Cherie Wetzel and her Monday Lambeth report

From Cherie Wetzel at Anglicans United [boldface mine]:

The 5:00 press conference on the Third stage of the Windsor Continuation Group was preceded by an Episcopal News Service impromptu conference on the lawn outside “the Missing Link” building.

TEC bishops Catherine Roskam, Suffragan, New York and Kirk Smith, Arizona, spoke first about the theme of the day: the Bishop and Interfaith dialogue. Both noted that they have a new respect for the bishops here who live in multi-cultural and multi-faith worlds and really need to dialogue so that all may live peaceably together and get along. Both described their efforts at dialogue as much less serious business.

Moving on to the third session today from the Windsor Continuation Group, both said that they would prefer to see the statements made in a positive and much less negative wording. Bishop Smith said that affirming their relationships as bishops in a positive way would be more acceptable; because it sounds like if you don’t accept this thesis and/or the Covenant, you can’t be part of the group.

Bishop Roskam stated, “We agree on so much. Let what we agree on develop a covenant, not just the problems we don’t agree on. In ’98 at Lambeth, we invited the Communion to take seriously the Christianity of gay and lesbian people. This Lambeth has welcomed the LGTB (Lesbian, Gay Transgendered and bi-sexual) people.”. . .

Read it all.

Good Shepherd and the Diocese of Central New York: False hope and a deceptive protocol (from the rector’s journal), 2007

A new entry in Matt Kennedy's on-going series at Stand Firm on his experience with the Diocese of Central New York:

The following is an email I sent to vestrymembers following perhaps the most important meeting with Bishop Adams prior to his decision to file a lawsuit against us.

The meeting took place in late October and it included discussions of a protocol for property negotiations.

Two important things to note:

1. At this point Good Shepherd had yet to officially leave the Episcopal Church and Anne and I were still ordained Episcopalian ministers. We did not want to leave first, without any consultation, and then come to the bishop with that fact already established. We wanted to act in full consultation and cooperation with the diocese to avoid causing public embarrassment to the diocese, unnecessary discord in our relationships and any litigation that might come in response.

The position of the diocese, however, was that unless and until Good Shepherd officially departed the Episcopal Church there could be no property negotiations.

2. Subsequently, many months after our departure, at a meeting at the diocesan office as relations were breaking down the chancellor for the Diocese of Central New York, Mr. Paul Curtin, suggested that “the bishop never used the word ‘negotiate’” and never believed that negotiating for the property of Good Shepherd was possible.

This would seem rather absurd given the protocol drawn up in his office and the entire two year process of negotiations and leads to the following conclusion: Either Mr Curtin is misrepresenting the facts or Bishop Adams purposefully lured Good Shepherd into a position vulnerable to litigation by promising good faith negotiations, never intending to follow through. Much more will soon be published to help clarify this question.

Here is the email and the protocol. . .

Read it all. And check out Matt's earlier posts:

• Part 1:To the People of the Church of the Good Shepherd, 2006


• Part 2: Good Shepherd and the Diocese of Central New York: Resolution and Correspondence, July 2006


• Part 3: Good Shepherd and the Diocese of Central New York: Hope for an amicable parting, Fall 2006


• Part 4: Good Shepherd and the Diocese of Central New York: An ominous sign (from the rector’s journal), 2007

Good Shepherd and the Diocese of Central New York: An ominous sign (from the rector’s journal), 2007

From Stand Firm, more on the history of Matt Kennedy+ and his dealings with the bishop of Central New York [boldface mine]:

. . . The Diocese of Central New York had more pressing concerns than the status of Good Shepherd. The wheels were starting to come off of the diocese's contrived, trumped up, and ultimately failed case against Fr. Bollinger, former Rector of St. Paul's, Owego who had openly questioned the dioceses' failure to pursue accusations of sexual abuse against one of his predecessors. The lawsuit against St. Andrew's Syracuse had not gone well and the bishop was beginning to feel the heat for his legal adventurism.

It was not until July 2007 that I finally spoke with Bishop Adams personally by telephone. The conversation, however, was very productive. We discussed the steps Good Shepherd and the diocese might take together to best facilitate our departure and the bishop reiterated his desire to avoid litigation and his belief that it would be possible for us to retain our property. It was in that context that he asked that I write the following letter to the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Central New York, formally appraising them of the situation at Good Shepherd, our intent, and the discussions the bishop and the vestry had had up to that point. . .

