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.

Bishop MacBurney issues an apology

From the Living Church [boldface mine]:

The Rt. Rev. Edward H. MacBurney, retired Bishop of Quincy, and Wicks Stephens, his lawyer, have reached an agreement under which Bishop MacBurney voluntarily submitted to discipline.

Last January, the Title IV [disciplinary] Review Committee issued a presentment against Bishop MacBurney for allegedly leading a service of confirmation at a congregation which had left the Diocese of San Diego in order to join the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone in South America. Bishop MacBurney was subsequently inhibited, or prohibited, from functioning in any way as a priest or bishop, pending an ecclesiastical trial which had been scheduled to be held in November.

In her “Sentence Upon Voluntary Submission to Discipline” dated Sept. 9, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori removed the inhibition against Bishop MacBurney and admonished him “not to repeat the actions which caused the presentment to be brought against him.” She also directed him to apologize “in writing to the Bishop of San Diego for not respecting his authority as the bishop of that diocese.”

Bishop James Mathes of San Diego, who originally had brought the complaint against Bishop MacBurney, said he was satisfied with the outcome. The process “held a bishop of the church accountable to his colleagues and this was a good thing,” Bishop Mathes told Episcopal News Service. He said Bishop MacBurney’s willingness to apologize for his actions “provided us a way to provide forgiveness.”

In an interview with a reporter for The Living Church, Mr. Stephens said that the sentence conformed to the terms which were agreed to before the voluntary submission was made adding that Bishop MacBurney is fully restored as a retired member of the House of Bishops, meaning he can again perform priestly and episcopal functions with the permission of the local diocesan bishop.

“I’m sure there are a number of diocesan bishops who would want to have an Anglo-Catholic bishop come and minister,” Mr. Stephens said. “This was a practical means of bringing him back.”. . .

Read it all.

Presiding Bishop removes MacBurney's inhibition after retired bishop apologizes

From EpiscopalLife Online [boldface mine]:

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has removed the inhibition she placed in April on retired Episcopal Diocese of Quincy Bishop Edward MacBurney.

In a September 9 order, Jefferts Schori said that MacBurney had voluntarily submitted to discipline (Canon IV.2(9) and (10)) over a presentment which the Title IV Review Committee issued on Jan. 24, 2008.

Diocese of San Diego Bishop Jim Mathes, who originally asked for MacBurney to be disciplined because he conducted unauthorized confirmations in San Diego, told ENS September 10 that the order and discipline of the church had been "maintained and in some way enhanced by this process."

"Bishop MacBurney's decision is the result of my efforts and those of others to find a non-judicial outcome to an unfortunate event," Mathes said September 10 in his weekly email to diocesan clergy. "Today, the order of our church and the collegiality of the House of Bishops have been enhanced."

The process "held a bishop of the church accountable to his colleagues and this was a good thing," Mathes told ENS.

"I grateful to Bishop MacBurney for his role in this," Mathes said, explaining that MacBurney's willingness to apologize for his actions "provided us a way to provide forgiveness."

Jefferts Schori's September 9 order admonishes MacBurney to not make any other such visits and to apologize in writing to Mathes "for not respecting his authority as Bishop of that Diocese.". . .

Read it all.

American Anglican Council weekly message, Sept. 5

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

Beloved in Christ,

In the United States, there is high interest in what will happen at the TEC House of Bishops meeting in late September. Will Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori heed advice being given her and leave Bishop Duncan alone for the time being, or will she proceed with her deposition plans for him? If she tries to depose him based on what he might do in the future, will she succeed or fail? Also, will the fact that the dioceses of Pittsburgh, Fort Worth and Quincy are all poised to take votes in their respective Diocesan Conventions with regard to separation from the Episcopal Church affect the proceedings?

Presiding Bishop Schori seems to have only one response to crises and that is to invoke the names of "Dewey, Sue'm & Howe" and commence litigation. We would suggest to her a great little book called "Getting to Yes" which might offer a few more options in conflict situations. If Bishop Schori opens up too much litigation all at once she may find herself in the same position that some nations have been - fighting in too many theatres of battle at once and unable to maintain adequate material and resources for each one. If she thinks she can use the trust fund reserve or the pension fund, she should look down the hall to the picture of Ellen Cooke, former TEC treasurer, who was sent to the "time out" box for just such actions.

North of the border in Canada, things are tense as the Anglican Church of Canada in the Diocese of New Westminster continues its assault on the orthodox Anglicans occupying their own property. The attacks by TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada on faithful Anglican believers continue unabated in courtrooms across the North American continent.

In the US, most of the churches that TEC is suing are still able to occupy their buildings and hold services while litigation is underway, whereas in Canada several churches have effectively been thrown out onto the curb, pending full trial. Cheryl Chang, a lawyer and legal director for the churches, reported that the judge "ordered us out at both churches and gave both churches to the diocese until full trial."

The reality is that the orthodox primates of the Anglican Communion can help those under attack in North America with provincial recognition and strong intercommunion and missional ties, but when it comes to litigation, the provinces overseas can do little to help us win the court battles.

Recognition of a new North American province for the orthodox, and revocation of provincial status for the Anglican Church of Canada and TEC would both be helpful, but the latter is unlikely.

