The failure of the House of Bishops to discipline our own for lesser infractions than pulling a diocese out of TEC (thereby giving incontrovertible proof of violating the oath to “conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church) is a matter of significance, I think. Bishop Duncan in particular has done a number of things which should have called for a disciplinary response from the HoB. Indeed, he asked for it specifically, back in September 2002, when he stated to the House that he had deliberately “provoked a constitutional crisis” (his words) by interfering in a parish in another diocese. And nothing happened. That the present Presiding Bishop is acting may be closing the barn door after the horse has left. But just leaving it swinging in the breeze would be dereliction of duty.
In the final analysis, our polity exists to support a dynamic missionary expansion as its first priority, and it does this admirably. After all, TEC, despite our small size, has launched about one-quarter of the provinces of the Communion. As such, it is less well suited to resolving significant conflicts about doctrine and discipline, because sufficient agreement on these is presupposed in the structures themselves. How can you undertake to evangelize the world if you do not have enough basic trust in each other’s grasp of the Gospel and catholic order””the synthesis that is the genius of Anglican ecclesiology?
Interesting (and telling) that he chooses 2002 and +Duncan as the time and peson to discipline. Perhaps he might look back to +Pike and 1966 as a FAR better example? But of course he probably doesn’t thing +Pike did anything wrong……
I fear this is more a response of decoration than of substance. That is too bad. It would be good if specifics in the argument were engaged.
[blockquote] In the final analysis, our polity exists to support a dynamic missionary expansion as its first priority, and it does this admirably. [/blockquote]
This is pretty slippery if not downright false. If “dynamic missionary expansion” means sending some money around, fine. But if it includes evangelism, this is a joke. TEC’s own Congregational Development people will tell you that the denomination has a built in, historical bias against evangelism and membership growth. One speaker, years ago, called TEC the “bonsai church” – referring to the beautifully sculpted by growth-stunted Japanese decorative trees.
[blockquote] After all, TEC, despite our small size, has launched about one-quarter of the provinces of the Communion. [/blockquote]
In South Dakota, there is a wonderful history of missionary work and growth under the first Bishop, Wm. H. Hare. But the diocese today is withered. Bp. Whalon makes a pretty weak argument here. “Past performance is no guarantee of future returns,” after all.
[blockquote]As such, it is less well suited to resolving significant conflicts about doctrine and discipline, because sufficient agreement on these is presupposed in the structures themselves. How can you undertake to evangelize the world if you do not have enough basic trust in each other’s grasp of the Gospel and catholic order—the synthesis that is the genius of Anglican ecclesiology? [/blockquote]
Again, he relies on a nostalgia for history not supported by current reality. TEC and ACC have so radically disregarded consensus and structures (or twisted these ideas so much as to make them unrecognizable) that the entire communion is damaged – Judge Bellows recognized this in one of his Virginia decisions.
The ability to TEC Bishops to pile up words without connection to real events is breathtaking.
For me Bishop Whalon’s analysis totally fails because he does not take it to the logical conclusion — which relates to a Province’s obligations to the global Communion. So the GC trumps the diocese, but the instruments of global communion do not trump the GC?
Bp. Whalon, it grieves one to note, is more and more sounding like an insitutional shill. When TEC’s interpretation of the Gospel includes Bishops (not simply wayward laymen) such as Spong, Righter, even the current PB, whose expression of the Gospel is unrecognizable, and when TEC’s definition of “Catholic order” apparently includes only those who embrace WO, what collegiality is there left for an orthodox believer?
There IS no “collegiality” left for us orthodox believers, and that is only one reason why we’ve chosen to do as we did. I submit that The Episcopal Church left US; we didn’t leave THEM!
[i] The failure of the House of Bishops to discipline our own for lesser infractions than pulling a diocese out of TEC is a matter of significance [/i]
Think Spong.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] Our polity exists to support a dynamic missionary expansion [/i]
Agreed. The national church, officially known as the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church, was created for just that purpose.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] How can you undertake to evangelize the world if you do not have enough basic trust in each other’s grasp of the Gospel and catholic order? [/i]
Good question. Indeed, how can you evangelize anyone if you barely believe in the gospel? Or if you regard Christian evangelism as an act of personal arrogance and cultural imperialim?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Bp. Whalon strains gnats and swallows camels.
[blockquote]How can you undertake to evangelize the world if you do not have enough basic trust in each other’s grasp of the Gospel and catholic order[/blockquote]
I am amazed that Bp Whalon cannot see that this is precisely the problem: the orthodox are convinced that the progressives do not have the same gospel that they do – indeed, that what the progressives teach is an anti-gospel that denigrates God, his Word, and his Cross.
