BabyBlue: Upcoming timeline

From BabyBlue Online, a list of upcoming events:

October 8 - TEC/Diocese of Los Angeles vs Anglican Congregations (Appeal before the California Supreme Court)

October 14 - TEC/Diocese of Virginia vs CANA, Virginia (significantly scaled-down to focus on whether the VA Division Statute also applies to three smaller properties)

Oct. 20-23 - TEC Executive Council, Helena, Montana

Oct. 21-22 - Anglican Awakening - Akron, Ohio

Nov. 4 - Election Day, USANov. 7 - Diocese of Pittsburgh Special Convention - Pittsburgh, PA

Nov. 7-8 - Diocese of Quincy Annual Synod, Quincy, Illinois

Nov. 13-15 - Anglican Awakening, Amesbury, MA

Nov. 14-15 - Diocese of Ft. Worth Convention, Bedford, Texas

Dec. 1-3 - Common Cause Partnership Council

Dec. 15-19 - Windsor Continuation Group Meeting, Mustang Island, Texas

Jan/Feb 2009 - Anglican Primates Meeting, Bahamas

Check it out.

AnglicanTV in Pittsburgh **sticky through the convention**

Kevin Kallsen of AnglicanTV will be live streaming the Diocese of Pittsburgh Convention starting Saturday morning, October 4.

Diocese of Pittsburgh Convention

Online TV Shows by Ustream
Please help with AnglicanTV's Travel Expenses:

TEC cheatsheet on Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh

Did you know that our very own Bishop Mathes here in San Diego is on this task force, the House of Bishops Task Force on Property Disputes (as he continues to sue several churches here who are unable to continue in heresy)?

And remind me again why a task force on property disputes is commenting on an issue of "abandonment of communion"??? Huumm???

So when they try to tell you the action against Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh has nothing to do with holding on to the property or keeping the money, just remind them that their own Task Force on Property Disputes is issuing info on Bishop Duncan's deposition - not exactly in their purview.

Questions and Answers about matters involving the Bishop of Pittsburgh

Meeting of the House of Bishops, September 2008

Q: Why is the House of Bishops contemplating action against Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh?

A: At its meeting Sept. 17-19, the House of Bishop will be considering the report from its Title IV Review Committee, which certified in December 2007 that Bishop Robert Duncan had "abandoned the communion of this church," primarily because he has been involved with actions and decisions to remove the Diocese of Pittsburgh from The Episcopal Church and affiliate it with the Province of the Southern Cone. Under the provisions of Canon IV.9, this certification goes to the House of Bishops for it to consider whether or not to depose Bishop Duncan.

The House of Bishops' Task Force on Property Disputes, through its work to protect property assets within The Episcopal Church, also has concluded that Bishop Duncan openly renounced the discipline of The Episcopal Church, which constitutes abandonment of the communion of this church and requires his removal from ordained ministry, or deposition.

Q: What does "abandonment of communion" mean?

A: The Canons of The Episcopal Church define abandonment as "...an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church ..." (Title IV, Canon 10, Sec. 1)

Q: What kind of things has Bishop Duncan done to constitute this "open renunciation"?

A: Bishop Duncan has actively worked to remove the Diocese of Pittsburgh from the authority of The Episcopal Church. (see House of Bishop’s Property Task Force Memo. "Evidence of Abandonment by Bishop Duncan") He has supported and encouraged the diocesan convention to change its constitution to accomplish this. He also has sought out affiliation with the Province of the Southern Cone, located in South America. All these actions point to his open and conscious renunciation of the authority of The Episcopal Church for him personally and, he hopes, for the entire diocese under his care.

Furthermore, he has used assets of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to accomplish this goal, and he has stated that he does not now, nor will he, have any obligation to protect the assets of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for the use of The Episcopal Church.

Q: What has caused this rift between The Episcopal Church and Bishop Duncan?

A: This case is about Bishop Duncan's actions, not about his beliefs. For years Bishop Duncan has been a leading spokesman for conservative theological positions. But there are a wide range of theological convictions within The Episcopal Church, and there is room for all those within the church. The issue here is that he has renounced the authority of The Episcopal Church over him and seeks to have his diocese adopt the same policy through a vote of its convention.

Q: The final vote by the Pittsburgh Diocesan Convention to split from The Episcopal Church doesn't take place until October 4. Why not wait until after then?

A: While the House fervently hopes that the Pittsburgh convention may yet decide not to vote to sever ties with The Episcopal Church, action involving Bishop Duncan is not tied to a vote on that date. Any action by voters in the Diocese of Pittsburg does not lessen the culpability of Bishop Duncan, since he is encouraging his diocese's departure from The Episcopal Church and is actively working to that effect. Whether or not delegates to the Pittsburgh convention vote to follow Bishop Duncan's abandonment of The Episcopal Church is one thing. That Bishop Duncan already has abandoned The Episcopal Church through an open renunciation and repudiation of its discipline is another, and already is well established.

Also, should the House wait until after October 4 to consider action against Bishop Duncan, the matter normally would not come up again until the spring meeting of the House in March, 2009. People in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, both supporters and opponents of Bishop Duncan's theology, have said that waiting until then to finalize the matter would leave the diocese in far too long a period of limbo to be sustainable. Acting before October 4 also would have significantly positive effects in protecting the assets of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for use by Episcopalians.