I did not hear from the bishop again until the day we met for lunch during the House of Bishop's meeting in New Orleans in the latter half of September. It was a very important meeting and I came away feeling quite confident about the possibility of reaching a solution. On September 27th, I sent the following report to my vestry via email from New Orleans:

Dear Vestry,

I had an opportunity to speak to the bishop while down in New Orleans. We had a good conversation. He acknowledged that the national church was actively discouraging the sort of deals that we want to work out, but said that the national church was not going to force his hand, especially if the deal that we work out is quiet and there is little publicity.

I asked whether our departure would trigger a lawsuit. He said no. He said that the difference between us and the other churches was that we have not acted without consulting him. We have not embarrassed him or the diocese. We have, he said, a relationship of trust. I agree and as much as it depends on us, we should do everything to maintain that. . .

Read it all. And check out Matt's earlier posts:

• Part 1:To the People of the Church of the Good Shepherd, 2006


• Part 2: Good Shepherd and the Diocese of Central New York: Resolution and Correspondence, July 2006


• Part 3: Good Shepherd and the Diocese of Central New York: Hope for an amicable parting, Fall 2006

Good Shepherd and the Diocese of Central New York: Hope for an amicable parting, Fall 2006

From Stand Firm, Matt Kennedy's continuing series on his church's relationship with the Diocese of Central New York:

On the morning of August 3rd, 2006 Good Shepherd's Junior Warden, Tom Woolsey, our treasurer, Chris Jones, and I met with Bishop Adams in his office in Syracuse. The bishop was accompanied by the dean of the Syracuse district of Central New York parishes. Our senior warden, John King, was out of town.

The meeting went very well. We arrived ready to offer half of a six hundred thousand dollar bequest in exchange for a diocesan agreement to quit any claim to parish property. Property prices in Central New York are quite low compared to those in Virginia and elsewhere so the offer was a generous one. The amount offered would, we would later (after a joint appraisal) discover, fall just under fair market value. But, we reasoned, this first meeting was just the beginning of negotiations and we were ready to offer more if necessary.

It did not prove necessary. Bishop Adams expressed a great deal of interest in the arrangement. Not only did he think such a deal possible but he expressed the opinion that it was preferable to any court proceeding.

There were questions about whether a transfer of the bequest was possible. The bequest stated that should Good Shepherd "cease to exist" the principle would pass to another local parish. But, on the other hand, Good Shepherd was not going to "cease to exist". We were simply going to disaffiliate from the Episcopal Church.

The bishop promised to follow up on this question from his side (as we would from ours) and to query the standing committee regarding our offer. . .

And in the comments, one from Matt Kennedy+:

. . . Although given subsequent events that will be disclosed later, I am not altogether sure there was ever, on the part of the diocese, a genuine interest in anything other than getting us to reveal information about our financial situation. I hope I am wrong.

Read it all. Past installments of this series may be found here (Spring 2006) and here (Summer 2006).

Good Shepherd and the Diocese of Central New York: Resolution and Correspondence, July 2006

From Stand Firm, next in the series by Fr. Matt Kennedy on his church's talks with Bishop Adams of Central New York:

The following three documents from the Church of the Good Shepherd were produced in July 2006 in response to General Convention. On July 5th, 2006 the wardens and vestry unanimously passed the following resolution:

Whereas The Episcopal Church has failed to comply with the Windsor Recommendations as requested by the Primates, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Consultative Council and;

Whereas the position of The Episcopal Church with regard to human sexuality clearly violates the plain reading of Scripture, be it;

Resolved that the Vestry, Wardens, and Rector of the Church of the Good Shepherd intend to remain constituent members of the Anglican Communion and in full submission to the Word of God and be it;

Resolved that the Vestry, Wardens, and Rector of the Church of the Good Shepherd, disassociate from the decisions of 74th and the 75th General Conventions of the Episcopal Church and commit to full compliance with all the requests of the Windsor Report as accepted and amended by the Primates of the Anglican Communion and the Archbishop of Canterbury at the Dromantine Conference and be it;

Resolved that the Vestry, Wardens, and Rector of the Church of the Good Shepherd, on behalf of the Church of the Good Shepherd, intend to seek affiliation with and submit to full episcopal oversight from an orthodox Anglican province in communion with the See of Canterbury subsequent to adequate communication with members of the congregation.

The next day we sent this letter to the entire parish. Here is an excerpt:

...That is the core issue. The current teachings of the Episcopal Church with regard to the authority of the bible and human sexuality lead people deeper into darkness and further from the light of Christ.

