A Voice in the Fundamentalist Wilderness
Thursday, October 30, 2003
Recommended Reading
I commend to you the opening page of Anglicans Online, which can be found at:
http://www.anglicansonline.org/
The question of "what's in a name" hangs heavy in the air these days.
Utah Resolution a Beautiful Thing
The Diocese of Utah just passed the following resolution:
Whereas the deputation of the Diocese of Utah and the Tenth Bishop of Utah voted unanimously in their respective Houses for the consent to the election of the Bishop Coadjutor-elect of the Diocese of New Hampshire and for allowing the local development of the blessing of same-sex unions; and
Whereas the process of the New Hampshire election and the General Convention
process were conducted openly in accord with prevailing constitutions and canons of the diocse and the General Convention; and
Whereas threats have been made against the life of the Bishop Coadjutor-elect of New Hampshire and there exist threats by bishops and dioceses in the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) to push for a relaignment of the Anglican Communion should the ordination in New Hampshire go forward;
Resolved:
Therefore, be it resolved that the 98th Convention of the Diocsese of Utah publicly affirm the votes of its 74th General Convention Deputation and Bishop, honor and trust the faitful of the Diocese of New Hampsire and their new bishop, and strongly reaffirm and support the actions of the 74th General
Convention, the Episcopal Church USA, its mission and ministry thorughout the world.
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Thanks to Calvary for Walking the Point Position
As most of you know, Calvary Episcopal Church, one of the Diocese’s largest churches, led by the good Rev. Dr. Harold T. Lewis, on Friday, October 24, 2003, filed suit against +D, +S and many members of the Board of Trustees and Standing Committee. Below is a summary of the lawsuit and comments.
Complaint in Equity
Filed on October 24, 2003
Filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
Plaintiffs: Calvary Episcopal Church (“Calvary”); the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (by Calvary as Trustee Ad Litem) (“Diocese”); the Rev. Dr. Harold T. Lewis, rector of Calvary; and Philip R. Roberts, senior warden of Calvary.
Defendants: The Rgt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan, Bishop of the Diocese (+D); the Rgt. Rev. Henry Scriven, Asst. Bishop of the Diocese (+S); 11 members of the Diocesan Board of Trustees (Babatunde Fapohunda, Robert Manson, James Moore, John Morgan, Lynn Patterson, Donald Pepler, Thomas Rampy, Bruce G. Seiling, John Stevenson, Richard Thomas and Douglas Wicker); and 5 members of the Standing Committee (The Rev. Catherine Brall, Kathleen Marks, the Rev. J. Douglas McGlynn, the Rev. Scott T. Quinn and William Roemer).
Counsel for Plaintiffs: Walter P. DeForest, George E. Yokitis, Jacqueline A. Koscelnik and Gary L. Kaplan
Purpose of the Lawsuit (Paragraph 1 of the Complaint): “...to preserve and protect the unity and integrity of the property of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, and those parishes, missions, and other institutions and organizations of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America which are part of or affiliated with The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.”
Facts/allegations upon which the Complaint is brought (Paragraphs 2-26):
Background on Parties:
-- National Church (I will use “ECUSA” from here on out) is a hierarchical church.
–ECUSA governed by GC, with a Constitution and Canons adopted (“C&Cs”) in October 1789.
–Art. V, Sec. 1 of ECUSA’s Constitution requires that to be admitted to the GC, each diocese must in its own constitution provide for the “unqualified accession” to the C&Cs of ECUSA.
–ECUSA is an unincorporated association.
–Diocese also is an unincorporated association, governed by both the C&Cs of ECUSA and its own C&Cs, which were adopted according to the provisions of ECUSA’s C&Cs.
–Diocese’s C, in Art. I, states that the Diocese is “a constituent part” of ECUSA; “accedes to, recognizes and adopts” ECUSA’s C&Cs; and “acknowledges its authority accordingly.”
–Members of Diocese are parishes “located in and surrounding Allegheny County, PA that have agreed to abide by” the C&Cs of ECUSA.
–The C of the Diocese, at Art. XIII, provides that each parish must have a charter and bylaws, or articles of association that “expressly adopts and recognizes the authority” of the C&Cs of the Diocese and the C&Cs, “doctrines, discipline and worship” of ECUSA.
–Calvary is a PA non-profit corporation, incorporated in 1953.
–Calvary represents the interest of the Diocese and members of ECUSA who are part of
Calvary’s congregation.
–Calvary has been a parish in ECUSA since 1855, when it was part of the Diocese of PA. It was one of the original parishes of this Diocese when it was formed in 1865.
–Parishioners of Calvary are members of ECUSA and the Diocese. They have contributed “substantial resources, financial and otherwise” to ECUSA and the Diocese.
–“A substantial portion of the assets” of the diocese have been contributed by Calvary and its parishioners.
–Calvary has founded 5 other parishes in the Diocese, as well as Harry E. Sheldon Calvary Camp, Inc., a youth and family camp. Title to Calvary Camp was put in the name of the Diocese’s Board of Trustees.
