From the Bishop of Western Kansas:
A very interesting and disturbing phenomenon has occurred due to a reinterpretation of the Canons of the Episcopal Church. The decision was made to use a Canon formed to ease the transition for a priest to leave the Anglican Church (of which The Episcopal Church is a part) and go to another Apostolic faith community without trial or expenses, non-necessary paperwork and meetings, which a regular renunciation would have required.
A good Canon constructed to work as Christians together in one faith: when spiritual disciplines change and new callings and discernment lead us apart. But now that same Canon has been reinterpreted to mean that a bishop may depose a priest when they disagree or when that clergyperson sees that they can no longer remain in the Episcopal Church, but she/he may be called to another Anglican entity (Province, Church, Ministry) which shares, supposedly, the same faith and Holy Orders.
It has been used nearly 300 times in the past six years. The words have been reinterpreted to speak to a Bishop and his/her clergy instead of a Holy Order within the whole of the Anglican Communion. The interpretation now leans to saying that people are ordained to this Church (TEC) and not to the worldwide Communion.
This has been extended to bishops for the first time and now all pretence of investigation, trial, evidence and Anglican identity can be ignored to solve problems that should be dealt with pastorally.
In fact, some few bishops have said they will never depose a clergyperson under these circumstances and have actually sat down with clergy and churches (which they refuse to litigate against) and have worked out pastoral solutions to very difficult and challenging issues. No one has been deposed.
Fiscal responsibilities have been satisfied, and even though all arrangements do not satisfy everyone, the Church does not sue its own and cast aside faithful, loving clergy who just can not belong to a Church which has so changed from when they took their vows, that some no longer recognize the Church where many first came to Christ.
I actually have a dear friend and priest who was deposed from his office. How many times did he meet with his Bishop? How many people advised him of the gravity of the situation? How many questions were asked of him as to why he was doing what he was doing and believed as he did? Absolutely none. He received a letter one day saying he could no longer be a clergyman in the Episcopal Church. No reason asked. No reason given.
When I was ordained a priest 28 years ago I could go to any Anglican Church in the world and as a recognized Anglican in Holy Orders of the Anglican Communion, I could be invited to celebrate, preach or otherwise minister with summary permission from ecclesiastical authorities. Today, I would stand in judgment of my beliefs and practices in many of the world’s Anglican Provinces. Why? Because the Episcopal Church no longer validates Anglican Orders but only those conferred by bishops within The Episcopal Church (also named TEC).
In years past, if I was given a call to another Province, I could go and serve, never being deposed whether I came back or not. What has changed? The Episcopal Church’s understanding seems to be that their orders only extend within the ecclesiastical package of what was known as ECUSA, PECUSA and ultimately the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society and applies to TEC only.
The Episcopal Church has declared that it is indeed a church apart from the Anglican Communion. And this has not occurred because of sexuality, women’s ordination, differences in doctrine, nor polity.
It has happened because The Episcopal Church no longer recognizes the universality of Anglican Holy Orders and truly is no longer a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church most of us were ordained into. How far will the separation go? I fear it will eventually be complete and Episcopalians can throw away all the books which claim it is an Anglican Church because it will have divorced itself from its past and become something apart.
Maybe that is what the majority want. Then those who have trouble with the historic Creeds of the Church can cut those out of the liturgies and declare a universal salvation at no cost or sacrifice. And it will be worth what people are willing to give for it. As little as possible.
—(The Rt. Rev.) James M. Adams is the Bishop of Western Kansas
Another bishop breaks ranks. Good for Bp Adams.
Brilliant analysis!
I sense much sadness. God bless you your Grace.
[blockquote]clergy who just can not belong to a Church which has so changed from when they took their vows, that some no longer recognize the Church where many first came to Christ[/blockquote]
and this is where TEC’s position that the clergy is “violating” their vows the the “church” and the laity is “taking” property their predecessors built for the “church” falls flat on it’s face. The vow is a two way street and TEC has without a doubt veered well off the path.