For that reason and for the spiritual safety of our families, the vestry and I do not believe that we can participate any longer. It is our intention to seek affiliation with another faithful Anglican body.

There will be two parish gatherings: one on Wednesday evening the 12th of July at 6:30pm and one on Sunday morning, the 16th of July, between services. These meetings are designed to inform and to listen. Your questions and comments are welcome and encouraged. All members of the Church of the Good Shepherd are welcome.

God has prepared us over the last three years for these crucial days in the life of this parish. . .

Read it all.

To the People of the Church of the Good Shepherd, 2006

Interesting start to what will be an on-going series on Stand Firm. From Matt Kennedy at Stand Firm in comment 5:

. . . This is the first installment of what will be a weekly parish-eye re-telling of the events leading up to a lawsuit. The story will be largely told through primary documents and letters to give readers a sense of just how things unfolded and began to unravel. We are doing this in hopes of letting people see what it is like on the ground, not just at Good Shepherd, but at parishes throughout North America in revisionst dioceses. This story will be about a particular parish, but it will also, hopefully, serve as somewhat representative of the experience of the many other parishes that have also had to face litigation and possible property loss.

And the first posting is Matt's letter to his congregation from 2006 [boldface mine]:

To the People of the Church of the Good Shepherd, May 2006

May 18th, 2006

Dear Good Shepherd,

Good Morning...As many of you know, the vestry met with Bishop Adams yesterday. We had a very productive discussion about a number of issues. Our differences are real. They petain to primary or "essential" matters of faith. In this case, as has been said many times before, the essential matter is the authority of the Word of God. Fidelity and compromise simply cannot coexist when it comes to essential matters. To compromise an essential principle of faith is to compromise Christian integrity.

The good news is that both your leaders on vestry and bishop Adams understand and respect this. Good Shepherd cannot compromise the clear teaching of the scriptures or participate in a body that we believe is leading people caught up in sexual sin further into the darkness and away from Christ and bishop Adams a feels just as firmly determined that monogamous homosexual behavior should be blessed by the church.

We both recognized yesterday that maintaining our Christian integrity, sadly, may very well mean that we walk apart from each other after General Convention.

In all likelihood, to be as realistic with you as possible, it is looking that way. That came through fairly clearly yesterday.

But one of the very productive and beneficial aspects of the meeting was that no matter what takes place, there is a strong mutual commitment to seek an amicable, peaceful, and loving resolution. If we walk apart, there is a commitment on our part and on the part of bishop Adams to do so in Christian love and respect.

This is a wonderful blessing enjoyed by very few churches and dioceses in our position. It speaks well of the bishop and of your vestry.

You should be very proud of your vestry by the way. They handled themselves with great respect and love toward the bishop and yet they did so with a calm and firm commitment to remain faithful to the gospel. It was a truly moving thing to watch these Christian men and women firmly bear witness to their faith with gentle humility.

Nobody knows what will happen in June. But I do know that God is most definitely guiding our steps and that so long as we remain faithful what lies before us is far greater and far better than what lies behind. . .

Read it all. Can't wait to see the trajectory of events that led from this letter to the current lawsuit by the diocese.

The Diocese of Central New York and St. Andrew’s, Syracuse “split up legally”

And this is what happens when as Christians, we ignore Paul's admonition in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 on lawsuits among believers:

A Syracuse church and the local Episcopal diocese are legally splitting up - and, as with court-approved divorces, much of the settlement involves the division of property.

The Episcopal Diocese of Central New York retains ownership of St. Andrew's Church, but members of the breakaway parish will get to use the building rent-free for up to a year, according to the settlement.

The settlement - accepted Tuesday by state Supreme Court Justice James Murphy - will result in the court-ordered dissolution of St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, 5013 S. Salina St., at the end of the year. . .

. . . After St. Andrew's designated the bishop of Rwanda its leader and hired a pastor who was not licensed to minister here, the Episcopal Diocese of Central New York sued the church in July 2006. The diocese said it owns the church building, rectory and parish assets. Similar legal battles are taking place all over the country.

In June, members of another church in the local diocese, St. Andrew's Episcopal Church in Vestal, voted to leave the Episcopal Church and join the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, an Orthodox group of churches. And the pastor of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton has indicated his parish intends to leave the Episcopal Church, said the Rev. Karen C. Lewis, assistant to Bishop Gladstone "Skip" Adams.

The diocese has not taken legal action against those two parishes, Lewis said. . .

H/t to Stand Firm.

Read it all from The [Syracuse] Post Standard.