Across the pond in the United Kingdom, the election of a new bishop for Bangor, Wales occupies much space in the news and on the blogs. As we reported last week from a reliable source, plans are afoot to place the name of Dean Jeffrey Johns on the slate. Since he identifies himself as a celibate gay priest who is in a registered civil partnership, his becoming an Anglican bishop would pose problems for a great part of the global Anglican Communion. With the opposition mounting and threats by one senior cleric in Wales to quit if this happens, one wonders if Dean Johns' name will be officially put forward, and if so, whether he would gain sufficient support for election. His elevation to the episcopacy would pose a significant problem for many bishops, archbishops and primates, yet in the case of New Hampshire in the United States, the diocese went ahead regardless of the problems caused.

Surely Archbishop Barry Morgan advised Dr. Williams about this prior to it becoming public; if not, the Archbishop of Canterbury (the former primate of Wales) might have just cause to be cranky when reading of it in the London papers. Although, since the release of the Pitt letters, it is painfully clear that the arch primate himself shares a sympathetic view of homosexual issues, surely for the sake of the church he is charged with defending he can arrange for this to be turned aside. As we noted last week, everyone is aware of the situation in advance of the election and there are therefore no free passes.

Some claim that since Dean Johns identifies himself as being celibate, thus meeting the letter of the church's official standard, and since civil partnerships are legal, there should be no obstacle to his appointment. But consider this: does the church's rule need amendment? Is a bishop in a same-sex civil partnership a wholesome example to the flock?

It is time for Christian leaders to be clear about what they believe, speak boldly and publicly in such a way that removes ambiguity, and let their yes be yes and their no be no. So much of what bishops and leaders say today is double-meaning spiritual mush designed to offend no one. The Good News of Jesus Christ requires plain, clear, simple speech that can reach both the executive in his corner office and the plough boy in the field. May we recover that virtue and grace.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

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

Archbishop may be forced to do fundraising tour to solve £1m Lambeth financial crisis

But not, apparently, in America. From the Telegraph (U.K.) [boldface mine]:

The once-a-decade gathering of Anglican bishops from around the world, which was branded an "expensive exercise in futility" when it finished on Sunday with no agreement over the divisive issue of homosexuality, cost almost £6million to stage.

Most of the money was spent on hiring the University of Kent campus in Canterbury for three weeks, and for providing food and transport for the 670 prelates and their spouses.

But the Lambeth Company, the arm of the 80 million-strong Anglican Communion that runs the conference, urgently needs to raise at least another £1m.

To help pay its bills, it was disclosed yesterday that the Archbishops' Council, part of the Church of England, has provided the organisers with an interest-free £600,000 loan after holding an emergency meeting.

The head of the Anglican church in America - the richest province in the Communion - also disclosed that it has been asked to "foot the bill" and claimed that the Archbishop of Canterbury will tour the states to raise money.

The Most Rev Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA, said: "Yes we've been asked and the bishops of this church responded in ways that would provide bursaries for those unable to attend.

"I believe the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a desire to come to the United States and do some fundraising work, and we have certainly offered our assistance in that."

Lambeth Palace denied that Dr Rowan Williams will travel to America to ask churches for money, despite the Presiding Bishop's claims. . .

Read it all.

Communion Partners could prove Anglican Communion’s undoing

From Anglican Mainstream, an analysis by David Virtue:

Buried deep in the Windsor Continuation report is this paragraph, overlooked by most, but of infinite importance, "We are encouraged by the planned setting up of the Communion Partners initiative in the Episcopal Church as a means of sustaining those who feel at odds with developments taking place in their own province but who wish to be loyal to, and to maintain, their fellowship within TEC and within the Anglican Communion."

This confirms VOL’s belief that the Archbishop of Canterbury IS in fact seeking compliant "Communion Partners" from the Global South in order to do an end run around the GAFCON Primates Council in an effort to isolate mainstream evangelical and Anglo-Catholics who number 40 million of the 55 million church-going Anglicans throughout the world.

VOL has learned that Rowan Williams is under a lot of pressure from an orthodox Church of England bishop to make this plan work. Williams reportedly said that if Jefferts Schori signs off on it, is a done deal. Jefferts Schori will only sign this document if the "Communion Partners" clause is part of the deal so she can sell it to her HoB who will not politely accept the tripartite moratoria.

Politics is everywhere.

GAFCON pilgrims should take note. Rowan Williams doesn’t like you. While he would like you back at the Lambeth table, it will only be on his terms, not yours. This is his show, not the Anglican Communion’s or The Episcopal Church’s. But beware, his sympathies and loyalties lie with Katharine Jefferts Schori and the rest of the liberal Anglican West, not with Peter Akinola and the true Global South. If "Communion Partners" is a done deal, then GAFCON leaders should know that what is in de facto a schism in the Anglican Communion is in fact de jure.

Read it all.

Uh oh . . . it ain't over til it's over

From the Anglican Journal:

. . . Bishop [Katharine] Jefferts Schori [of The Episcopal Church] said the conference has enabled her and other American bishops to deepen relationships and explain actions by the Episcopal Church on various issues. “Face to face conversation is the way to go. It’s the way Jesus worked; Jesus didn’t use the Internet. He met 12 people face to face, he taught, he lived and ate with them,” she said.