Thios is a cornucopia of hyperbole.
He has a friend who was deposed with no discussion? Did he just receive a letter one day that said “Hey, stop acting like a priest?” There must have been some precipitating event.
The injunction against lawsuits is a red herring.
Who is being deposed for being called to another Province? No one. People who srte violating the geographic boundaries of TEC on behalf of another Province are being deposed. And the other Provinces don’t recognize the depositions anyway.
The whole thing is a mess that is made even muddier by letter such as this.
Brian, I completely disagree with you. It’s the flagrant misuse of canons concerning abandonment of communion that have muddied the situation, including the depositions of Bps. Cox and Schofield and the pre-emptive proceedings against Duncan. The canons themselves are selectively followed, used without grace or empathy toward those faithful whom the church has hurt, and simply act as a crowbar for the powers that be. Imagine how joyful it is to have all your aggravations in life evaporate with just a signature on a piece of paper… Don’t you think these people deserve due process? Or at the very least, in Cox’s and Duncan’s cases, that the rules be followed? And logically, how is it that they’ve abandoned communion by attempting to serve another province in the communion?
If the church wishes to change the basis of its belief and practice, that’s one thing. It should do so, and let those who wish to go, go. It’s quite another to change it, but claim that nothing has changed, and to treat those who protest as criminals. Ironically, liberals want us to believe you are all heart…but I’ll remind you that when the heretic Spong was having his way with the diocese of Newark, the conservatives were far more gracious toward him, in dealing with his radical unbelief and teaching, than the liberals have been to those who have struggled to find balance after having had the denominational rug pulled out from underneath them. Hyperbole my foot. Here’s a sweet piece of hyperbole for you…the radicals in this church have taught their horse to walk backwards, and now want the rest of us to believe that it’s a one-eyed horse.
Bp. Adams has done nothing here but describe the truth of what is happening. Thank you for calling it for what it is!
Brian, #5, several priests in FL, who were retired simply received a letter inhibiting them and giving them 6 months to respond, when they had done nothing other than serve previously in churches that had left the diocese. Many priests in CO, who had been transferred under a prior bishop to another Anglican province, had their transfers cancelled after several years, and were inhibited by Bp O’Neill. They were minding their own business and these bishops simply overturned their lives. Why? Vindictiveness? Because 815 said to do it? Because these bishops are power-mad? I don’t know. Maybe you do.
Brian, #5, several priests in FL, who were retired simply received a letter inhibiting them and giving them 6 months to respond, when they had done nothing other than serve previously in churches that had left the diocese.
If they are continuing to serve churches that have left the diocese then they have abandoned communion. If they are serving another Province within the geographical boundaries of TEC, they have abandoned communion.
Many priests in CO, who had been transferred under a prior bishop to another Anglican province, had their transfers cancelled after several years, and were inhibited by Bp O’Neill. They were minding their own business and these bishops simply overturned their lives.
Once the transfer has been executed, they are a part of the new Provionce. If they are a paert of the new Province and are in TECs geographical area, then they need to be inhibited. As for turning someone’s life upside-down – how is that possible as the new Province doesn’t recognize the inhibitions? Do they want to be members of TEC? Then go ahead, but if not, you abandon communion.
These priests and bishops play the sympathy card and cry out because they want their cake and to eat it too. You can not serve two masters.
Why? Vindictiveness? Because 815 said to do it? Because these bishops are power-mad? I don’t know. Maybe you do.
It’s the flagrant misuse of canons concerning abandonment of communion that have muddied the situation, including the depositions of Bps. Cox and Schofield and the pre-emptive proceedings against Duncan. The canons themselves are selectively followed, used without grace or empathy toward those faithful whom the church has hurt, and simply act as a crowbar for the powers that be.
I agree.
Don’t you think these people deserve due process? Or at the very least, in Cox’s and Duncan’s cases, that the rules be followed? And logically, how is it that they’ve abandoned communion by attempting to serve another province in the communion?