–Calvary and its members “have and have had an interest in the property that is, has been or should have been within the control of Defendants in the past, present and/or future.”
–Defendants “individually and collectively, accepted, at relevant times held, and currently hold positions of responsibility within” ECUSA and the Diocese.
–Each of the Defendants “currently is and at all relevant times has been subject to” the C&Cs of ECUSA and the Diocese.
–Under the C&Cs of ECUSA and the Diocese, Defendants “have been vested with rights and duties respecting the preservation and administration of interests” of ECUSA, the Diocese, Calvary and its members and the individual plaintiffs, in property and assets.
Alleged actionable behavior:
–Defendants “have failed to discharge their obligations”; “have improperly assumed or permitted others to assume control over property interests” of ECUSA, the Diocese the other Plaintiffs, and “have threatened improperly to transfer and/or have transferred, property contrary to such interests.”
–Defendants “through public statements, actions and failures to act, have demonstrated their willingness to participate in the improper sale, diversion, disposition or other transfer” from ECUSA, the Diocese, Calvary and the other Plaintiffs “of interests in real property, personal property and other assets under Defendants’ control as officials” of ECUSA and the Diocese, “or to permit the same to occur” and “thereby wrongfully deprive” ECUSA, the Diocese and “its parishes loyal to” ECUSA “of the present and/or future benefit, use and/or control of such
property.”
–Defendants “have wrongfully purported to transfer and/or nullify the interests [or permitted the same to be done]” of ECUSA, the Diocese and other Plaintiffs in assets held by or for the benefit of ECUSA, the Diocese, the other Plaintiffs, parishes, missions or organizations of the Diocese.
–Defendants’ words, actions and/or inactions are contrary to their duties” under the C&Cs of ECUSA.
–Defendants have “disavowed and acted, or in the case of the Standing Committee Defendants, permitted Defendant +D to act, contrary to” Title I, Canon 7, Sections 4 and 5 of ECUSA’s Canons, commonly known as the “Dennis Canon” (all assets of any parish held in trust for ECUSA and the Diocese).
–Defendants have “acted, or permitted other Defendants to act, contrary to” Canon XV of the Diocese, which provides in part that if any parish is dissolved, the + and Standing Committee will take action to vest all of its assets in the Board of Trustees.
–At Special Convention on September 27, 2003, +D, supported by +S and not opposed by other Defendants, introduced and secured passage of 6 resolutions. Resolution 6 “purports to nullify the provisions of” the C&Cs of ECUSA and the Diocese re property rights and interests. “In so doing, Defendants wrongfully, and without authority, sought to divide and separate the interests of” the Diocese from the interests and authority of ECUSA.
–Board of Trustees Defendants voted in favor of Resolution 6; and Standing Committee
Defendants did not oppose.
–In support of Resolution 6, +D “stated that those congregations choosing to leave” ECUSA “should be permitted to retain the churches and property located in their parishes.”
–Dr. Lewis wrote to +D “asking him to disavow that the purpose of” the Resolution 6 was to allow congregations to leave ECUSA and keep churches and other property that they currently use or hold.” +D refused.
–Resolution 6 “purports to deny and nullify” ECUSA’s and the Diocese’s interest in property held by the Board of Trustees. A commentary on Resolution 6 offered by +D stated that its purppose was to “repudiate the Denis Canon...”
–+D has demonstrated his intention to take any steps he deems necessary to extinguish the interests” of ECUSA and the Plaintiffs in property and assets under his control. For example, in a Post-Gazette article of September 28, 2003, +D was quoted as saying that “the diocese could prevent lawsuits through actions such as selling a building to its congregation for $1.”
–In a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article of October 8, 2003, the Rev. Canon Mary Maggard-Hays, a spokesperson for the Diocese, was quoted as saying, “I sense that divorce [from ECUSA] is imminent.”
–Defendants soon intend to introduce and/or allow to be introduced an amendment to the Diocese’s C&Cs that would “wrongfully reiterate their independence from” ECUSA .... and “further disavow their obligation under the Denis Canon to preserve the interests of” ECUSA, the Diocese and other Plaintiffs. Amendment will be introduced at the Annual Diocesan Convention on November 7-8, 2003.
–The statements, action and/or failures to act of +D and the other Defendants “have caused irreparable harm to” the Diocese and other Plaintiffs and “threaten them with substantial and imminent additional irreparable harm for which there is no adequate legal remedy.”
Claims:
Count 1: Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Defendants, “by virtue of their election, accession to and acceptance of official positions... bear fiduciary responsibilities under common law as trustees to protect and preserve the beneficial interests” of ECUSA, the Diocese and other Plaintiffs. Defendants having acquired control over church property by virtue of their official capacities, “have no right or entitlement to assert such control for purposes, or to take action regarding such property, contrary to” the interests or C&Cs of ECUSA or the Diocese or the interests of parishioners in the Diocese. Defendants have breached those duties.
Count 2: Conversion and/or Improper Transfer of Property Interests. Defendants have “disposed of or attempted to dispose of property interests and assets” of ECUSA and Diocese, “for purposes contrary to the interests of” ECUSA, the Diocese or the other Plaintiffs, and “contrary to their duties as fiduciaries....” Defendants’ actions “constitute wrongful conversion and/or improper transfer of property and assets.”