She said discussions around sexuality are still “at an early stage” in the conference. “We’ve not focused on those issues yet, either in Bible study or indaba groups; that’s scheduled for next week.”. . .

Read it all.

Presiding Bishop–no compromise

From George Conger [boldface mine]:

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has rebuffed pleas for compromise from conservatives and rejected calls for the American Church’s House of Bishops to revisit the cases of deposed Bishops John-David Schofield and William Cox, saying the matter is closed.

“I have no ability to reverse or set aside any decision of the House of Bishops, nor does the House once the meeting [of bishops] is adjourned,” Bishop Schori wrote to the Diocese of Central Florida on June 2. However, should the two bishops “wish to re-enter” the Episcopal Church and “seek reinstatement, that is eminently possible,” she said.

Central Florida and four other American dioceses have objected to the procedural irregularities used to remove the two bishops saying it violated canon law. Questions over the legality of the proceedings have dogged the Presiding Bishop after it was revealed she neglected to follow the canons governing proceedings.

A legal justification of the House of Bishops’ actions by the Bishop of Lexington, the Rt.Rev. Stacy Sauls, released last month failed to quell the objections, and failed to ease concerns the Presiding Bishop would continue to use laws created to govern the secession of clergy to the Roman Catholic church to enact her political agenda for the church.

Central Florida, South Carolina, Springfield, Western Louisiana, and Northern Indiana has asked the bishops to conform to canon law in any further proceedings. Bishop Schori has stated she will bring Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh to trial in September for violating church canons.

Requests by conservative bishops that the Presiding Bishop bring the Bishop of California, Marc Andrus, and the retired Bishop of Northern California, Jerry Lamb—who presently serves as the acting bishop of the new diocese of San Joaquin organized by National Church—have been ignored, The Church of England Newspaper was told last month. . .

Read it all.

Canon law "blueprint" being worked on at Lambeth [?!]

Huuummmm. . . . wonder what the real story is here. Very interesting, I would say, if true.

From Ruth Gledhill at the Times (actual news story, not blogging) [boldface mine]:

. . . And behind the scenes the Archbishop - who believes that God takes care of the results only if His people put in the footwork - is engineering a daring and complex plan. Canon lawyers are working on a canon law “blueprint”, an Anglican version of the Roman Catholic code that would provide a basis for legislative unity. It is likely to become a fifth “instrument of communion” to bind the Church, adding to the four that exist - the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the primates.

Dr Williams writes in the foreword of The Principles of Canon Law, which sets out the basis of the blueprint handed to bishops at the conference, that it will not solve the communion's problems, but is a “unique resource for thinking more carefully about the sort of unity and coherence we should aspire to in our fellowship of churches”.

Moderate conservatives are also drawing up plans to allow overseas primates to function in the Episcopal Church of the USA as pastors for evangelical churches offended by the liberal direction. It is hoped that the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, might agree to this to allow the communion to hold together. She is understood to be “aware” of the discussions.

This would leave the primates of Nigeria, Rwanda and Uganda, which have flouted the authority of Bishop Jefferts Schori by illicitly consecrating bishops to serve in the US, out in the cold but would permit moderate evangelical bishops and provinces, to stay in the communion with integrity.

Dr Williams's advisers are also working on ways of trying to persuade the US Church not to go any farther down the path of liberalisation and of taking action against provinces that have conducted illicit consecrations.

On the surface, it is all Jesus, God and Holy Spirit at Canterbury. The bishops are hugging and making up.

But behind the scenes it is murder in the cathedral as usual. And Dr Williams is loving every minute.

Read it all.

Another broken record: ++KJS on upcoming Lambeth *Update*

Update: Check out TitusOneNine and their speadsheet on the ratio in the Anglican Communion of members to bishops, per province. Pretty amazing!

Original: From EpiscopalLife Online, an interview with the Presiding Bishop in anticipation of Lambeth. Why do I think I have heard all of this before, over and over again? [boldface mine]

ENS: You addressed the topic of the Lambeth Conference in a webcast on May 20. At that time you called the Lambeth Conference an opportunity for bishops throughout the Anglican Communion to meet each other, that "we encounter each other as human beings working in vastly different contexts around the globe and that we build relationships." Do you maintain that view of the Lambeth Conference?

KJS: Yes.

ENS: What do you see as the heart of the Lambeth Conference?

KJS: Conversation, spending time together, and beginning to learn something about each others' contexts.

ENS: Do you think the GAFCON statement will have an impact on the workings of the Lambeth Conference?

KJS: No, not unless a significant number of those in attendance in Jerusalem do come to the Lambeth Conference.

ENS: What would you say to the primates and bishops who have announced they are boycotting, or refusing to come, to the Lambeth Conference?

KJS: I would say that "we'll miss you," because all benefit from many voices at gatherings like the Lambeth Conference.

ENS: What message do you plan to bring to the Lambeth Conference?

KJS: That the mission of God is far larger than anything we disagree about. . .

ENS: What kind of presence will the Episcopal Church have at the Lambeth Conference?

KJS: The bishops of the Episcopal Church will represent about one-quarter of all bishops in attendance. One of our tasks is not to overwhelm the gathering just by our sheer numbers. . .

Just think about that for a minute - one of the smallest provinces, yet ECUSA will represent about a quarter of all bishops. Wow!