Additionally, because the Title IV Review Committee has certified that Bishop Duncan has abandoned the communion of this church, the canons call for consideration of such matters at the next meeting of the House after such a certification.

Q: Is this action just about trying to keep property in The Episcopal Church?

A: This matter, at its root, is about maintaining accountability for one's actions as a bishop within The Episcopal Church. However, there are a complex set of pastoral imperatives involved as well. As Bishop of Pittsburgh, Bishop Duncan controls millions of dollars in assets within the diocese. In a hierarchical institution like The Episcopal Church, canon law vests ultimate ownership of parish property with dioceses, and diocesan property with the wider Episcopal Church. Property is owned not for the benefit of individuals but of the church as a whole.

We are sacramental people who believe in the importance of "outward and visible signs." What happens to the sacred spaces in Pittsburgh matters a great deal to the many faithful members there who want to remain in The Episcopal Church and who have worked hard and given sacrificially to support these facilities. It is the obligation of The Episcopal Church to make certain that property intended for use by Episcopalians is available to future generations of Episcopalians for worship and for mission.

The House of Bishops Task Force on Property Disputes
The Right Reverend Stacy Sauls, Bishop of Lexington, Chair
The Right Reverend Jon Bruno, Bishop of Los Angeles
The Right Reverend Mark Hollingsworth, Bishop of Ohio
The Right Reverend John Howard, Bishop of Florida
The Right Reverend William Persell, retired Bishop of Chicago
The Right Reverend Dean Wolfe, Bishop of Kansas
The Right Reverend Mark Andrus, Bishop of California
The Right Reverend Philip Duncan, Bishop of Central Gulf Coast
The Right Reverend James Mathes, Bishop of San Diego

Read it all, and head over to Stand Firm to get a good break-down of the erroneous points in this Q&A.
H/t to Stand Firm.

Burnt toast: Two observations on the recent HOB meeting

One observation from a layman and one from a bishop, both arriving at basically the same conclusion - the Episcopal Church as we knew it is toast, and burnt toast at that.

From Captain Yips [boldface mine]:

. . . And revulsion over the descent of what’s left of The Episcopal Church into mere lawless chaos. With the contrived and illicit expulsion of the Bishop of Pittsburgh, the House of Bishops, the same House that tolerates the manifold inanities of John Spong, that couldn’t bring itself to bring James Pike to account, has declared its absolute irrelevance - to anything. How the vote was contrived and excused is not terrifically important. With it, the EpiscoLeft has declared that the revolution must go forward.

I am, happily, out of TEC and won’t return. The fight in the Diocese of Chicago was lost a long time ago, probably when I was in my 20s, and when we didn’t know there was a fight on anyway. . .

Read it all.

And from Bishop Mark Lawrence of the Diocese of South Carolina [boldface mine]:

. . . Once again within a few months the landscape of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion has changed—as if Gafcon and Lambeth were not enough. What does this deposition mean? Frankly, it is still unfolding, but I offer the following reflections:

• The House of Bishops whether intentionally or not has enhanced the power of the Presiding Bishop. With consequences far beyond the deposition of The Rt. Reverend Robert Duncan, this vote by interpretation and application of Title IV.9, has established invasive reach for the PB. It is now possible for a sitting bishop of TEC to be deposed without prior inhibition or trial, rendering superfluous the role of the three Senior Bishops of the House. Beyond this is the quizzical ruling that it takes more votes from the House to receive the resignation of a retiring bishop then to depose a sitting one! Then there is the curious fact that it takes a two-thirds vote of the house to overturn a ruling of the chair, thus when combined with rendering moot the role of the senior bishops and the plain reference to a needed “majority of the whole house entitled to vote” in Title IV.9—there is enhanced power to the PB regardless of who may hold the chair, now or in the future. A development mercurial indeed, when one considers the PB and House of Bishops have repeatedly declined the authority to speak on behalf of The Episcopal Church when queried for commitments by the Communion’s Instruments of Unity; deferring instead to the authority of General Convention. . .

All of this leads me to believe that the challenges that lie before a predominately conservative diocese like South Carolina have now been enormously increased if only because of the perception of our parishioners and clergy—but, more pertinently from what I fear is a failure of the present House of Bishops to realize just how far from historic Christianity our church has drifted. To many of our minds this, far more than Pittsburgh’s present challenge to TEC’s discipline and polity, is what has led to this current crisis. Beyond this the checks and balances previously given to us in the Constitution & Canons seem profoundly weakened. Phrases long understood as clear apparently can be spoken of as ambiguous. If what appears to be the plain meaning of a canon can be dismissed with apparent ease and with no recourse; if the request from such a monumental gathering as Lambeth 2008 urging greater dialogue and forthright conversation within the body of Christ seems to count for so little here in the first action of the House—even after so many TEC bishops report being profoundly moved by the grace exhibited toward us from those provinces grieved and hindered by our prior actions; and when there seems to be so little recognition that it has been the very actions of our General Convention and HOB in recent years that has so alienated dioceses like San Joaquin, Pittsburgh and others that their laity and clergy vote in such large majorities to remove accession clauses—judicious governance and Christian unity will drain like water from an opened hand. One might have wished for a more generous spirit and greater patience toward our own aggrieved members. Indeed one has to wonder where such tone deafness and purblindness come from. . .