Count 3: Breach of Contract OR Breach of Third Party Beneficiary Contract. Defendants, by virtue of their acceptance of their positions, entered into contracts with ECUSA, the Diocese and the other Plaintiffs, to comply with the C&Cs of ECUSA and the Diocese. In alternative, Calvary and the other Plaintiffs are third party beneficiaries of contracts between the Defendants and ECUSA and the Diocese. Calvary, its members and the other Plaintiffs relied on the commitments of Defendants and “committed substantial resources” to ECUSA and the Diocese,
and to the custody and control of the Defendants. C&Cs of ECUSA and the Diocese “establish and provide protection for” the property interests of the Plaintiffs so long as they remain part of and subject to ECUSA. The Defendants expressly repudiated the Denis Canon and, therefore, repudiated their obligations under the C&Cs of the Diocese. Defendants’ actions constitute breaches of their contracts with the Diocese, Calvary and the other Plaintiffs, and has injured the Diocese, Calvary and the other Plaintiffs.
Relief Requested:
1. Declaratory judgment (i.e., a declaration from the Court) confirming the Defendants’ fiduciary duties and declaring Resolution 6 invalid and lacking effectiveness under PA laws.
2. Declaratory judgment that the real and personal property and other assets of ECUSA and the Diocese may not be transferred to or held by congregations which are no longer part of ECUSA.
3. Injunction preventing Defendants from taking any action “intending to, or having the purpose or effect of, depriving” ECUSA, the Diocese or any of the other Plaintiffs “of the beneficial use and control of property that has been, is, or will be subject to the custody and/or control of the Diocese or Defendants...”
4. Injunction requiring Defendants “to take all action necessary” to vest in the Board of Trustees title of property and assets of parishes which leave ECUSA.
5. Injunction requiring Defendants to “take all necessary actions to preserve and protect the interests” of ECUSA, the Diocese and the other Plaintiffs, subject to the C&Cs of ECUSA and the Diocese.
6. An accounting and restitution of “any interest in real property, personal property or other assets sold, diverted, disposed of or otherwise transferred by any Defendant” from ECUSA “or used for purposes contrary to the interests of” ECUSA.
7. Costs, attorneys fees and “such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.”
Attachments: C&Cs of ECUSA and Diocese; resolutions passed at Special Convention; commentary on Resolution 6.
The Defendants have 20 days from date of service in which to answer the Complaint.
Comments: Hallelujah!!! And, thanks Calvary, Rev. Dr. Lewis, Mr. DeForest, et al! Perhaps the “black and white” of the Complaint will make it clear to all of us to worship as Episcopalians in the Pittsburgh area just “what is wrong with this picture,” as the situation has been painted by +D and his supporters over the past few months.
The facts are the facts: The Diocese of Pittsburgh exists as a legal entity only as a part of and so long as it fulfills its covenants to the larger church, ECUSA. There is no such thing, nor can there be, as the Diocese operating in contravention of the C&Cs of ECUSA (thus, in contravention of its own C&Cs). Just as no state of our Union can adopt and effectuate constitutional or statutory provisions that violate the rights and privileges of its citizens as guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, this Diocese cannot adopt amendments to its C&Cs which permit the violation of the rights of each or any of us who are Episcopalian, as those rights are secured for us in the
C&Cs of ECUSA.
As we were told last week, sometimes that only way to assure unity (which we all crave and pray for) is to require (by court order, if necessary) that all players remember and abide by the rules by which they pledged to live in our community. Thus, this lawsuit–as is stated in the very first paragraph–has been brought for one and only one purpose, to preserve and protect the unity and integrity of our Diocese.
In my humble opinion, this lawsuit was brought at just the right time. The Defendants have been given enough rope with which to hang themselves (figuratively of course). We need no longer stand by and wait for additional “proof” of their intent. Furthermore, under the C&Cs of the Diocese, there is a very troublesome lack of transparency in conduct of the Diocese’s financial affairs. It is exceedingly difficult for any of the members of the Diocese, individually or even as a group, lacking a majority of a Diocesan Convention, to secure an accurate picture of just what financial and asset transactions are taking place. The Board of Trustees, in particular, has no duty
to report to the body as a whole a fair compendium of its actions. Accordingly, the assets of the Diocese very well could dwindle away without notice. This lawsuit will prevent that from happening.
Notice that the Diocese (i.e., the unincorporated association of all of us) is a PLAINTIFF in this lawsuit. Calvary is suing on its behalf. So, each of us has an interest in this suit and its success. Please pray with me for the wisdom and clear discernment of the judge who hears this case.
Also notice that +D is NOT the Diocese. The Defendants all are sued as individuals who hold positions of authority in the Diocese and who, it is alleged, have violated their duties to uphold the governing documents of the Diocese and its parent association, ECUSA, and to preserve the assets of the Diocese.