Read it all.

The San Joaquin lawsuit: An update

From the Anglican Curmudgeon, analysis of the current goings-on in San Joaquin [boldface mine]:

. . . The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, responded to the Diocese’s departure by doing three things: she declared that a motion to depose Bishop John-David Schofield had carried the House of Bishops, and that his see was now vacant; she declared that she refused to recognize the Standing Committee of the Diocese as its Ecclesiastical Authority, or for any other purpose; and she called on short notice a "special convention" of the parishioners remaining in TEC to consent to her designation of the Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb, retired Bishop of the Diocese of Northern California, as Provisional Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin. Once those steps were accomplished, the special convention authorized Bishop Lamb to file suit against Bishop Schofield and the diocesan trust entities he controlled to acquire title to all of the diocesan properties, investments and accounts. TEC joined Bishop Lamb and the newly organized Episcopal "Diocese of San Joaquin" as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to add Merrill Lynch as a defendant, because it was the custodian of the diocesan trust funds. Merrill Lynch has requested the Fresno Superior Court to be allowed to "interplead" all the funds it has in its possession, and to be dismissed from the lawsuit. By turning over the funds to the control of the court, and asking it to determine who is entitled to them, Merrill Lynch is abandoning any role as custodian and leaving it to the court to sort matters out. . .

Bishop Schofield and the diocesan trust entities have now responded to the first amended complaint. First, they have asked the court to strike it, on the ground that it was not drawn in compliance with California Rules of Court. . .

The first ground on which defendants have demurred is that among the funds held by Merrill Lynch which plaintiffs are claiming, are moneys deposited in the names of two individual parishes: St. John’s of Tulare, and St. John’s of Porterville. Plaintiffs, however, neglected to join those parishes as defendants, and thus the court cannot declare who owns the funds without the churches being represented in the lawsuit.

St. John's Episcopal Church in Tulare, however, has voted not to join the Diocese in aligning with the Province of the Southern Cone. Its rector, the Rev. Robert G. Eaton, also has declared his intention of remaining with The Episcopal Church. So let's understand what is actually happening on the ground here. The Episcopal Church and its designated agent, Bishop Lamb, are claiming to own or control money belonging to one of their own parishes that has voted to remain in The Episcopal Church. They are doing so regardless of the consequences, in order to maintain their fiction that Bishop Schofield "wrongfully" relinquished control of these funds to St. John's long after it had grown beyond the status of a diocesan mission. . .

A hearing on the demurrers and on the motion to strike will take place in Fresno County Superior Court the afternoon of August 20.

Read it all.

Presiding Bishop responds to GAFCON statement

From EpiscopalLife Online:

Much of the Anglican world must be lamenting the latest emission from GAFCON. Anglicanism has always been broader than some find comfortable. This statement does not represent the end of Anglicanism, merely another chapter in a centuries-old struggle for dominance by those who consider themselves the only true believers. Anglicans will continue to worship God in their churches, serve the hungry and needy in their communities, and build missional relationships with others across the globe, despite the desire of a few leaders to narrow the influence of the gospel. We look forward to the opportunities of the Lambeth Conference for constructive conversation, inspired prayer, and relational encounters.

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church

Check it out. I have to admit, I agree with others who find the use of the word "emission" as odd and jarring. What is she talking about? Very strange.

AAC weekly message from Bishop David Anderson

Via email, from the American Anglican Council [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ,

Orthodox Anglicans are under attack from several quarters, with the rise of Islamic militancy in England and the press of homosexual advancement, which affect many areas of everyday life, from the courts to the market place to the schools.

In the first area, we note the disturbing trend in England of Anglican clergy being threatened in their own parishes by militant young Muslims who want to chase them out. We also note that the Church of England freezes like a deer in the headlights of an oncoming automobile whenever Muslim issues are raised. If CofE bishops believe that Jesus is the Way, and the Truth and the Life, and none come unto the Father except through him...and that statement is fairly direct - from Jesus himself, then why will they not allow discussion of evangelization to Muslims at the upcoming Synod? Are they frightened? You would have to think so, but why are the bishops frightened?

Not all are. The bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, has been bold, truthful and prophetic, and many ecclesiastics in England don't want to listen to him. He said there were "No-Go areas" where Christians ventured at their peril. On the other hand, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said that Sharia Law is probably inevitable in some areas. What a contrast!

Now we read of two Christian preachers handing out Christian tracts to Muslims in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham, who were harrassed by the police for allegedly being involved in "hate" activities. My friends, if Western Civilization doesn't get its act together, we will certainly deserve the hell that is visited upon us. Wouldn't you think that someone should have arrested the police officer involved? The West Midlands Police apparently refused to apologize, although an investigation of the officer's actions was promised.

At the other end of the faith spectrum is the press of global homosexual activism. In the US, California's Supreme Court has ruled that the state must provide for homosexuals to marry legally. Meanwhile, a voter-led referendum has been qualified for this autumn's ballot which would put a change into the California Constitution that would limit marriage to between a man and a woman. In California, it often happens that laws and major changes have to be implemented by popular referendum of the people, since most of the public representatives and officials are in the grip of the homosexual lobby. Power to the people!