Read it all.
H/t to TitusOneNine.

Weekly message from the American Anglican Council, 9/26

Via email from Bishop David Anderson of the American Anglican Council [boldface mine]:

Dearly Beloved,

There are a number of issues to look at this week. In the United States, the financial crisis continues to deepen, with concerns about jobs, homes, and savings being an increasing topic of conversation among ordinary folks. People are not of one mind as to what the solution is, but with the people feeling uncertain, churches and charitable organizations may feel the impact of this insecurity. Another area that individuals, churches and organizations are looking at is the security and strength of their personal bank accounts, and whether the US Government provides insurance for those accounts. Some people and organizations may be thinking they have more insurance for their bank accounts than they really do. Sitting down and talking with your banker about your situation might be a good thing to do fairly soon.

I would urge churches especially to look at their financial assets, talk to their banker, and see if they need to spread their accounts over two or more banks, so that each account is fully FDIC insured. It also calls to mind the fact that we ought not to put our trust in wealth, but in the one who saves us, blesses us, and provides for our needs.

On a happier note, support for Bishop Duncan is pouring in from around the world. Of course, The Episcopal Church doesn't much care whether the Anglican World disapproves of the way she handled the situation, she would say that the rest of the world was just ignorant of the facts as she has determined them, and if they were properly briefed, they would naturally agree with her. Six English bishops have said that they continue to regard Duncan as a bishop in good standing in the Anglican Communion, and this is in addition to messages sent from all corners of the Communion.

Now the countdown is on to the Pittsburgh Diocesan Convention on October 4 - what will happen? Will Katharine Jefferts Schori attempt to intervene in the proceedings, or will she wait until the meeting is concluded to take any actions she may be planning? I suspect a great many would agree with the Rt. Rev. Colin Basley, who wrote a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury calling for the immediate suspension of the Episcopal Church from any further participation in activities of the Anglican Communion, and calling for recognition of a new orthodox North American Anglican Province named Common Cause Partners Federation.

In many ways, the spiritual/ecclesiastical Anglican Communion meltdown is comparable to the financial meltdown in the US business world. In the latter, people bought sub-prime loans that were in effect bad paper, passed them on to others as if they were the real thing, trust was broken, and lies and deceit led to the economic ruination of many - and it isn't over yet! In the spiritual/ecclesiastical realm, church leaders in North America put together sub-prime, bogus spiritual truths, passed them on to others as if they were the real thing, persecuted those who raised the alarm, and as a result, trust has been broken, lives spiritually ruined, lies and deceit have caused many to leave their churches and reorganize in line with traditional Christian beliefs, and this is leading to the ecclesiastical ruination of many. The problem with spiritual ruination is that you might wind up in hell (yes, that place that TEC leaders don't believe in - or if it does exist, only a few of us will be in it!).

Meanwhile, the bishop of Washington DC, John Chane, has sued the Central Union Mission over their receipt of government funds to provide help for the homeless in the city. The Mission is a Christian organization, and as part of their feeding and assistance program, they require those participating to attend nightly religious services. Why is Bishop Chane attacking those who help the poor and homeless? Could it be because the Central Union Mission has provided space for an Anglican congregation associated with CANA (St. Brendan's in the City), to hold weekly Sunday evening services? The official reason that Bishop Chane claims is that government help to Central Union Mission is supposedly a violation of the US Constitution, since they require attendance at religious services.

In his opinion, the government isn't supposed to give money to churches: separation of church and state and all that, you know. However, Chane is the bishop of the Washington National Cathedral, and one wonders if the Cathedral hasn't accepted money from the government in one form or another, perhaps for major events held there, or for arts programs, or some other types of event. We know that the Washington DC police department has a police radio relay unit at the very top of the main tower of the Cathedral, and one wonders what other joint ventures the Cathedral has had with city or federal government. It may be that Bishop Chane hasn't had time to see the plank in his own eye.

Let us hope and pray that the ministry of Central Union Mission to the hungry and homeless and to those who need to find God in their lives, is able to continue unimpeded by any Chane-sponsored litigation.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

A comment on the letter to Bishop Duncan from +KJS

From Stand Firm, mousestalker makes a perspicacious comment in reference to the letter sent to Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh by Katharine Jefferts Schori [boldface mine]:

. . . A minor point, but does no one at 815 know how to write a letter anymore. When you’re being all chummy and collegial you get to use first names.

Example:

Right Reverend Frank Enbeans
Bishop of Bray, Bray City USA

Dear Frank,

It was swell seeing you at the auto de fa. I hope you can make the one in the spring. Best to Fanny and the kids,

Your sister in christ,

Katherine

For something formal, like a deposition, you write formally:

Right Reverend Robert Duncan
Bishop of Pittsburgh,

Dear Bishop Duncan,

It is my duty to inform you that the House of Bishops has deposed you. Your seat is therefore vacant and all honours, rights and privileges that formerly adhered to you are removed. Enclosed please find copies of documents showing the same.

Sincerely,

Katherine Jefferts Schori,
Presiding Bishop and Primate

End of letter writing lesson.

This is not a friendly letter. It cannot possibly be well meant. Don’t imply that it is. The Episcopal Church, as a church, has always been dodgy with its theology. I wish that were not so, but it is. What the Episcopal Church has always had until recently is manners.