Finally, notice the relief that is being sought--NOT money damages, but a court determination of OUR rights and the duties of those who govern our Diocese, and a court order making sure those right and duties are upheld and fulfilled, respectively. Injunctions are appropriate when the plaintiff can show that "irreparable harm" (i.e., harm that money cannot correct at some later date) will occur if the court does not act. That seems very clear here. The harm done to this entire Diocese and to all of its members (and to the Church at large) by acts of secession that already have been carried out at the persuasion of +D and that are being urged upon the upcoming Convention cannot be undone by simply throwing money at the problem months or years from now.
Again, thank you, Calvary and Rev. Dr. Lewis. I will be praying for you as well.
Saturday, October 25, 2003
In a Wonderful Nutshell
There is a magnificent pastoral letter to the clergy of El Camino Real available at http://www.ecrweb.org/page/page/285307.htm
I HIGHLY recommend reading this short letter.
One sentence is too good not to pass along here:
"...as Anglicans, as the Protestants of the English Reformation, we are heir to the twin-advent of the Bible in English, and the theological freedom--indeed responsibility--of individual interpretation of scripture that came with the Reformation."
More Info Re AAC
The following are interesting comments by The Rev. Alistair Macdonald-Radcliff, International Coordinator, American Anglican Council, in undated informal notes circulated among AAC board members, c. 2000..
“We have before us a possible multifold strategy:
“To build up and enlarge the group of orthodox Primates planning to act in support of orthodoxy in the U.S. This means practical action.
“--We need to encourage more contact and visits. Suggestions have been made that Bishop Stanton will cover Africa over the Summer. Atwood has said he plans to visit Australasia, and there has been a proposal that I visit the Indian subcontinent after visiting Bishop Sinclair in Argentina who is the coordinating Bishop of the orthodox Primates (and with whom we have an excellent relationship) Perhaps Bishop Duncan could also visit India?.
“—We need to play a coordinating role with regard to possible “visitation: by Primates to the U.S….
“—We need to assist the orthodox Primates in gathering evidence about the state of the American Church.
“Finally, after much wrangling, the initiative [of forming the Network for Anglicans in Mission and Evangelism (NAME)]has come into actual as distinct from potential being…
“The most important point to recognize now is that whatever happens about the niceties of recognition, NAME already exists and is in the process of establishing itself, thus we are already safely past the point when opponents can kill it!…
“There is a Board established (see separate list) under Bishop French Chang Him including Bishop Stanton… and also a Programme Committee including Bishop Duncan…
“NAME has survived the attempts to kill it by ambush, led by 815…
“The original aims and character of NAME as envisaged by the Primates need to be preserved.
“it must keep its mission focus
“it must now allow itself to be co-opted by existing or failed bodies such as the ACC, MISSIO or 815…
“We need therefore to give careful consideration to how we plan to structure our role and work in NAME.
“GENERAL OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT FOR US…
“in the old Anglican heartlands of Britain and America we have been too insular and introspective. In the past we have failed to see growing forrest [six] that is Anglicanism because of the few withering trees that obscure the view and comprise the dominating local liberalism. All this therefore makes it abundantly clear just how essential it is that we connect with out [sic] Anglican brethren across the globe, and moreover that we do this at every level in our own province. This process can be integrated with (and will advance) our domestic concerns. It is from such a starting point that I put forward a number of points for consideration…
“DEVELOPING OUR DOMESTIC EPISCOPAL BASE…
“How can we make sure that the AAC is seen as the foremost organization able to speak at the episcopal level for orthodox Episcopalians? How can we prevent chaotic fragmentation or duplication of efforts? We really do need to assert our position as speaking for orthodox Bishops and cannot allow others to dilute our identity…
“SPECIFIC FURTHER INITIATIVES.
“1) I propose that we seek to move our contribution in the aid field in two directions: --down to the diocese and parishes… --up to the level of making a contribution to strategic thinking in areas of aid and sustainable development. There is a definite role for an organization that is seen as responsible and not ideologically extreme, to work with existing agencies, including the UN, the world Bank and others (including large international companies) in seeking to move aid programs in a more constructive and long term direction…
“3) We need to do some strategic thinking about areas where we can take special initiatives…
“--In discussions jointly with OCMS and later with Professor O’Donovan at Christ Church proposals were considered to arrange:
“a) a strictly confidential dialogue with homosexual persons (not their liberal advocates) in the expectation that in speaking for themselves they would reveal their ‘group’ to be much more diverse and less cohesive than the liberals wish to suggest. An apprehension of the complexity of this constituency could bring greater maturity to the discussion of this issue in the church that would probably by no means lead in a liberal direction….”
THANKS Jack Taylor!
Friday, October 24, 2003
News of Other Court Cases of Interest
From a compadre in Connecticut comes word of two other court cases, both out of New Jersey, that are of interest regarding ownership of property and assets of parishes who choose to disassociate from ECUSA. He wrote:
"Greetings!
Before anyone gets too worked up about their rights to church property and money, they need to take a look at two New Jersey Supreme Court cases, both argued on April 21, 1980, with decisions in both handed down on July 24, 1980.