I think you hit the nail on the head Dr. Seitz. It is truly unfortunate that Bp. Whalen has been so dismissive of Dr. Turner’s work. As I have commented elsewhere, I think it is the institutional and progressive bishops who need to pay attention to this. The CP bishops will, at least for the time being, have some cover due to the relationship and support they are getting from the rest of the Communion.
But if the canonical abuses of recent times are allowed to stand, or indeed, written into canon law as they are now “interpreted”, it will be open season on the diocesan structure, and the power of the episcopate. Does Bishop Whalen really want to answer to the bureaucracy of the Executive Committee? Leave liturgy and doctrine to the whim of a legislature that meets every 3 years? The bishops of TEC need to ask themselves not whether they agree with Dr. Turner’s theology, but whether they intend to accept an ecclesiology based on fiat and the whims of 815 and GC. If their answer to the latter is NO, then they should be carefully studying what Dr. Turner has to say.
[blockquote] The Constitution makes clear that dioceses are created by General Convention (Article V). It also provides that dioceses can be merged and therefore dissolved by action of GC, but in all cases a diocese does not have by itself the power to vote to secede or merge with another diocese.[/blockquote]
Article V is entitled “Admission of New Dioceses.” This implies that the diocese is a structure that exists and seeks admission.
“Bishop Duncan in particular has done a number of things which should have called for a disciplinary response from the HoB.”
“Should have,” could have… that is the problem, Bishop Duncan was deposed without trial or fair warning for what he might have done, or might have been thinking. That is deplorable. How pompous an act to suppose that one has such authority to depose without warrant. If Bishop Duncan HAD ACTUALLY left TEC, well fine depose him, but this act was extra-canonical, and in flagrant violation of the rules of the HOB. Worst of all, it was uncharitable behavior unbecoming of the clergy…
I always imagine Bishop Pierre Whalon as being rather an agreeable man to have lunch with but wonder if he might be more comfortable engaging with the wine list than with Dr Turner’s arguments.
That is not for one moment to decry his experience of working in a territory which has two provinces exercising jurisdiction.
I agree with the above that this response is disappointing. He makes the beginnings of plausible responses to some of Dr. Turner’s points but then repeatedly fails to follow up. For instance, his notion that Canon IV.9’s allowing a single senior bishop to stop a Deposition from going forward is a good point, but he fails to explain why changing the canon is not the answer. Nor does he credit the fact that an Ecclesiastical Trial could have achieved the same goals, nor does he address the likelihood that this canon makes Deposition intentionally difficult. And of course, the monumental amount of sophistry that went into the “interpretations” that allowed such niceties as Inhibition to be done away with is left un-remarked on. Indeed, the foux deposition of Bishop Duncan would seem a classic example of destroying the village of TEC Polity in order to save it. Defending the action will take a great deal of care and honesty. Instead, we have yet another example in which brevity trumps argumentation with the result being that the position argued for is damaged vice defended.
Bishop Whalon’s argument lost its credibility when he spoke of the relationship of dioceses to the General Convention and when he addressed the Abandonment canon. First, he said
Robroy was quite correct to point out that the canon in question deals with the admission of new dioceses “into union” with the General Convention. Dioceses are created or admitted with the consent of General Convention, not BY General Convention, and therein “lies the rub”. If a diocese is in union with General Convention, it is bound by the common rules (as Dr. Turner argued). The fact that it is so bound, does not in any way, prevent the said diocese from disaffiliating with the General Convention. As an analogy, as an employee of my employer, I am bound to follow the rules of my workplace and employer. But that does not mean I am a “serf” and bound forever to my employer.
Second, he said
Canon IV.9 has no confusing passages if one is willing to accept the plain meaning buttressed by the “legislative history” of the language. But Bishop Whalon does not wish to accept the plain meaning and so he has to plead “confusion” when no such confusion actually exists. The Abandonment canon is an extremely powerful one, and one that has no due process protections. It is not intended to be used as the “easy way to get rid of troublesome bishops”, but rather as a way to remove bishops who have clearly and unambiguously have departed. Again, if Bishop Whalon would read the canon as it was intended to be read there would be no confusion. The Review Committee does the initial examination to determine that the bishop in question did indeed leave the Church. Since this canon was only intended to deal with bishops who unambiguously departed, this shouldn’t be a controversial decision. Then, for expedited due process, the three most senior bishops have to approve the inhibition. Again, why do it this way? Because there needs to be some protections against the abuse of a very powerful canon. So the theory is, that the longest serving bishops are the least likely to be swayed by political maneuvering, and this the most likely to protect the system. Then, it is followed by the large majority of the House of Bishops. Again, for uncontroversial cases, this shouldn’t really be a problem.
