David Anderson-Applaud the 36 bishops who voted no: but TEC may become victims of their own Actions

The House of Bishops believes that by this vote they have cancelled +Duncan’s ordinations as deacon, priest and bishop, and rendered him a layman in the church. For those of you who may have forgotten, Bishop Bob Duncan was not only the Episcopal Bishop of Pittsburgh, but is still the moderator of the Anglican Communion Network and moderator of the Common Cause Partners Federation. This last organization is seeking recognition from the GAFCON Primates’ Council as an orthodox Anglican Province for North America.

Immediately following Duncan’s deposition, Primate Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone (an Anglican province encompassing much of South America) announced that he and the Southern Cone House of Bishops welcomed Bishop Duncan in as a member of their Anglican province, thus preserving his holy orders as a bishop and giving him episcopal standing internationally.

Duncan’s alleged wrongdoing boils down to his being prophetic and speaking to TEC leadership that they have lost their spiritual legitimacy. For this truthful word they charged him with something he hadn’t done, leave TEC, so this was an execution based on anticipatory actions in the future. These allegations, without trial or proper procedures being followed, led to an ecclesiastical lynching, and 88 bishops of the church were the ones responsible.

We do applaud the 35 bishops who voted no the first time to the illegal actions taken. The Presiding Bishop announced in advance that she had reviewed all of the likely legitimate challenges to her proceedings and in anticipation found them failed. Her attempted refutation was based on her and her chancellors’ interpretation, and with a lynch mob dressed in Episcopal purple they were “somber and soberly” bent on getting their jobdone. Most people would take the plain meaning of the canons and bylaws, but she fashioned such mental gymnastics to justify setting aside the codified procedure that you might lose track of where she was going. She created ambiguity where there was none and then announced that in cases of ambiguity the final advantage had to rest with the presiding bishop’s point of view. In the United States there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and any ambiguity goes to the accused, but not so in the Robespierre Court of the HOB. The bishop and Diocese of Albany issued in advance a well-reasoned letter of protest describing the faults of Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori’s process ….[which should be carefully digested by everyone].

Read it all.

print
Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Episcopal Church (TEC), Presiding Bishop, TEC Bishops, TEC Conflicts, TEC Conflicts: Pittsburgh, TEC Polity & Canons

8 comments on “David Anderson-Applaud the 36 bishops who voted no: but TEC may become victims of their own Actions

  1. Dr. William Tighe says:

    “The House of Bishops believes that by this vote they have cancelled +Duncan’s ordinations as deacon, priest and bishop, and rendered him a layman in the church.”

    I find this hard to believe, as ever since the Reformation, as also before it, the Church of England (and its offshoots) have never made it their practice to reordain any clergy who have been deposed from their Orders (or who have voluntarily renounced them), and have subsequently been restored.

    It does those who support Bishop Duncan no good to engage in such wildly inaccurate rhetoric.

  2. stabill says:

    I fear the letter from the Standing Committee and Bishop of Albany was sent too late for the two sides to have had time to form a truce in reaction to its message, which, of course, requires the engagement of both sides. But I pray its central message may yet be heard:
    [blockquote]
    … call upon the House of Bishops, the House of Deputies and all involved in the current theological war to call a truce, enabling The Episcopal Church to refocus our time, energy and resources on the difficult but necessary process of figuring out how Christians who passionately hold what appear to be irreconcilable differences in the understanding and interpretation of Holy Scripture … can move forward in building up the Kingdom of God by sharing the love and Good News of Jesus Christ with all who will receive it. For far too long we have been consumed by politically-charged agendas to the detriment of the Church and the building up of the Kingdom of God. May God give us the grace, the wisdom, the compassion, the humility we need to discern His will, moving forward in His Name to His honor and glory and to the benefit of His Church and people.
    [/blockquote]
    Amen.

  3. Tom Roberts says:

    #1 Interesting point you raise that I’ve never thought on when reading the Canons concerning deposition. The Canons only refer to an interdiction of clerical functions within the ambit of ecusa. The clear presumption is that the deposed cleric can function in any other church, or as clerics who have voluntarily renounced their licenses in ecusa (e.g. +Kelshaw, +Minns) now function in other Anglican provinces. Given the corporate leprosy that ecusa is experiencing today, the effects of such depositions should only be measured in how that deposition affects the relationship between the deposed and their flocks. Both of these can vote with their feet once the cleric is deposed. One can only wonder if the leprosy will accelerate under this program of care by Dr. Schori.

  4. Tom Roberts says:

    The one mistake in this article is the hyperbolic “lynch mob” allusion. I doubt it furthers Anderson’s overall argument. “Mob” would have been sufficient, and referential to the objections in The Federalist Papers to such political processes.

  5. Larry Morse says:

    Why, do you suppose, that Schori et al are so thoroughly protected from reprisal, from being called before the bench? Do you suppose they can possibly be unaware of the consequences of this deposition, esp. since deposing a bishop who is already headed out is largely meaningless. Deposition cannot have any effect of ++Duncan, if they had intended to punish him. They appear to be blind, and I still cannot understand this opacity. What can their purpose possibly be here? What do they stand to gain by it? I really don’t understand.

    But this much I am sure of: earlier I had remarked that Schori was utterly without imagination, and this vacuum produces an inability to conceive of anything except what is immediately in front of her. I cannot think of any other explanation for a tenacity of purpose that is apparently disconnected from the significance of the results. Larry

  6. Tom Roberts says:

    Who is going to present the charges against her, General Convention? This is what happens when there is a defective political structure, not to be confused with a Church.

  7. Cennydd says:

    The Anglican Communion’s public opinion will convict The Episcopal Communion (“Church”), just as surely as other segment of society would. Their credibility has already been fatally damaged……to the point that no one trusts their word any more.

  8. libraryjim says:

    +Duncan needs to just ignore the vote, and carry on as Bishop of his diocese.