One is DIOCESE OF NEWARK v. BURNS, 83 N.J. 594 (4 pages) dealing with St. Mark's Church in West Orange, NJ. The other is PROTESTANT EPISC. CHURCH, DIOCESE OF N.J. v. GRAVES, 83 N.J. 572 (17 pages) dealing with St. Stephen's Parish in Plainfield, NJ. Both Rectors in these two cases were deposed by their respective Bishops.
One thing that you "can take to the bank" is that these two cases will be called into play as precedent in the event any Episcopal Church or Diocese endeavors to leave the ECUSA. You can also be certain that Supreme Court decisions such as these will not be treated lightly in any other jurisdiction."
This person is so kind as to offer to send copies of the cases:
"Should anyone want copies of the N.J. Supreme Court cases I mentioned in yesterday's post (see below), send me an e-mail and I'll get them off to you. Depending upon the number of requests, it may take me a while to respond.
Thanks.
Shalom
BOB HILLIARD
IRS Investigation of AAC Requested
For those of you interested in the American Anglican Council and the Institute for Religion and Democracy, I am passing along the following complaint, which I filed today with the IRS.
God bless.
Jack H. Taylor Jr.
Kibitzer, Dallas
October 24, 2003
Internal Revenue Service
ATTN: TE/GE Division, Customer Service
Post Office Box 2508
Cincinnati, Ohio 45201
Re Complaint Against ican American
Anglican Council, EID #75-2668339
and Institute for Religion and Democracy EID #52-1265221
To Whom It May Concern:
Please accept this letter as a formal complaint against American Anglican Council, EID #75-2668339 and the Institute for Religion and Democracy EID #52-1265221, both of 1110 Vermont Avenue NW (Suite 1180), Washington, DC 20005, for possible violation of In possible violation of Internal Revenue Code Sec. 6033 governing the filing requirements of exempt organizations and IRC Sec. 6011 regarding the filing of certain returns by exempt organizations, and 25.1.9.3 (01-01-2003) for possible fraudulent filing by exempt organizations for refusing to produce copies of returns or portions thereof for the reporting year 2002 and for fraudulent representations in the fling of returns for ther reporting years, 2001 and 2000.
I would request that the IRS conduct an investigation and, if the complaint is found justified, to levy such fines and assess such penalties against the organizations and responsible individuals as required by law, and, if appropriate, to revoke their tax exempt status and notify those who have made contributions to the organizations that such contributions are considered not tax deductible.
In support of this request, I offer the following:
1. On September 16, 2003, I submitted a formal written request to the Institute for Religion and Democracy for a copy of its return for the reporting year 2002, and despite the lapse of more than the 30 days permitted by law and regulation for disclosure, the IRD has refused and neglected to produce the return.;
2. On September 16, 2003, I submitted a formal written request to the American Anglican Council for a copy of its return for the reporting year 2002. The AAC produced only the basic return but refused and neglected to produce required schedules, including the schedule required by line 57a and b and Schedule 3 required by Part V(A);
3. In its return for the reporting year 2002, the AAC failed to disclose its relationship with IRD required by Lines 80a and 80b;
4. In its return for the reporting year 2001, the AAC failed to disclose its relationship with IRD required by Lines 80a and 80b;
5. In its return for the reporting year 2000, the AAC failed to disclose its relationship with IRD required by Lines 80a and 80b;
6. In its return for the reporting year 2001, the IRD failed to disclose its relationship with AAC required by Lines 80a and 80b, and
7. In its return for the reporting year 2000, the IRD failed to disclose its relationship with AAC required by Lines 80a and 80b.
With regard to Items 3 through 7, the organizations have common membership, thus requiring disclosure of their relationship on their returns. For example, Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., is a member and acknowledged contributor to both and his wife, Roberta Green Ahmanson is a member of the IRD board of directors. See, e.g., "Conservatives Funding Opposition, Priest Says," The Washington Post, October 24, 2003, page A03 [Exhibit B] and IRD Board of Directors [Exhibit B].
In addition, the Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and a member of the AAC's board of trustees, acknowledged the inter-relationship of the two organizations in a memorandum to other AAC board members on August 4, 2000, in which he noted "I think [IRD president] Diane Knippers' proposal for a consolidated (and allied) office is a good one." [Exhibit C]
Your prompt attention to this important matter would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
/s/Jack H. Taylor Jr.
THANKS JACK FOR THE INFO!!!!
On Truth-telling
We were cautioned last night by a wise man that we should careful never to speak negatively about any person's beliefs, motives, intentions or actions. I must here and now dissent from a part of that very broad-brush pronouncement.
I absolutely agree that ad hominem attacks (criticism of a person rather than his or her argument or actions) is NEVER appropriate, EVEN THOUGH we all have been subject to rather extreme name-calling in the past few weeks (e.g., "heretics", "apostate").
Where I emphatically do not agree (and never will) with our learned advisor is that we should or must eschew comment, indeed severe criticism, of people's actions, whether speeches made, legislation propounded, processes misused or abused, or any other.