You can not serve two masters. Logically they are either members of the Anglican Communion in the United States (TEC) or they are not (AMiA, CANA, etc.)
If the church wishes to change the basis of its belief and practice, that’s one thing. It should do so, and let those who wish to go, go. It’s quite another to change it, but claim that nothing has changed, and to treat those who protest as criminals.
Please provide examples of people who have NOT left TEC and are being treated as criminals. Other than +Duncan, I can think of none. Those who have left are being asked to be accountable for their choices and they don’t like it.
Brian, I don’t buy that because people are to be held accountable, that accounting is to be done arbitrarily. The bishop’s logic seems to me to be impeccable: for if these people have truly left the communion of ECUSA, it must be the case that ECUSA has left the communion of other Anglican churches. And as I seem to be observing over and over, this seems to be about power and possessiveness, and not about communion.
Brian,
Why do you think no bishop choosing to exercise the option of abandonment of communion proceedings has qualified this with a statement to the effect that such actions relate solely to the exercise of ministry on behalf of the Episcopal Church? If even one had done so, I would have more sympathy with the rationale you outline since, as you say, none of the affected parties [b]wish[/b] to be a part of the Episcopal Church.
Harping on the abandoment of communion theme without such qualification, however, gives the impression to the outside world that those involved are guilty of more than disagreements over polity. I understand that there may be legal (property) reasons for doing so, but that doesn’t apply to the AMIA priests in Colorado, who were given letters dimissory some time ago, nor to priests whose congregations have surrendered all claims to property.
And the rules should be consistent: why should priests in the Diocese of Central Florida be allowed to make such a transfer and not those in the Diocese of Florida (I’m glad John Howe is doing what he is doing, but if the Presiding Bishop is willing to permit such freedom in one jurisdiction, it should be universal).
Catholic and Reformed
Brian, I don’t buy polity……especially TEC’s polity. Do you really think Jesus would even CARE about it? I don’t think He would! Why is it so all-fired important that TEC should be able to proclaim itself…..and demand that the Anglican Communion do the same…..as the sole owner of the franchise for Anglican Communion Anglicanism in this country? Tradition, perhaps?
That’s a laugh, because TEC threw tradition down the drain like so much bathwater when they started ordaining women, tossed out the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and commonly-accepted societal morals. I needn’t mention those; you know what I mean.
Do you really think Jesus would even CARE about it?
I don’t think Jesus would care about ANYTHING that has been created by Paul and the Early Church
Wow! Brian that is quite a statement in #14. Do you really mean that? If so, I don’t think we are at a place where further conversation is meaningful. The writings of St Paul and the early church beginnings under Peter and James (and Paul) are, I think, full of the love of our Lord, and I have faith our Lord does care about them. Perhaps we need to talk about the Word a little more, for the Lord commends the Word to us many times. So are you saying the writings of St Paul, St Peter, St James, St John, the Gospels, et al are not a part of the Word?
I mean that the Church has assigned FAR too much importance to the issue of polity. A bishop of the Church is a bishop wherever he goes in the Communion……even if he disagrees with a brother bishop on matters of theology. His job is to protect and defend the Faith of Christ crucified, and to serve ALL of the faithful. Christ would not have approved of boundaries, since His Church is boundless.
There has been entirely too much of this “stay off my turf” business, and to Bishop Lamb, I say this: Our diocese is NOT YOUR TURF! It’s GOD’S turf! And OUR bishop, +John-David, RUNS it for Him!
“Please provide examples of people who have NOT left TEC and are being treated as criminals. Other than +Duncan, I can think of none. Those who have left are being asked to be accountable for their choices and they don’t like it.”
But Brian, isn’t that the point? Leaving TEC for another province isn’t a crime. If someone transfers their paper to another province in the communion, say, to become dean of a seminary in Canada, has she abandoned communion? What’s the difference, other than the emotions involved? Is it okay to happily transfer to Canada, but not angrily to Uganda? If so, there’s a glaring double standard.
