem with that, but none of those in leadership positions have – to my knowledge – qualified their statements with “Of course, we’re not passing judgment on the validity of their orders, only their ability to minister to TEC congregations.â€
Presumably, if they were to do so, it would raise the specter either of acknowledging that some separated Anglican groups in North America were still part of the Anglican Communion or that TEC was no longer in communion with certain provinces of the Anglican Communion (with the possible legal consequences that might follow). Whatever these bishops have done ecclesially, one cannot claim either that they have joined some other religious body (unless you believe that the Anglican Communion has already divided) or that they have set up their own church and these would seem to be the only reasonable justifications for deprivation “of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a minister of God’s word and sacraments.â€
#5 Katherine, I have said the same thing for the past six months, and by now, it should be crystal clear to everyone that this is exactly what TEC is doing. There is no ambiguity here.
Jeremy – I think such a thing has traditionally been assumed, at least among clergy. To have a catholic understanding of Holy Orders, which this Church and the Communion do (except for maybe Sydney), is to have this understanding (I assume!). I suspect a lot of this depends on whether one has a more Protestant or a more Catholic idea of ministry and/or piety.
There are certainly other “Continuing” Anglican jurisdictions/denominations (including the REC) that have a similar understanding, but they are not officially recognized as part of the Anglican Communion. At least for now, TEC is. A priest or bishop can be a part of one of those Continuing denominations, but they aren’t allowed to function under the auspices of TEC or the Anglican Communion. This issue of contention these days is whether those dioceses, bishops, parishes, priests that align with foreign, official Anglican Communion provinces and set up shop within the boarders of TEC can function as officially recognized Anglican Communion clergy. This is contrary to Anglican polity, and we will have to wait and see what the ABC decides.
I’ve been wondering – I came into this Church from an American-Evangelical/Pentecostal denomination that was primarily Congregational in its polity (as are most within that tradition). I intentionally didn’t enter an Anglican-Evangelical parish because I wanted to experience a different piety. I quickly learned that Anglican-Evangelicalism is different than American-Evangelicalism, and in some ways profoundly so (such as in its catholic polity and its understanding of Holy Orders). I often wonder whether some of our misunderstandings stem from other American-Evangelicals entering Episcopal parishes that are Anglican-Evangelical, but the differences are not explained very well. The same could be said for Roman Catholics entering Anglo-Catholic parishes. There is an assumption because of similarities that all is similar and we act as we did in our previous faith community. That isn’t intended to accuse anyone of anything, but I hear a lot of “Congregationalist” sounding talk and some “Roman” sounding talk. Who knows…
Bob G+ (#18)
The problem is that these bishops have sought transfer to another province with whom TECUSA is (supposedly) in communion. When +Cox and +Schofield were “deposed” the letter went to the primates of the Anglican Communion as well as the “normal” distribution list in TECUSA. Why go through this at all? Can’t our Presiding Bishop simply wish these bishops well and let them move on? How hard is that? What is the harm in that? Why can’t she allow Diocesan Bishops (such as +Lee) to negotiate with parishes that find the changes in TECUSA to be too much to handle? Why does she have to lie about what is happening?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Schori’s pronouncements make no sense whatsoever. Anglican Communion polity has always been based on the idea of the interchangeability of orders: a priest moving from one province to another is not re-ordained, just transferred and licensed. To state that one has been deposed from the priesthood or episcopacy is to deny the rightness or validity of accepting such a man within the ministry of a sister church in the Anglican Communion.
So Schori can only be saying that TEC isn’t in the Anglican Communion.
[blockquote]So Schori can only be saying that TEC isn’t in the Anglican Communion. [/blockquote]
Or soon won’t be. This impatient frenzy of expulsion and litigation has me thinking our dear PB might know something we do not about Lambeth and what is in store for her heretic cabal. We might see them all out on the sidewalk along side VGR, braying to an adulatory press contingent about those awful troglodytes inside.
It’s a big mess and because we can’t function together even to resolve disputes, well, it’s a big mess. How’s that for profundity?