The current leadership of the Episcopal Church, not just the ‘presiding bishop and primate’ but top to bottom are crass. What we have is a church being led by a bunch of louts in mitres. Ill bred, poorly educated, bad mannered thugs who have no idea of how to behave, no idea of how to treat people and no idea of the basics of human civilization.

The Presiding Bishop is the poster child for the principle that while most women have better manners than men, that is not true of all women. I doubt that teaching the episcopate proper theology would do any good. . .

Read it all. And I'm afraid mousestalker is exactly right - there is such a disconnect on how to behave, but maybe this is what we should expect as part of God's judgment on the Episcopal Church - a church that has always prided itself on doing the proper thing, or at least doing the thing properly. Now, even that veneer is gone.

Commentary on the HOB: The day the music died. . .

From Hills of the North:

. . . That said, for all intents and purposes the Episcopal Church as a church died yesterday. In purporting to depose Bishop Robert Duncan, two-thirds of those bishops who attended the House of Bishops meeting did something so blatantly and brazenly unlawful under the canons and so patently violative of Robert's Rules that they in effect announced that within our church words and laws and truth no longer matter. All that matters is power. Not the power of the Gospel, mind you--but raw human secular power, exercised for political purposes. Those bishops who voted to depose (and the one cowardly Judas who changed his vote after being sure it wasn't needed to destroy his brother bishop) openly and proudly embraced what was a lie--that there had been abandonment of Communion--and did so by embracing transparent lies about what the canons and parliamentary procedure actually said. Those charged to guard the truth yesterday gleefully showed their fealty to the very opposite. . .

Years from now, this action by the House of Bishops may well prove to have been a tipping point for the Episcopal Church. There are many for whom this will be the final straw, not because they have any association or necessarily even agreement with Bishop Duncan, but because it reveals what a corrupt organization they find themselves a part of. Others will realize that they cannot any longer do business with (and certainly not follow) those for whom words are meaningless, law is nothing more than an instrument of power, and truth is nonexistent. And still others will leave weary of the fight, and yearning for spiritual refreshment they cannot get from what is now indisputably a secular organization (and actually something less than most secular organizations, since few could abide such dishonesty in their leaders). In short, the exodus of the orthodox will continue and likely accelerate. This is likely exactly what the Presiding Bishop and her minions want, as they undoubtedly believe that if all the retrograde evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics would just go away, there's no limit to the greatness a progressive Episcopal Church can achieve. The evidence, of course, has been quite to the contrary, but perhaps the accelerating membership loss will help put the lie to this fantasy. . .

Finally, it's worth considering what difference yesterday's events will have in an average Episcopal Church, ones such as our two parishes here. I think it's plain enough that there will be little if any effect in the short run. The chances that even a half-dozen parishioners knew the House of Bishops was meeting is pretty small, and fewer still probably have any idea who Robert Duncan is. What happened doesn't affect the work the altar guild has to do, or the music the choir is rehearsing. It doesn't affect a parish's social outreach. It doesn't change the liturgy (yet), or alter the service times. Certainly it won't occasion the interest of reorienting the furnishings in the church, or getting a new stained glass window. If the Presiding Bishop is betting on the ignorance or nonchalance of the average pew dweller, she is making a pretty sure bet.

That's not to say there won't be an effect eventually, and a pretty potent one. The average age of those in Episcopal Church pews is high and increasing, and it's not as if the average Episcopal Church is full of children and young people and young families. There's a reason churches all around ours are opening and growing, and ours are at best in a steady state, despite population growth. And the trajectory to which the larger Episcopal Church is now committed is not one that is likely to spur growth or giving. In time that will affect the average parish church, and the average parish church here. And some years from now when we wonder why our numbers are down, and why people aren't pledging, and why no new families are joining, and how this all happened, we will be able to point to the House of Bishops meeting of September 18, 2008, as the day our church, as a church, died.

Read it all.
H/t to Stand Firm.

Statements on Bishop Robert Duncan — updated

For the most comprehensive round-up on the HOB actions against Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh and world-wide reaction to those actions, check out TitusOneNine!

AnglicanTV: Interview with Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh

From Kevin at AnglicanTV, an interview with Bishop Robert Duncan of the Diocese of Pittsburgh:

You are welcome to embed this in your blog/website. However, you must credit AnglicanTV with a hyperlink.

The Chief Kaitiff plans a purge

If you want to understand what's going on with Bishop Robert Duncan in Pittsburgh, head over the the Anglican Curmudgeon and read, read, read:

Regular readers of this site will not be surprised by the announcement from the Presiding Bishop of her intentions to bring a resolution to depose the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh at the forthcoming fall meeting of the House of Bishops at Salt lake City. (A big tip of the Rumpolean bowler to Greg Griffith at StandFirm for making it available in advance.)

What may yet come as a surprise to some, however, is the brazenness with which the Presiding Bishop has laid out her plans in advance. She is without shame: she has announced to the House of Bishops, five days ahead of their meeting, the parliamentary rulings she will make on the canonical objections to proceeding with the resolution, and she lays out her specious, the-end-justifies-the-means reading of Canon IV.9 so there can be no mistake. (I had predicted such rulings would be made, but at the meeting itself---not five days in advance! I hope there will be some stalwart bishops present who will make the only response to such tyranny that can be made, and who by their departure will deprive those remaining of a quorum.)