In England the government enforcement of pro-homosexual rules on adoption threaten to close the Roman Catholic adoption agencies. An article covering this issue points to some new options, however, if the agencies stipulate that their operations will be based on the religious and moral principles of the Catholic Faith. We pray that the RC's strategists will prevail and their agencies' good work will continue.

In the Episcopal Wars in the USA, the national Episcopal Church (TEC), has launched both a legal and public relations attack on the departed diocese of San Joaquin and the diocesan, Bishop John-David Schofield. Upon discovering that the Diocese of San Joaquin and Bishop Schofield, now affiliated with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, were in the process of moving assets into a Merrill Lynch account, they promptly named Merrill Lynch in the lawsuit already underway. Merrill Lynch, as most brokerages and banks in that position would do, froze the accounts until the court determines who the "rightful" owner is. San Joaquin's mistake was several fold: waiting so long to reposition the assets; putting them in a brokerage or bank that did not already understand the risk of litigation; and putting them in an account where TEC could so easily apply pressure.

Many churches departing TEC have learned the hard way that the first thing that hostile TEC operatives do is to visit the bank of record and present new signature cards. The bank panics and freezes the account until the court tells them which signature cards are the valid ones. Meanwhile the true owners of the bank accounts are unable to access their own money. There are ways to avoid this, of course, if care is taken to prevent this type of seizure, but it involves anticipating what TEC is going to do before they do it.

All of this is accompanied by slanted news releases from the official Episcopal Church party organ, Episcopal News Service (ENS). They are fond of referring to Bishop Schofield as "former bishop John-David Schofield," to convey the idea that their irregular attempt at deposition of Schofield successfully changed his status to that of a layman in the church. TEC seems unwilling to acknowledge that Bishop Schofield was accepted as a bishop into the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, and thereby his status as a bishop was moved from TEC to the Southern Cone. Even if their deposition is finally held to have been effective, they lost jurisdiction over him before the "trial," and could at best only extinguish his right to function as a bishop in TEC. The Province of the Southern Cone holds the jurisdiction over his functioning as a bishop, yet the ENS continues to refer to him as "former bishop Schofield," and then as "Mr. Schofield." Although titles in themselves aren't that important, TEC actually puts great stock in them, and their refusal to use the title of bishop for Schofield, and instead insist on using "Mr." tells us that TEC must think that this is really important. Unfortunately, that makes them not only wrong, but petty.

Midway between those who have left The Episcopal Church and hard-core TEC'ers, a new Anglican group has formed. Communion Partners is made up of those not wishing to or unable to leave TEC, but believing that good things could still come of working with the Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, primus inter pares. The new group says of itself, "The Communion Partner bishops will work together according to the principles outlined in the Windsor Report and seek a comprehensive Anglican Covenant at the Lambeth Conference and beyond." Three or four years ago this would have sounded better to us, but our observation is that neither Presiding Bishop Schori nor Archbishop Williams can be relied upon for any agreement, any implementation, or any safety for those of orthodox faith. We wish the Communion Partners well, and pray that God will protect them from harm and from the duplicity and deceit that many of us have encountered coming from TEC and Lambeth Palace. The Windsor Report was actually a flawed document from the beginning, but we think we could have lived with it if it were fully and strongly enforced across the board... failing that, we would look elsewhere for a better Anglican future.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

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

Anglican Curmudgeon: A primer on the crisis (the short version)

Excellent wrap-up of his longer posts by the Anglican Curmudgeon (A.S. Haley) [boldface mine]:

I have now devoted seven rather lengthy posts to the history and misuse, both past and current, of the "Abandonment of Communion by a Bishop" Canon (Canon IV.9). In response to some requests for a boiled-down, just-the-meat-of-it version, I am putting up this post. A printable version of it may be found here.

The Current Problem

The current problem can be summed up in the names of just two people: Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and her Chancellor, David Booth Beers. In recent proceedings under Canon IV.9 brought against the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield and the Rt. Rev. William J. Cox (who had been, prior to his so-called "deposition," the most elderly Bishop of the Church), they ran roughshod over the plain requirements of the Canon. When they were called on what they had done, they gave audacious responses that denied that anything had been done wrong. Not only that, but Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori has just as audaciously announced her intention of going forward with a vote, at the next House of Bishops meeting in September, to depose the Rt. Reverend Robert Duncan from his see in the Diocese of Pittsburgh---on the same illegal basis as the one on which she proclaimed the "deposition" of Bishop Cox.

The Violations of the Canon

First, Canon IV.9 provides (see the end of this post for the text) that when charges of abandonment have been certified by the Title IV Review Committee, notice of the charges shall be given "forthwith" to the Bishop so charged. The charges against Bishop Cox were certified to Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori on May 29, 2007. She did not notify Bishop Cox of them until January 9, 2008---more than seven months later.

Second, before giving notice of the charges, the Presiding Bishop was required to seek the consent of the three most senior active Bishops in the House to inhibit Bishop Cox from performing any episcopal functions pending the vote on his deposition. She did not do so, and she did not obtain any consent to his inhibition, but obtained it in regard to Bishop Schofield.

Third, the Canon provides the "inhibited Bishop" with sixty days to respond to the charges, and says nothing about any further proceedings against a Bishop who was not inhibited. Notwithstanding that language, when Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori notified Bishop Cox of the charges, she told him he had sixty days to respond before he would be deposed.