Philip – It seems to me, as I’ve said, and as I know you realize, that the issue is that those bishops want to be official Anglican Communion bishops under the jurisdiction of foreign primates within the boundaries of TEC. Unless there has been agreement on all sides, there are not overlapping provinces. Europe is a unique exception. Some of these bishops want that within the juridical boundaries of TEC. TEC is saying, “No.” I think Nigeria or most other provinces would say the same thing. England has made unique accommodations, but England is all together different from all the other provinces. At least these retired or vested bishops don’t have to worry about their pensions being withdrawn.
I absolutely agree with you concerning allowing diocesan bishops to negotiate with departing parishes. Griswold seemed to agreed with that line of action. I have no clue why Jefforts Shori isn’t.
Bob G+
When the reappraisers have no right to call on the “ancient tradition of the Church” in the case of Bishops performing episcopal acts in other dioceses/provinces without the permission of the Ordinary of that diocese on the one hand while the flout the “ancient tradition of the Church” to bless same sex unions (citing “pastoral care”) on the other. If they wish to choose “pastoral care” as a reason to flout one teaching of the Church then why can’t Nigeria and Uganda and Southern Code cite “pastoral care” to overturn another teaching of the Church (one that concerns church order, not faith or morality).
Would it surprise you to know that no less a Bishop than Athanasius would cross borders and ordain, baptize, and confirm in those dioceses controlled by Arian bishops? He did.
If +KJS and the other bishops want to stop Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Southern Code, et. al. from having “overlapping jurisdiction” and remove their bishops/congregations from TECUSA’s physical territory, then all they have to do is stop blessing same sex unions and stop ordaining practicing homosexuals and start following the practice and teaching of the Church.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil Snyder
Blessing same sex unions and ordaining practicing homosexuals is not the problem it is merely a symptom. The problem is that TEC has set itself in judgment over Scripture, instead of letting Scripture guide the actions of TEC. All the rest, the lawsuits, the lies and the hate stem from this basic and very human (selfish) error.
Sorry meant to add
Your Brother in Christ,
Stephen Miller
Phil – If I’m “hearing” you correctly, I think that consistency in thought and actions is just about as much of a problem in this Church right now as is discipline and adherents to the Canons. However, the reasserter side is doing the very same thing by demanding the Church abide by Tradition concerning understandings and biblical interpretations of homosexuality all the while thwarting the Tradition when it comes to ecclesiology. It has become far, far too easy to point out the splinter in the other guy’s eye while totally missing the log in our own!
I think we in this country, and perhaps the West, are loosing our ability to be objective. Subjectivism and rampant hyper-individuality (expressed by the single person but also by individual groups) are destroying all sense of abiding by anything that infringes upon the want of the individual or the group.
I do think that there must be a distinction made between church order and issues of faith and morality (theology). While we have a catholic ecclesiology, it is adapted to our own democratic ideals. So, like the federal government that has multiple parties with multiple caucuses and more viewpoints than grains of sand on what will make this nation great and well governed (“civil theology”), yet all abiding by one governmental system under the Constitution (“civil ecclesiology”), Anglicanism has functioned for a very long time. What two fairly distinct groups want to do within this Church right now is move away from this form and institute autocracy or oligarchy and force the “civil theology” of the Libertarians or the New-Conservative-Republicans or the Progressive-Democrats or the Socialist Workers Party upon us all.
The theology (civil or Christian) will always be in a state of debate and over time in flux as we learn more and as God reveals more and continues to transform us over time. The Tradition provides us a check, if we pay attention to it, and our Anglican ethos for the allowance for theological difference keeps us balanced, if we will trust it and God, but we must not fall into “traditionalism” and say that nothing theologically can change – as in our current situation what our understanding of what the Bible is actually saying and not saying about homosexuality cannot change. It can, it is, and it will in some form no matter how this all turns out – it just depends on whether either side of the debate is willing to abide within established and traditional ways and means of dealing with our differences.