The Presiding Bishop is a tyrant in episcopal garb. The tragedy is that she is aided and abetted in this power grab by so many Episcopal jurists, who now must be dubbed "soi-disant jurists."

(An aside: Up until now on this blog, I have striven to maintain the utmost civility and respect toward the Presiding Bishop, always addressing her by her proper title and name. With this latest dastardly and cowardly ukaze from her hand, however, I am forced to join the ranks of so many others who have lost their respect for her. From this point forward, I shall address her as: "The Chief Kaitiff of The Episcopal Church.")

The Chief Kaitiff first attempts to justify her crime against Canon IV.9 by summoning the support of her soi-disant jurists. . .

Read it all.

BabyBlue makes a list

From BabyBlue Online, a list of upcoming events of interest:

Been thinking about what comes next. Here are some of the events:

Sept. 3-4 - CAPA Primates and Standing Committee Meeting, Nairobi, Kenya

Sept. 12-14 - The PB Road Show in Augusta, Savannah and Statesboro, Georgia

Sept. 17-19 - TEC House of Bishops, Salt Lake City, Utah

September 26-27 - Anglican District of Virginia Synod, Herndon, VA

Oct. 4 - Diocese of Pittsburgh Annual Convention, Monroeville, Pennsylvania

October 8 - Trial: TEC/Diocese of Los Angeles and Anglican Congregations, California
October - Trial: TEC/Diocese of Virginia and CANA, Virginia

Oct. 20-23 - TEC Executive Council, Helena, Montana

Oct. 22-24 - REC General Council, Victoria, BC

Nov. 7-8 - Diocese of Quincy Annual Synod, Quincy, Illinois

Nov. 14-15 - Diocese of Ft. Worth Convention, Bedford, Texas

Dec. 1-3 - Common Cause Partnership Council

Dec. 15-19 - Windsor Continuation Group Meeting, Mustang Island, Texas

Jan/Feb 2009 - Anglican Primates Meeting, Bahamas

Feb. 9-13, 2009 - General Synod of the Church of England, London

Jan. 28-31, 2009 - AMiA Winter Conference, Greensboro, NC

Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2009 - TEC Executive Council, Stockton, CA

April 20-22, 2009 - TEC Executive Council, South Portland, Maine

May 2009 - Anglican Consultive Council

July 9-12, 2009 - BabyBlue's 30th High School Reunion, Honolulu, Hawaii

July 8-17, 2009 - TEC General Convention, Anaheim, CA

July 10-14, 2009 - General Synod of the Church of England, York

Nov. 17-19, 2009 - General Synod of the Church of England, London (if needed)

Check it out.

AAC weekly message from Bishop David Anderson, August 22

Via email, from the American Anglican Council, the weekly message from Bishop David Anderson for August 22, 2008 [boldface mine]:

Dearly Beloved in Christ,

Early this week I attended a Common Cause Partnership Lead Bishops' meeting, with discussions naturally centered around outcomes of the Lambeth Conference and the GAFCON Primates' Council meeting, and concerns for finally putting together a North American orthodox Anglican province. From there I went to a CANA-Nigeria Council meeting, with lay and clergy representatives from CANA congregations all over the USA. Visitors from other Anglican judicatories are also present observing the events, both plenary and breakout sessions.

These Anglican gatherings, such as CANA Council as well as AMiA's Winter Conference and ACN events, are so different from the atmosphere of stress and hostility that many experienced when still serving in liberal revisionist dioceses in the Episcopal Church. At these type of orthodox Anglican gatherings one can actually relax, move deeper into worship, accept sound teaching, and fellowship with others who are of similar faith. To God be the glory!

We note that a letter from Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh to Bishop Lillibridge of West Texas, which was forwarded with permission to the Windsor Continuation Group members, was leaked by someone either in Bishop Lillibridge's office or one of the Windsor Continuation Group members. Does the Windsor Continuation Group really wish to be in conversation with Bishop Duncan or the Common Cause Partnership Federation, a likely new Anglican Province in North America? There are ways to make slight modifications in a document and code them so that the miscreant identifies himself when he leaks a document. Perhaps next time, that might be an appropriate option.

One of the items that Bishop Duncan wished to protest was the treatment of border crossings as the moral equivalence of same sex marriages and gay bishops, a stance that previous Primates' Meetings refused to take. This new equivalence represents a steep moral decline on the part of the Lambeth leadership, and is further underlined by the thought that the orthodox Anglicans who have left, let me say it again, WHO HAVE LEFT the Episcopal Church, would EVER go back into the toxic theological quagmire of heterodoxy that is the leadership of TEC. We are not going into any holding bay; we are the victims and Lambeth is thinking of sending the abused back to the abuser rather than punish the abuser. But remember, if Dr Williams semi-secretly believes in the gay agenda, he cannot and will not ever really discipline TEC; rather, he would send the orthodox back for TEC to have a second go at them. I don't think the orthodox will buy that idea. That train goes to the death camp and we're not getting on it.

Andrew Carey, journalist for the Church of England Newspaper, has done a short but excellent recap on the Episcopal Church, and it is worth your taking a look. I think Andrew really gets it - now if only Dr. N. T. Wright would read, mark, learn and inwardly digest what Carey has said, the C of E would be in a better position to be a help to the Communion.