Fourth, when the sixty days had run, the Presiding Bishop brought a resolution to consent to Bishop Cox's deposition before the House of Bishops at its meeting in Camp Allen on March 12. Again, the language of the Canon provides that only a Bishop who has been inhibited shall be "liable to deposition," but in clear violation of those words, she took up the resolution with the House anyway.

Fifth, the Canon requires that the House of Bishops give its consent to deposition "by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote." Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution spells out which Bishops are "entitled to vote" in the House---counting those both active and retired ("resigned" is the technical term), there were 294 such Bishops entitled to vote as of March 12. Thus a majority of that number would be 148. But only 131 Bishops registered at the meeting when it began on March 9, and that number was down to 116 as of the last day, the morning of March 12. By the time the resolutions to depose came up for discussion, the roll call registered just the bare minimum of active Bishops needed for a quorum: 68. The vote on the resolution was by voice only; no record of the actual votes exists. But it is obvious that the requirement for a minimum of 148 votes to approve the deposition could not possibly have been satisfied.

Notwithstanding all these defects in the procedure, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori signed certificates of deposition with respect to both Bishops shortly thereafter. When she was challenged on the procedures that had been violated, she defended her actions by saying that she had been advised throughout by her Chancellor, David Booth Beers, and he himself issued a statement that the depositions had been conducted properly. . .

Read it all.

"I am because we are"

From EpiscopalLife Online:

Kentucky: Presiding Bishop brings message of reconciliation on three-day diocesan visit

. . . From May 16-18, accompanied by Kentucky Bishop Ted Gulick, [Presiding Bishop Katharine] Jefferts Schori traveled by car and then plane from Louisville to Paducah at the far western edge of the diocese and back, with a stop in between for a "Tent Meeting Episcopal Style" at the diocese's camp and conference center. . .

The "Conversations" were held on the first and second evenings of her visit. Moderated by local news media personalities, the Presiding Bishop was asked a series of questions -- ranging from the tensions within the church to her prayer life and vegetarianism -- that had been submitted in advance by email as well as presented during the forum.

When asked the first evening to comment on the amount of in fighting within the Episcopal Church, Jefferts Schori replied that fighting only takes place in an institution "centered in power."

"There is no need to fight if we continue to ask 'how can we serve the poor?'" she said, adding that churches focused on "serving the least among us" thrive. . .

Questioned about whether lawsuits are the way to resolve disputes, she explained, "The role of the Episcopal Church as a denomination is to support dioceses in their mission…We will support the actions of local dioceses when they are faced with a situation like this." While some people believe the church should not go to court, she said, "there is often not a choice in the matter" and noted that the denomination has a "fiduciary and moral responsibility to see that the legacy of this church is used for the purpose for which it was given." She noted hopefully, however, that "we're finding that the bulk of this work is behind us.". . .

Responding to questions at the second forum about the future of the Episcopal Church, Jefferts Schori said the church "is going to look less and less like most of the people in this room. The growing parts of this society are immigrants, people of color, even in Kentucky. People are coming from Mexico and other places [such as] south Asia. Three of the four people we baptized this morning were Chinese... We have to wake up to that. We have to recognize that the Episcopal Church is not going to just be Anglo. We have not done a good job of evangelism by reproduction, and there are important reasons for that... We're going to have to do our evangelism in other ways and again that means thinking outside the door.". . .

Gulick asked the presiding bishop at her first public meeting to "lend us your eyes" and help us see what you see. During the weekend, she complied and taught, among other things, the Zulu word, "ubuntu," which she translated, "I am because we are." Ubuntu expresses the concept of interdependence, which she said is "fundamental to our understanding of the body of Christ. When one part of the body suffers, we all do; when one of us rejoices, we all do."

She encouraged the diocese to "know something about ubuntu -- your work in Jubilee ministries, your focus on the Millennium Development Goals…You're beginning to know yourselves as Koreans, Sudanese, Karen, Chinese as well as Anglo…If we as individuals and as a community want to participate in God, then we too will be restless until all are at rest and comfort and healing of that holy community of God."

Read it all.

Why I left ECUSA, Part 2: A crack appears

The second in a series outlining why my family and I believe it is time for us to leave the Episcopal Church (read Why I left ECUSA, Part 1: A brief history here)

Part 2: A crack appears

I had been to Bible studies at church, usually moms’ groups where we would go through a booklet on “Women in the Bible” or something that related the Bible to our everyday lives. These are great studies to get to know other women and become more familiar with God’s Word, but at some point, I realized that I wasn’t really doing Bible study - I was doing Bible dabbling.

Often, we would deviate from the Bible to talk about our current situations with children, husbands, work, etc. I knew I needed something more rigorous and structured, since I am not one to be disciplined enough to do that on my own. My husband had been going to Bible Study Fellowship (BSF), a non-denominational Bible study that combines lectures with small groups, for several years. I had seen his commitment and relationship with God grow and I wanted something similar. A friend introduced me to Community Bible Study (CBS), which is very like BSF. To keep up with the CBS study, you really do need to do some Bible study every day. The small groups allow more in-depth discussion of the study, and the lectures and notes give context and help relate that particular study to the Bible overall.