In my opinion, not only are we not obliged to withhold our critiques of verbal and other actions, but we are OBLIGATED to critique and, where warranted, condemn actions. Otherwise, we become complicit in any evil that is perpetrated by or arises from those actions.
SO.......I promise to be more vigilent in making sure that my comments on current events do not constitute ad hominem attacks or even stray unnecessarily into the negative. HOWEVER, I cannot and will not cease in my efforts to legitimately (and in a Christian manner) spread illumination about these issues of such terrible concern. I am called to do so by my love of God and my Church.
Question Re Alternative Episcopal Oversight
A friend and fellow traveler poses the following question:
Here's one thing I thought I understood but realize I don't understand: I'm with you on why we shouldn't seek alternative oversight and turn the diocese over to Duncan. But why
would he have to give up his post for alternative oversight to the real dissenters? The real dissenters here, all 9 gezillion of them, don't want alternative oversight. They want ...Bishop Duncan.
This question really illustrates the muddle into which we have been led by the "who's on first" nature of the fundamentalists' argument here in the Pittsburgh Diocese. It's relatively easy to keep track of the players and the score in those dioceses where the bishops and governing bodies (regardless of personal opinion) are determined to remain in ECUSA and to "play by the rules" of the national and diocesan church. There, the "dissenting minority" for whom the Primates have gone on record as desiring "adequate alternative episcopal oversight" is easily identified. Not so here.
First, go back to the exact words of the Primates' Statement:
"We have a particular concern for those who in all conscience feel bound to dissent from the teaching and practice of their province in such matters. . . . we call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation withe the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates."
So, as provided in this part of the Primates' Statement, a "dissenting minority" is defined as those who "dissent from the teaching and practice of their province, NOT from the teaching and practice of their diocese. Accordingly, there clearly is a "dissenting minority" in this Diocese, i.e., the fundamentalists led by +D, because they have gone on formal record with their dissent from the actions of ECUSA/the GC.
However, the notion of "alternative episcopal oversight" by its very name requires an alternative to the oversight already provided. Which, in this case, is--as you point out--plays out in a nonscensical manner, since the the regular--as opposed to the alternative--"oversight" we have in this Diocese (+D) is among the dissenters.
Logic then brings one to the conclusion that +D, so long as he retains his office, cannot offer "alternative epsicopal oversight" to his followers here in this Diocese, even though pursuant to the terms of the Primates' Statement, they [NOTE: NOT those who desire continued unity] should be offered such oversight.
All of which illustrates the mess that is made when truth-telling is absent. All of the actions taken by the fundamentalist majority in this Diocese, and all of the speeches that have been made by +D and other AAC officials lead to only one conclusion--that they desire and are determined to create a new or an alternative church, complete with an alternative creedal basis. This conclusion stands regardless of whether they yet are willing to name that church and/or acknowledge the ramifications of their actions.
The Elusive Endnote to the Primates' Letter
The following word has been received from the archival voice of authority in our Diocese regarding the sometimes appearing endnote to the Primates' Letter:
"I know people have been wondering about the footnote that is in the ENS version of the primate's statement and not in the one from the Anglican Communion web site. The answer is simple:
The statement of the primates refers to actions taken at Lambeth in 1998. The footnote is simply explanatory and includes the actual text of resolution IV. 13. b from that meeting. ENS added it to give people the documentary background for the primates' reference. The whole of IV. 13 reads:
'Resolution IV.13
Unity within Provinces of the Anglican Communion
This Conference:
(a) notes with gratitude the ministry of support which the Archbishop of Canterbury has been able to give in Sudan and Rwanda,
and recognises that he is called upon to render assistance from time to time in a variety of situations; (b) in view of the very grave difficulties encountered in the internal
affairs of some Provinces of the Communion, invites the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a Commission to make recommendations to the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council, as to the exceptional circumstances and conditions under which, and the means by which, it
would be appropriate for him to exercise an extra-ordinary ministry of episcope (pastoral oversight), support and reconciliation with regard to the internal affairs of a Province other than his own for the sake of maintaining communion within the said Province and between the said Province and the rest of the Anglican Communion.'"
Thursday, October 23, 2003
GOOD Reading
Commend to you for your edification the address to the Diocesan Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Bethlehem by Bishop Paul V. Marshall, entitled "I am Proud to be an Episcopalian." It can be found at: www.diobeth.org/Bishop/addresses9.html
AAC Information from Jack Taylor
The following excerpt may be of interest in understanding the American Anglican Council's long-term strategy regarding ‘Silver Bullets,’ driving wedges and taking the inertia away from ‘revisionists’ by restructuring the Anglican Communion. Feel free to redistribute to whomever you wish without the necessity of first asking my permission.
God bless.
Jack H. Taylor Jr.
Kibitzer, Dallas
“IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS—NEW
“A. Recognizing that there are no ‘Silver Bullets; available today, the AAC can, however, offer the following MINISTRY and SUPPORT TO front Line Parishes.
“1. With the development of the Parish Classification, the AAC can…
“—Provide guidance for developing a Parish’s Strategic Plan so that they don’t make needless mistakes with their Diocesan [sic].