Now to close with a note of optimism: in northern Virginia, Judge Bellows has again ruled in favor of the local churches in the TEC & Diocese of Virginia lawsuit against the orthodox Anglican churches who left with their property. TEC & Virginia will keep suing and appealing, however, burning up money in lawyers' fees as part of a strategy. For churches to prevail over the bully TEC and the diocese, the churches need to have the local law on their side, the facts on their side, and enough money to stay in court forever. TEC loses on the law and loses on the facts, but if they can burn enough money, they can win by financially exhausting any opponent, as unjust as that is. But now I ask you, is a denomination like that where you want your children and grandchildren to go to church? When you go to a revisionist TEC diocese like Virginia, do you really want your Sunday morning offering to go not to the Glory of God, not to the heat/lights/salaries of a local church, not to mission work, but to persecute orthodox churches in order to force them out of their churches and onto the street? I would think that even the liberals and revisionists would get tired of that after while. For now, the orthodox Anglicans in the USA are praying for a final victory in Judge Bellows' court, and for TEC to move on to the MDG's that they keep talking about.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

Crack up of Anglican Communion at hand, evangelicals say

From an article by George Conger in Christianity Today:

The crack-up of the Anglican Communion is at hand, evangelical bishops attending the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury tell Christianity Today, and the 400 year old Anglican project appears over.

“I’d like to expect a miracle,” said Bishop Gregory Venables of Argentina, a leader of the evangelical alliance at Lambeth, but said he feared the prospects for the church holding together were grim.

“Humanely speaking there is little hope for even a peaceful separation” between the liberal and evangelical wings of the 80-million member communion of churches, Bishop Venables said on July 18. . .

Of the 880 Anglican bishops, between 200 and 250 will stay away. The total number of ‘no-shows’ will not be known until registration closes on July 20. However the boycott by evangelicals means that bishops from the liberal-leaning Episcopal Church of the United States comprise 1 in 5 of the bishops attending the conference, while world-wide Americans account for only 1 in 40 Anglicans.

In addition to the absence of many of their brethren, evangelicals are not optimistic about the conference’s prospects for resolving the dispute as the agenda has been designed to avoid addressing the contentious issues facing the church has left those conservative Anglicans at Lambeth not sanguine about the conferences prospects. . .

“I don’t have great expectations” for Lambeth, Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh said. It was important to give voice to the views of evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics marginalized by the dominant liberal wing of the Episcopal Church, and he welcomed the opportunity for “strengthening the bonds of relationship” with bishops from the developing world. However, he was “deeply saddened” that the gap between left and right now seemed unbridgeable.

The pleas for dialogue at this stage rang false, Bishop Venables said. “Although much has been said about talking, it seems to me that on one is listening,” he said. “I’m on the telephone,” but “no one has called me to say ‘let’s talk’ this over,” Bishop Venables said. . .

Read it all.

Diocese of Pittsburgh proposes joining the Southern Cone

From the Diocese of Pittsburgh, 2008 diocesan convention resolutions:

Resolutions to be Forwarded to the 143rd Diocesan Convention
Deemed in proper form by Diocesan Council

RESOLUTION ONE

New Canon I (All subsequent Canons to be Renumbered Accordingly)
Provincial Membership within the Anglican Communion
The Diocese of Pittsburgh shall be a member of that Province of the Anglican Communion known as the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.

RESOLUTION TWO

WHEREAS, Diocesan Provincial Realignment is a matter to be considered by the 143rd Annual Convention in the form of a second reading of a series of Constitutional changes; and

WHEREAS, a new Canon I establishing Provincial alignment with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone is also proposed; and

WHEREAS, the decision of Convention takes effect immediately, and supersedes all local existing provisions to the contrary; and

WHEREAS, many congregations will have to consider how to alter their By-Laws and/or Articles of Incorporation should the constitutional changes and new Canon I be adopted; and

WHEREAS, some congregations will require a season of discernment about whether to accept re-alignment or to petition to break their union with Convention; and

WHEREAS, charity and generosity continue to be embraced as virtues in diocesan life where matters of fidelity and direction profoundly divide us;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by this 143rd Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, that all parishes of the diocese shall have twenty-four months to bring their By-Laws and/or Articles of Incorporation into conformity with the Provincial alignment adopted by this Convention; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Diocesan Council shall have the authority to lengthen the discernment period on a parish by parish basis, as shall seem wisest to Council and to the representatives of particular parishes; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, that negotiation between any parish seeking to break its union with Convention over the matter of Provincial alignment shall be undertaken with Christian grace and charity, and conducted in good faith, consistent with the Constitutions and Canons of the Diocese, consistent with all legal obligations, and consistent with the settlement of debts and other diocesan interests related to the parish property or assets.

RESOLUTION THREE

WHEREAS, the Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (the “Diocese”) has this day voted to realign with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone of America (“Province of the Southern Cone”); and

WHEREAS, as a consequence of such realignment the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America otherwise known as The Episcopal Church are no longer applicable to the Diocese, any Parish of the Diocese, or any Clergy of the Diocese; and

WHEREAS, neither the Constitution and Canons of the Province of the Southern Cone nor the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese address certain matters of administration, discipline and order that would benefit from a written and publicly available set of policies;

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church be adopted as advisory policies, until a more comprehensive set of Constitution and Canons can be developed and approved by the Diocese, to provide guidance in those areas of administration, discipline and order that are not otherwise covered by the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, for the avoidance of doubt that it be understood that the adoption of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church as advisory policies by the Diocese should in no way be interpreted to suggest that The Episcopal Church has any authority over the Diocese, any Parish of the Diocese, or any Clergy of the Diocese.