Usually, we would do an Old Testament book one year and then the next a New Testament book. I had never done something as in-depth and as broad. For the first time I was able to understand the true connection between the Old and New Testaments. The continuity of God’s work in the world and the steadfastness of His character and His love for us became real to me through studying His inspired Word.

CBS and BSF both stress taking what you’ve learned through your study and applying it to your life and the world around you through whichever church you attend. Because of this connection, I became more interested in what my church was doing, not only locally but nationally. Part of the attraction of the Episcopal Church for me was its tradition and its global Communion. While I had never considered it much, the fact that I was part of a tradition that stretched back hundreds of years was important (remember that pride thing!). It meant, I thought, that the church was not as susceptible to a particular personality or specific cultural shift – any changes would have to stand the test of time.

Then 2003 happened. It was not the consecration of +Gene Robinson per se that distressed me. One particular act, however ill conceived or even wrong, does not a church make.

No, it was Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold agreeing with the other Primates at the emergency meeting called by the Archbishop of Canterbury in October of 2003 that +Robinson’s consecration would “tear the fabric of the Communion” and then two weeks later, presiding at the consecration.

The unanimous consensus of the emergency meeting communiqué was that ECUSA should not proceed with the consecration and +Frank Griswold was one of the ones covered under “unanimous.” Was he lying to the other Primates when he agreed? I don’t know, and frankly, don’t care. All I know was that when I heard that had happened, I was shocked, absolutely floored. If he had told the Primates he couldn’t agree with them or that he supported +Robinson’s consecration, I would have thought he was nuts but would have figured it’s just another day in the Episcopal Church and it will blow over.

But he lied. And he was the presiding bishop of my church.

Then, the next big thing happened. I went online to see if I could find any info on why this had happened, and somehow, I don’t remember exactly how, I discovered Christopher Johnson and the Midwest Conservative Journal. I prefer to think of it as a “God thing,” but others may disagree. All of a sudden, I wasn’t alone (and I wasn't crazy to be so upset). There were others out there trying to make sense of what was going on, too.

All the while, I was still involved at my own church. People were talking about what had happened but not much that I heard. Most seemed to think it would all pass over, or that it was happening far away, or that the local parish was the most important thing so it wasn’t worth worrying about.

But I could not get out of my mind that the presiding bishop of my church, a man who had sworn to uphold God’s Word and the faith received, a man in apostolic succession to Peter and James and John, had blatantly, publicly, openly lied on a matter of grave importance and trust.

Coming: Part 3: The deluge

Five dioceses publicly oppose depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox

Here are the five dioceses (so far) that have publicly opposed the actions of the Presiding Bishop and the Episcopal Church house of bishops:

• The Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina (The Rt. Rev Mark Lawrence endorsed the letter) March 27


• The Standing Committee and Diocesan Council of the Diocese of Western Louisiana (in a resolution authorized by the diocesan Standing Committee and endorsed by the bishop, D. Bruce MacPherson, and Diocesan Council) April 14


• Diocesan Board and Standing Committee and Bishop John W. Howe of the Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida May 15


• The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Springfield (The Rt. Rev Peter H. Beckwith endorsed the letter and actions of his Diocesan Council) May 22


• The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Northern Indiana May 27

H/t to VirtueOnline.

The Episcopal Majority closes its blog

Why now, when it was just getting so exciting??? Why close before GAFCON, before Lambeth, before all of the other intriguing possibilities??

Well, according to the Rev. David K. Fly and the Steering Committee of The Episcopal Majority (the Rev. George C. Bedell, Ms. Lisa Fox, the Rev. Mark Harris, Ms. Judy Matthews, and the Rev. Tom Woodward), it's because they've won.

From The Episcopal Majority [boldface mine]:

. . . Much has happened over the past two years – most of which you will find chronicled on this blog. Our Presiding Bishop has shown wisdom and courage as she has decisively moved to defend the Church while offering the opportunity of reconciliation with those who have chosen to leave. The Episcopal News Service and other offices of The Episcopal Church are speaking out clearly on the issues confronting us.

Though there are still a relatively small number of parishes and dioceses who remain committed to schism, it is clear that the good heart of the Church is safe. Though the "strife is not o'er," it is becoming clearer that theirs is a dying cause; there is no groundswell for schism, and their numbers are not growing. We are no longer fearful, and certainly not fearful of a rightwing takeover of our Church.

We believe that the Rev. Lauren R. Stanley has beautifully summed up the condition of our Church in the previous and last posting on The Episcopal Majority blog:

News Flash: The majority of Episcopalians in the United States voted to stay in the Episcopal Church today.

They did so by going to church, by receiving Communion, by participating in God's mission and ministry, by praying, preaching and acting on God's holy word, by working with youth and the elderly, by doing all the myriad things that they have been doing through the history of the church, and by proclaiming, in many and varied ways, the love of God for all of God's beloved children.

With those words in mind, The Episcopal Majority will close its blog as of today. Though we do not intend to continue publishing, we will keep the blog online so that our friends may access the many fine articles to be found here. . .