“--Have them contact the ANGLICAN LAWYER’S GUILD FOR RESOURCE INFORMATION FOR THEIR LOCAL COUNSEL…
“--Arrange to use specific Front Line Parishes to document the Revisionist’s activities within their Diocese and report/submit it to the AAC office as required.
“—Arrange for Canonically permitted visits b y AAC Bishops to help keep their feeling of connectedness with the greater Anglican Communion and to help keep their spirits up…
“—Recommend a Front Line Parish to First promise if they are extremely endangered in their Diocese or their attitude is such that they want to take advantage of a more aggressive action against their Diocese or the National Church. It should be noted that First Promise will only be able to help if there are enough Bishops willing to provide Episcopal oversight. Not all Parishes will survive—there will be casualties!…
“X. NEW IDEAS OR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. As an example of this is the following excerpt from a letter from Troy Harris-Abbott to me dated December 2, 1998, as follows:
“I completely agree with you that there is no silver bullet that will solve our problems. As a long-term solution, however, I have been thinking about the following: Early in our nation’s history the Articles of Confederation produced chaos because each state was largely left to go its own way; the solution was not a revision of the Articles but the creation of the Constitution—an end-run around the problem, in effect. It seems to me that the Anglican Communion is in a state of chaos that is similar to what the United States experienced 200+ years ago, with each national province going its own way. I would propose a similar solution: a constitution for the Anglican Communion…
“ “The sort of constitution I have in mind would obligate every bishop, priest, and deacon in the Anglican Communion to declare his assent and consent to various principles. These [principles could be the 39 Articles, the Lambeth resolutions on sexuality, or something else but would, in any case, be designed to separate the sheep from the goats.
“The great advantage of such a plan is that it shifts both the terms of and the arena of the debate onto grounds more favorable to us. Perhaps more importantly, it makes the inertia of most Episcopalians work in our favor. The revisionists have been successful not because most rank-and-file Episcopalians agree with them but because most rank-and-file Episcopalians either do not care one way or the other what happens outside their parish or, if they do care, they do not care enough to fight about it. In other words, the revisionists have inertia on their side. By proposing a new (more favorable) structure for the Anglican Communion, we put the inertia to work for us because we merely ask people to stay right where they are. Moreover, such a proposal can be presented as a positive, forward-looking recognition of increasing globalization, etc., etc. Finally, the prospect that something like this might actually come to pass would doubtless swell the ranks of the fair-weather
orthodox, our of fear of being left behind. This, in turn, would help drive a wedge between the fair-weather orthodox and the hard-core revisionists.
“There is, of course, potential disadvantages as well. The Council of Primates may be unwilling or feel themselves unable to act… Most distressing, from the point of view of our committee’s charge is that a new constitution would not, of itself, provide any immediate relief to front-line parishes. Politics is the art of the possible, as the saying goes, and I do not know what is possible at this point. I simply offer the foregoing thoughts for what they may be worth.”
--Frank Trane, in a "Confidential Update and Progress Report of the Strategy Committee for Front Line Parishes for the January 1999 AAC Board Meeting," from a meeting on November 6, 1998, of an AAC committee including Trane, Bishop James M. Stanton, the Rev. Geoffrey Chapman, the Rev. Sandy Green, the Rev. John Donnelly and Troy Harris-Abbott.
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
10/21/2003 Pre-Convention Meeting Notes
The meeting was held at St. Brendan’s, with +D, +S and Nancy Norton leading. Beautiful church; more friendly, fewer unfriendly faces, which was great.
+D spoke briefly about the Dallas and London meetings. Re the Dallas meeting, he noted that 100 seminarians, constituting more than ¼ of all Episcopalian seminarians, attended. I wonder about that assertion, but have no way of checking either the number of seminarians who attended; their affiliation; or what the “whole” is that he referred to in saying there were more than ¼ in attendance.
+D said the following about the Primates’ meeting:
--The Primates issued a “consensus statement,” which was “most significant” in that in it the “Lambeth teaching on sexuality was reaffirmed,” and it stated that “no province is at liberty to change that teaching.” Once again, folks, that’s NOT what the Statement says; only that no province, having adopted an alternative teaching, may imply or otherwise represent it to be the teaching of the whole AC.
--The Primates’ Statement contained an “ultimatum” which was “both about the consecration” (of +-elect Robinson) and the GC’s resolution on blessing of same sex unions. This is VERY interesting, because the Primates’ Statement does not mention the latter issue, although +D and the AAC fundamentalists oppose both. Moreover, +D himself did not last Sunday indicate that the “ultimatum” that, as Dr. Lewis said, is to be found nowhere in the Statement, addressed the second resolution.
--Everyone expects the U.S. to go ahead” with the consecration. “Most of the AC will not recognize +R” and “most of the AC will break communion with ECUSA.”
--“What all this means, we cannot say.”