If our various political parties / ideological groups decided to function outside the Constitution, we would be in big trouble and the country would fail. Different side within our Church have determined to function outside the Canons, and our Church is failing. We are not so much in a “divorce,” I think, but a “civil war.” I think it is telling and instructive concerning what this Church did during our national Civil War and the way we treated one another. Too bad we don’t learn from history.
Anyway, concerning the bishops that have been deposed, if there was a willingness on their side to abide by the canons – even if they must resign themselves from TEC – then I think there would be more of a willingness by the ecclesial authorities to act in like manner. I will also say that if certain groups would abide by the canons theologically, there would be less of an attempt by other certain groups to act outside the canons. As I said above, consistency and discipline are big problems and will destroy far quicker than battles over theology or even morals. Trust is broken, consideration of the welfare of the other is degraded. Loving neighbor is forgotten. I’m just blathering on…
Who has usurped the theology of TEC and therefore caused some Bishops to find themselves in conflict with their conscience and face choosing obedience to the Word or obedience to the Canons?
A soldier can be excused of insubordination if the order they refuse to obey is illegal and still remain in the service and yet Episcopal Bishops disagreeing with TEC’s “extra-A/C” actions fare less well. How are Bishops expected to obey church canon when their own PB doesn’t either? It’s a case of, “Do as I say not as I do”. But I thought TEC was not hierarchical?
I need to correct this statement from (#16) because it confuses the civil with the religious. I wrote above, “What two fairly distinct groups want to do within this Church right now is move away from this form and institute autocracy or oligarchy and force the “civil theology†of the Libertarians or the New-Conservative-Republicans or the Progressive-Democrats or the Socialist Workers Party upon us all.”
I should have included a statement of comparison. It should read something like this, “What two fairly distinct groups want to do within this Church right now is move away from this form and institute autocracy or oligarchy [i]to force their theological perspective much like a possible imposition of[/i] the “civil theology†of the Libertarians or the New-Conservative-Republicans or the Progressive-Democrats or the Socialist Workers Party upon us all.”
Why oh why is there such a mental block when it comes to me and proof-reading? Okay, so, in comment #28, I said I needed to correct a sentence in my previous comment “#16,” which is actually comment “#26.” Lord help me. After re-reading this very short comment 4 times, there should be no mistakes, right?
Bob that’s another of those things you can blame on dear old Murphy and his law…
Roman (#27), you wrote: “Who has usurped the theology of TEC and therefore caused some Bishops to find themselves in conflict with their conscience and face choosing obedience to the Word or obedience to the Canons?”
The theology of TEC has changed over the years, for better or for worse – and that depends on an individual’s perspective and hindsight. It is in the in-between times that our actions – what we do in the midst of the unsurety of change – that is significant, IMHO. After all, during the Reformation Roman Catholics killed Lutherans, and Lutherans in turn killed Ana-baptists. All we have to do is look to history to realize that there have always been changes in the Church’s understanding of theological concepts, even from the earliest times. In hindsight, some changes have been realized as good and right and some not.
I think you present a dichotomy that doesn’t have to be. Lay and clergy can be obedient to their consciences and not have to deal with the canons at all by resigning from the Church that causes them such consternation (conservative or liberal). They don’t have to attempt to take the property with them. Many priests have simply resigned, affiliated with another jurisdiction, and started a new continuing-Anglican parish. I respect that. Their integrity is in tack, they removed themselves from the structures that so bothered them, and they did abide by the canons of the Church that ordained them and to which they vowed obedience and conformity, and they are continuing on in their ministry as priests. Why not this option, including for those liberals who cannot abide by the canons of the Church?
I still don’t understand why some Episcopalians/Anglicans believe TEC is not hierarchical. We have a catholic ecclesiology, we are a Church of bishops (that’s what “Episcopal” means) – we are a hierarchal Church, but not like the Church of Rome or even the Orthodox. We have incorporated an element of democracy within our governing structures, but that does not mean we are “Congregational.”