Check it out.

H/t to Thinking Anglicans.

BREAKING from Stand Firm: Schori distributes email on deposing +Duncan

Check it out!

A Pittsburgh two-fer

From the Diocese of Pittsburgh, two items of interest. First, Bishop Robert Duncan replies to the request of the Presiding Bishop here:

Dear Katharine,

In response to the request set forth in your letter of January 15th (which enclosed the certification of the Title IV Review Committee), I state that I consider myself “fully subject to the doctrine, discipline and worship of this Church.”

In particular:

1. I have striven to follow the Lord Jesus with all my heart and mind and soul and strength, all the while relying on God’s grace to accomplish what my sinfulness and brokenness otherwise prevent.

2. I have kept my ordination vows – all of them – to the best of my ability, including the vow I made on 28 October 1972 to “banish and drive away all strange and erroneous doctrines contrary to God’s Word.”

3. I have preached and taught nothing but what faithful Anglicans and mainstream Christians have always preached and taught, with the exception only that I have supported and encouraged the ministry of women in Holy Orders. . .

Read it all.
H/t to Stand Firm.

And secondly, John Lewis, Jr., Bishop Duncan's lawyer, replies to David Booth Beers, Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop here.
H/t to Stand Firm.

Vanity and vexation of spirit

From Mark McCall's comment at Stand Firm, an apt picture of the current ECUSA crisis [boldface mine] :

My sense last night when no coherent general statement came out of the HOB was that it was a body in disarray. They had just been rebuffed by the ABC on Gene Robinson, had one diocese leave, two others vote to leave, picked on two 80-year old bishops with personal crises, deposed a sitting diocesan and had nine bishops leave the church in the last year. ECUSA appears to be an institution in meltdown and all they could come up with were two short statements that manifested episcopal dementia rather than communication.

That sense of disarray is confirmed by this puzzling report. A number of us have argued ad nauseam that Duncan could not be deposed without first being inhibited with the consent of the three senior bishops. It has been clear, however, that 815 was going to proceed otherwise and depose without inhibition. . .

Reading between the lines of the gibberish that came out of this meeting one senses a body in which the wheels have come off.

Read it all, and check out Stand Firm's exclusive on "Presiding Bishop plans to try Bishop Duncan before the Lambeth Conference." Things are heating up!

Archbishop Peter Jensen: Why I am going to Israel

From the Sydney Anglican Network [boldface mine]:

. . . Since 2003, patient attempts have been made to call the offending North Americans back to biblical standards. Many American Anglicans are now more aware of the distress which their actions have caused others, and regret this impact. At the same time, however, others have condemned attempts by Global South Bishops to provide ministry for the orthodox Christians who still wish to be Anglican, but cannot continue to do so in the fellowship of the American churches. Individuals, parishes and even dioceses have left the original church, becoming associated with other dioceses in other parts of the world, and with new bishops being appointed from overseas to care for the disaffected.

Such has been the fall-out that it is now clear that we will never go back to being the Communion which we once were. There has been a permanent change. We live in a new world. Some American Anglicans are as committed to their new sexual ethics as to the gospel itself, and they intend to act as missionaries for this faith, wishing to persuade the rest of us. The problems posed by the American church are not going to remain in North America. This means that the rest of the Anglican world must be vigilant to guard the teaching and interpretation of scripture. How are we going to help each other remain true to the authority of God’s word? How are we going to help each other to preach the gospel of God’s transforming power and grace? These matters require urgent attention.

The next Lambeth Conference has been summoned for July-August 2008. The Archbishop of Canterbury is responsible for the guest list, and he has invited all except for the Bishop of New Hampshire on the one hand and some of the new bishops appointed to care for the dissidents on the other. Thus, for example the Bishop of New Westminster has been invited although his actions have caused the Reverend David Short and his congregation (which includes Dr Jim Packer) to withdraw as far as they can from the Diocese. An invitation to share the Conference under these circumstances has posed a real difficulty for many of us.

Several African Provinces have indicated that they will not be attending Lambeth, because to do so would be to acquiesce with the North American actions. They are not ending the Anglican Communion, or even dividing it. They are simply indicating that the nature of the Communion has now been altered by what has occurred. They see that since the American actions were taken in direct defiance of the previous Lambeth Conference, the Americans have irreparably damaged the standing of the Conference itself. They asked without success for the Conference to be postponed. They do not think that this Conference is what is needed now. To attend would be to overlook the importance of the issues at stake.

The Anglican Future Conference is not designed to take the place of Lambeth. Some people may well choose to go to both. Its aim is to draw Biblical Anglican Christians together for urgent consultation. It is not a consultation which can take place at Lambeth, because Lambeth has a different agenda and far wider guest list. Unlike Lambeth, the Future Conference is not for Bishops alone – the invitations will go to clergy and lay people also. It seeks to plan for a future in which Anglican Christians world-wide will increasingly be pressured to depart from the biblical norms of behaviour and belief. It gives an opportunity for many to draw together to strengthen each other over the issue of biblical authority and interpretation and gospel mission. . .