+KJS: Helping poor trumps "being right"

From an interview with +Katharine Jefferts Schori by Peter Smith, The Courier-Journal (Louisville) - also participating in the interview was Bishop Ted Gulick of the Diocese of Kentucky. [boldface mine]:

. . . Q. You have spoken about the Millennium Development Goals (targeting extreme global poverty) as a point of church unity. Why is it that the bishops from some of the countries that would seem to be the beneficiaries of this point of unity the most -- such as Uganda and Nigeria -- why are they the ones saying that we have to have unity in this other area (of sexual morals) as well. Do you think you're missing something or that they're missing something?

Jefferts Schori: Well, different people prioritize the world in different ways. Some people believe that being right is the most important thing in the world. Others think that feeding people is more important. But if you're hungry, your political party doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

Q. Do you feel that's what's motivating this?

Jefferts Schori: I think it's a piece of it. I think a piece of it also is really wrapped up in colonialism. This communion needs to have that conversation, and we have not done it. We're seeing evidence of continuing colonial attitudes around the communion (which developed alongside the expansion of the British empire). We see reverse colonialism. We see neo-colonialism. And we don't examine it. We're still treating each other as commodities in many, many different ways.

Q. Can you break that down? Who's being colonial?

Jefferts Schori: It goes in many directions. It's multi-layered. There's a colonial aspect to the establishment of congregations of the Church of Bolivia in Kentucky. We are being colonized. There is a reverse colonialism in some of the interactions between people in this church and people in the church in Africa. There is I think a neo-colonial aspect in the way in which some factions in this church are exploiting people in other parts of the communion. Those are challenging things to talk about, but it's a part of discovering our own sinfulness.

Q. I've also heard it said that the Western churches, with a very gay-friendly agenda, are once again importing Western ideas onto countries that don't want these ideas, that that's an aspect of colonialism.

Jefferts Schori: That could be said. I don't think there's a great push to impose, even within this (American) church, the idea that (any particular) congregation must provide blessing for same-sex unions. That's not part of the conversation. It's a matter of making it available.

Gulick: I think Katharine's right on that. In the late 1980s, when I as a straight white male suddenly found in Newport News, Va. (where Gulick was then a pastor), in the early moments of the AIDS crisis, I started having deep conversations with persons who were affected by that illness. I woke up to what I think was my own personal clarity, that certain expressions of same-sex attraction are fundamental to certain people's being. I have never in 30 years wanted to inflict that perspective on an Africa bishop, and I've been in conversation with hundreds of African bishops. It's my own insight. I talk to them about how I came to believe that. I would never presume that my relationship with my companion bishop in Rwanda is dependent on his believing that. It's an absurd thing to say that. ... I don't know any colleague in the House of Bishops that has ever done that or wants to do that.

Jefferts Schori: It's a red herring. Even Gene Robinson is not doing that. He's not going to Africa insisting that they change their way of dealing with people, except to remind people of what Lambeth has said repeatedly, that all persons are deserving of human dignity and civil rights, and pastoral care. (Lambeth, the once-a-decade summit of Anglican bishops, declared in 1998 that homosexuality was "incompatible with Scripture" while calling on "all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation.")

Q. The Episcopal Church, like other mainline denominations is losing members and attendance. What's going wrong, and what can the church do about it?

Jefferts Schori: I'm not sure if it's a matter of things going wrong. It's a re-examination across our culture of the sources of authority. There are people in this culture who cannot live with an understanding that says, "The way I interpret a book that was written nearly 2,000 years ago is the way you must believe. You can't question that. You can't offer another interpretation. You must take it the way I see it." The Reformation was about inviting people into conversation with that text. That produces a variety of interpretations. Anglicanism has always said that variety is important to the health of the body. Re-examination of authority is challenging the church as well.

We're a far less clerical institution than we were 50 years ago. That's a piece of it. We're rediscovering the fact that all baptized persons are called into ministry and not just the people wearing funny clothes, and that daily living is where we need God. That's where Jesus calls us into ministry.

Read it all.

AnglicanTV interview with Archbishop Henry Orombi, Uganda

From AnglicanTV, my interview with Archbishop Henry Orombi:

[Okay, I did a really silly thing which you will hear at the beginning of this interview. I started off by asking Archbishop Orombi about the Buddo Girls School fire that happened in April and the ongoing recovery efforts.

About twenty seconds into his answer, I realized that I had forgotten to turn the camera on, so the interview starts with him somewhat in the middle of his answer. (Mea culpa, but since I am camera crew, interviewer, and producer all in one, there is no one besides myself to fire, and I decided the most appropriate censure for this lapse is a stern warning not to let this happen again – so consider me warned!)]

So, here is my interview with the Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi, Archbishop of the Anglican Church of the Province of Uganda, for AnglicanTV, held Monday, May 19, 2008, at St. James Anglican, Newport Beach, California. It runs about 30 minutes.

Areas covered:

• An update on the Buddo Girls School fire and recovery


• Anglican Men's Retreat (an annual event, held this past weekend in southern California)


• Moses, Joshua, and Caleb


• Thoughts on Bishop Bob Duncan, Diocese of Pittsburgh


• The Dar-Es-Salaam Communiqué Sept. 30 deadline


• Lambeth 2008


• GAFCON


• The Anglican Covenant


• The recent exchange of letters with the Presiding Bishop on his visit to Savannah


• Rick Warren and his gift of networking


• Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury


• A message for the American orthodox