One could respond to Bishop Whalon – if Canon IV.9 is meant to be the “quick and easy” “one size fits all” response for the Presiding Bishop to dispose of problem bishops, why have the other disciplinary canons??? It may be that in the past other bishops, including Bishop Duncan, ought to have been tried for canonical violations. But would Bishop Whalon approve if after luckily avoiding a few speed traps, and avoiding some deserved speeding tickets, the government then engaged in gross abuse of the legal process and charged and convicted Bishop Whalon without proper evidence or fair trial, and simply said “well, we missed giving him some speeding tickets a few years ago, so this is just our way of closing the barn door”?!?!????
[blockquote]Certainly Canon IV.9 has some confusing passages. Does it really intend to give one single bishop, on the basis of seniority alone, the power to stop a proceeding of abandonment? One can read it that way, and it would seem that the whole argument against these actions turns on that issue. But this is inconsistent with the rest of the canon. What is the Review Committee for, in that case? Or the House of Bishops, for that matter? Why not just submit the matter to the triumvirate of the seniors?[/blockquote]
(1) Bishop Whalen’s argument that Rev. Turner et al. nullify language and procedures in Canon IV.9 works both ways. Why not just skip the “triumvirate of the seniors” and just go to the HoB (or whatever subset thereof that will render the desired verdict)?
(2) Doesn’t Bishop Whalen ignore the an intermediate step prior to deposition called inhibition and isn’t that what the three senior bishops are supposed to pronounce upon? In the secular world we have grand juries etc. By failing to return an indictment, such bodies stop an inquiry before it reaches a full trial and an adverse verdict. I would think that inhibition-deposition actions are similar in this respect to impeachment-removal actions.
Requiring a finding such as an indictment, impeachment, or inhibition, promotes efficiency. It also provides protection for the individual bishop against the coercive power of the wider HoB. This is desirable on the grounds of justice and of prudence. Those in the majority may find themselves later in the minority.
(3) I am sure that Bishop Whalen wants the Episcopal Church to remain a family, a communion, and that is part of his complaint against Bishop Duncan and Rev. Turner. But it is hard to see how his response to Turner aids this end. The ties of communion are still compromised whether one secedes (Turner) or is kicked out (Whalen). And if it becomes too easy to prevail in bringing a charge of abandonment of communion, then the powerful have less incentive to respect their rivals or reach compromises.
The couple of times I have had email back and forth with Bp. Whalon, he has seemed like a reasonable person. I recall a year or two ago, he defended the Trinitarian formula in baptism and the necessity of baptism prior to receiving Communion. I note that he abstained on the question of the deposition of Bp. Duncan. So, on the “three senior bishop” issue, I hope that he just missed the canonical point, rather than ignoring or purposefully misinterpreting the clear intention of the canon.
The intention is not to avoid trial. The intention is to force the church to have a trial in any case in which the three senior bishops are not convinced to their satisfaction, that the accused bishop has abandoned the “communion of this church” (it being fairly evident that Bishop Duncan never abandoned the Communion- either Anglican or Holy). By all means, if TEC wished to bring Duncan up on charges, they could have done so easily enough, and given him the same rights accorded Bishop Bennison. Actually, if they were sure that he would leave TEC and not show up for the trial, no doubt they would have done that. But they really, really, really did not want to have the media scrutinizing a church trial in which the burden of proof would be on the Episcopal Church, and in which Bishop Duncan could with ease demonstrate that he was being perfectly consistent with the doctrine and discipline as they existed at the time of his ordination and consecration. Remembering, of course, that each bishop who sat in judgment who had condoned SSBs, or allowed communion of the unbaptised, or had dismissed a priest for political reasons was in violation of his own vows. A trial would have been very ugly.
So, yes, Bishop Whalen, the canon is intended to work as it reads. It is specifically meant to prevent the abuse it was used to carry out.
In his blog article [url=http://web.me.com/pwhalon/Bp_Pierre_Site/Blog/Entrées/2008/7/17_Is_this_woman_a_heretic.html]here[/url], Bishop Whalon says:
Bishop Schori has more or less said this in her October 18, 2006 NPR interview – a full transcription provided [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1384/]here[/url]
Notice she doesn’t specifically say “salvation” but rather “experience God.” However, her answer is in response to the question: “Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?” – a question which certainly has to do with salvation.
She says:
in response to the question: “It sounds like you’re saying it’s a parallel reality, but in another culture and language” she answers: “I think that’s accurate.. I think that’s accurate.”
Bishop Whalon, are you a man of your word?
The Episcopal Church lost a lot of its gravitas with its inablility to discipline Bishops Pike and Spong.