Read it all. We're starting to hear some of the same understanding from several involved clergy on what has happened in the Anglican Communion - there has been disintegration and something new is arising out of this destruction. Check out Bishop Duncan's talk at the Mere Anglicanism Conference this past week:

What must emerge from the old post-Colonialism before Anglicanism can move on out on its own beyond the disintegration? The new post colonial settlement of Anglicanism is brown, southern and Biblical. No longer will the principals be white, western or British. It will be a post colonial settlement that must produce systems and structures that will protect Mere Anglicanism.

H/t to Stand Firm.

Bishop Duncan: "The disintegration means that a new consensus is on the way."

From Matt Kennedy at Stand Firm, a live-blog transcript of Bishop Duncan's address at the Mere Anglicanism conference this past week in Charleston, S.C.:

. . . These are signs, manifestations of Mere Anglicanism: Truly Catholic, truly Evangelical, and truly Pentecostal and truly reasonable.

Mere Anglicanism is truly evangelical, truly catholic, truly Pentecostal and is reasonable

What is Mere Anglicanism? This synthesis, this via media this construct, the students above are trying to structure their lives around it and they believe this construct is real but it is hard to see because what has been the construct is disintegrating

What I want to suggest about what has gone wrong is this: you all remember the Elizabethan settlement. We say that Mere Anglicanism and Mere Christianity are actually he flowering of that settlement.

And what has happened is that that consensus has disintegrated. The substance of the settlement, not the idea itself, has disintegrated. A new consensus has to emerge and we are a long way from that.

The systems that characterized the Elizabethan settlement, there were three:

1. Anglicanism was agreed to be under the Word. Are we there now? No. We use these words sometimes but they no longer have the same meaning. The settlement was that the church was to be under the Word.

2. The second thing that was true is that the Settlement: was under the prayerbook. We don’t have that anymore. There is nothing in terms of our prayer that is common. There is nothing that might lead us to believe that what we pray is really what we believe. We no longer pray the same things so we no longer believe the same things. The book has collapsed. The book was our magisterium. We did not have a Roman Magisterium. We had a book. It was our articulation of doctrine. It was the theological construct in which we prayed. But just like the word that we believed judged us rather that us it, the book has collapsed.

Third: the Settlement exchanged an international leader for a local leader (pope to king). All this took place under British systems. Theses systems were remarkable. Even after the collapse of the Empire everyone was still under the systems. Who calls the primates together? Who gives the mandate to the ACC and who appoints the General Secretary? The consensus that had existed that was the settlement and the settlement worked in a system.

The system has worked, the settlement has worked for 400 years, but the agreement that authority rests in the bible, in the prayerbook and the English church system…all of that is collapsing

What I am suggesting is that sustaining a Mere Anglicanism that is catholic, evangelical, pentecostal, and reason, is not working under the old settlement. . .

Read it all.

Institutional codependency? An open response to the Pittsburgh Twelve

From SanDiegoAnglicans.com, a response from Fr. Russell Martin, rector of the Anglican Church of Sts. Timothy and Titus of San Diego, to the signers of the Pittsburgh letter [boldface mine]:

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I greet you in the name of our most sovereign and glorious Lord Jesus Christ and I pray that His grace and peace would be with you. I am writing out a profound sense of sadness and concern for the open letter, which you recently published (1/29/08). I am known to some of you personally and several of you I have counted as friends and in one case, a mentor. I was deeply troubled by both your decision and your missive. I ask you in all humility to please sincerely and prayerfully consider what I put before you and ask that you please reconsider your decision not only for your own sakes but also for those under your spiritual charge. . .

1. I urge you to consider the cost of staying in what one can only describe as a theologically toxic relationship, not only for you undersigned (that is the authoring clergy) but more importantly the souls of the faithful in your care. It is one thing for you to feel a need to be on the frontline but quite another to place one’s sheep needlessly before wolves. Have you truly counted the cost to your flock not only of leaving but also and perhaps, more significantly of staying? What are the risks of leaving as compared to the significant danger to staying within TEC?

2. It seems to smack a bit of hubris to think you can witness or hope to effectively do so when so many before you have faithfully done the same for nearly forty years to no avail. . .

To continue to dog TEC’s progressives with calls to reform and renewal from within seems to me have now moved into a distressing form of institutional codependence. They do not wish to change and we conservatives should respect their decision and release them into it with our prayers. Even Jesus, told his disciples there would be times they were to shake off the dust and move on (c.f. Matthew 10:14). . .

4. Since you have invoked the public with your letter, informing them of your decision, I for one feel that as clergy and leaders you need to provide a clear and biblical rationale for your decision. Your citation of Ephesians 6:6, does not adequately address my concern here; if for no other reason there is nothing in the inherent in that verse or its immediate context to suggest you must remain within a specific human denomination in order to intercede for the Saints. . .

Additionally, in is incumbent upon you as leaders not only to give biblical and theological rationale for your staying but also to finish that logical equation and offer said reasons for why leaving is NOT truly an appropriate response. This is something you owe yourselves, your congregations and the universal church collectively. . .

Read it all.