I would imagine that most of those clergy who have felt compelled to leave, usually without property, didn’t want to so much burn bridges with TEC as appease their consciences, and remain firm in what they consider their ordination vows. Most are faithful, caring priests who simply couldn’t stay. I can’t say for certain, but I suspect most of them would have rather have had the opportunity for a move of letters similar to what happend under Winterrowd in CO. But not all in authority are so forgiving. Once again, don’t they deserve due process?
As for your use of Matthew 6:24…it seems a bit thin. Which organization seems more concerned with money (and property) than with the Godly admonition to walk the extra mile, these days?
“It has been used nearly 300 times in the past six years.” This statement alone is a clue that something is way out of balance.
The Bp of Western Kansas misspeaks when he says that when “he was ordained a priest 28 years ago [he] could go to any Anglican Church in the world and as a recognized Anglican in Holy Orders of the Anglican Communion, . . . could be invited to celebrate, preach or otherwise minister with summary permission from ecclesiastical authorities.”
Nothing to my knowledge has changed from the standard procedure, which is far more complex than the Bp suggests. The standard procedure — which I know about from personal experience — is for someone ordained in one Church of the Anglican Communion who wishes to function as an ordained person in another Church of the Communion to request permission from an appropriate ecclesiastical authority and then submit for review whatever evidence of his or her ordination is requested by that ecclesiastical authority.
Several years ago, and long before the current unpleasantness in the Communion, I wanted to function as a priest in the Church of England. I contacted the Bishop of Ely, in whose diocese I would be living. He directed me to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who requested from me copies of my “letters of orders.”
This request sent me scurrying to an ecclesiastical dictionary, where I found that by asking for my “letters of orders,” he wanted to see my ordination certificates. I duly sent him copies, and several months later — and well into my time in England — I received a handsome license to function as a priest, duly signed, but with a clearly specified time limit in which I could function before the permission expired.
There was nothing casual, nothing summary about it. There was clear recognition that my ordination was as a priest in the Episcopal Church and that the recognition of my ordination as a priest and my permission to function as a priest in the Church of England was at the discretion of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the result of careful scrutiny by a totally different structure of ecclesiastical authority, and that it had clearly-defined limits.
#19, your description is not contrary to what Bp Adams has said “with summary permission from ecclesiastical authorities.” You made the point of Bp Adams … clergy wanting to transfer as you did, even for a short time, are now being inhibited and deposed as “abandoning the communion” of the church, simply because they want to transfer out of TEC to another province. And it is being selectively done. If someone wants to go to CofE or Canada, they are given letters dismissory and allowed to transfer. If they want to go to Uganda, they are not, even if they don’t want to take any property with them. How can O’Neill justify what he did in CO to those clergy who were long gone and legally transferred by his predecessor? That is just mean and vindictive.
The only difference in all of this is geography. Those wanting to go to So. Cone, Uganda, etc. are staying in the geographic area. So because TEC bishops don’t like the competition, they are being small minded, ignoring the vast change in TEC theology, and deposing these clergypersons, instead of simply opening their hearts and minds like they should as Christians and allowing for a broad tent to bring all to Christ (for instance, they aren’t nearly as closed-minded with other denominations – the PB allows sale of churches to other denominations, but not to other Anglican branches). What would Jesus do? I don’t think He would worry about geography. I think He would say the State of CO is big enough for all branches of the Anglican Communion and any other church that follows Him and wants to bring His people to Him. I think in the Book of Life, those who impede the Word are going to come up on the short end of the stick.
[blockquote] I don’t think Jesus would care about ANYTHING that has been created by Paul and the Early Church [/blockquote]
I guess in your faith all that junk in Acts about Paul being visited by Jesus is to be crossed out, then. Which, of course, leaves the rest of that book and maybe the preceding Gospel of Luke in question.
Which seems to bring some important parts of the Bishop of Western Kansas’s letter to proof.
Dear #19 JNWALL
I never said “live” in the other jurisdiction. I just meant to visit. To live and transfer is a whole other thing and sometimes does take much more time. But even visiting is a chore today. +James