--In the “appeal we made” (i.e., the demands made by the people attending the AAC confab in Dallas), “we requested that the Primates get involved in the constitutionality and legal issues of the GC. The lawyers advised them not to do that,” so that did not happen. Starting about here, I began to notice a distinct shift in focus from the Sunday meeting. It appears to me that +D, in consultation with the AAC, is changing strategy in response to the AAC’s failure to get the Primates to carry out any of their demands, i.e., to throw ECUSA out of the AC and/or recognize the AAC’s new church as the “real” Anglican or Episcopalian church in the U.S.; to declare the GC’s actions unconstitutional; to stop the consecration of +Robinson, etc. More about this below.
--The ABC “encouraged us to go forward with the Network of Confessing Dioceses and Parishes” (NCDP). Might I suggest this is a “wildly inaccurate” account of the Friday breakfast meeting.
--“This all is rather like a game of pool…..You can see where all the balls are….then after a shot is taken, all the balls are in different places. I don’t know what happens next.”
--“Nine dioceses have rejected the GC’s actions.”
--“We will continue to be the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, and I will continue to be the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.”
NOTE the shift here. Last week, there was lots of talk about a “realignment” that would include the creation of a new church or network that would be accorded status as the “real” church, with ECUSA shunned. Now, however, all of +D’s talk is about staying here, remaining a part of ECUSA.
As I said previously, I believe this is the way that the AAC lawyers have advised +D that he can “have his cake and eat it too.” The scenario goes like this: +D wants to be designated THE bishop to provide the “adequate Episcopal oversight” suggested in the Primates’ Statement, to ALL dissidents throughout the U.S. and Canada. All of those parishes would deemed to be a part of the Pittsburgh Diocese and would have voting rights here (see later discussion about Amendment #2). The result would be that +D gets his alternative church, headquartered here and called “the Pittsburgh Diocese of ECUSA,” but having no real affiliation with ECUSA. Any of us, the remnant who are Episcopalians, would be farmed out to other dioceses or be left to twist in the wind. In the near future, I suspect that +D would seek to have this Diocese become a part of or under the oversight of one of the “global south” provinces; but, eventually, I think he wants to be a province to himself. However, that last step will probably be stalled until he believes the time is ripe to do so without losing any of the property that belongs to ECUSA.
As I have said before, it is CRITICAL that we all keep our wits about us and do not fall into +D’s snare of getting us to ask for “alternative oversight.” If we do that, we will be farmed out to another diocese and will lose all ability to reconstitute a genuine ECUSA diocese here.
-------------------------------------------
+S introduced the two pieces of legislation, one Constitutional Amendment and the other a Canonical Amendment, that are on the agenda for the Convention of November 7 and 8. He said that both had been “put forward by the Diocesan Council.” This is at best a partial truth. They may have been voted on by the Council, but they certainly did not come from the Council.
The Amendments are as follows:
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: Article I, Section 1
Resolved, by this 138th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, that a second sentence be added to Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution:
In cases where the provisions of the Constitution and Canons of the Church in the Diocese of Pittsburgh speak to the contrary, or where resolutions of the Convention of said Diocese have determined the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, or resolutions of its General Convention, to be contrary to the historic Faith and Order of the one holy catholic and apostolic church, the local determination shall prevail.
This is the first reading of the Amendment.
PROPOSED CANONICAL AMENDMENT: Article III, Section 2
Resolved, by this 138th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, that the words “and actually” be deleted as follows:
Every member of the Clergy, in regular standing, who shall have been canonically and actually resident in the Diocese, and engaged in the parochial, missionary, or education work of the Church, under the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese, for three months preceding any Convention, shall be entitled to a seat and vote in such Convention in all cases except in the election of a Bishop, in which case the qualifications necessary to vote shall be as hereinafter provided in Article XIV of this Constitution, PROVIDED, that no member of the Clergy so qualified shall lose his or her right to a seat and vote by reason of sickness or old age.
This is the first reading of the Amendment.
Re the second of the 2 amendments:
+S said he would talk about the proposed Canonical Amendment first, because he thought it was “not controversial.”
In what appeared to be an ironic Freudian slip, +S said of the proposed amendment to the Canons, “Now you might think this is a plot to get more people to vote for the bishop, but this really goes back years.” Truer words have never been spoken!!!!!
+S said this was all about priests like John Parks, missionary to Honduras/Chile and Ruth Corell, identified as a schoolteacher in Maryland who comes back here to vote.
+D explained that the words “and actually” had been added to our Canons in 1874, because there was a priest who had been gone from the Diocese a long time and was a doctor, and the Convention did not think he should have a vote. So, the words became effective in 1877. +D claimed that Pittsburgh is the only diocese that has this type of language. After the meeting, one of the other attendees asked if we could check the veracity of that statement. It would be labor-intensive, but many of the dioceses likely have their Canons on the web, so it could be done.
I stood and asked if the Canon, as amended, could be used to give a vote to dissident priests from throughout the U.S. (in support of +D’s plan to become the alternative church).
+D said that, “I don’t believe it was put forward for that purpose….but it could be applied in that way.” YEAH, RIGHT!!!! After 126 years, this was such a burning issue in this diocese, absent +D’s nefarious plans!!!!!
Re the 1st of the amendments:
+D said that the amendment merely is “making legal what the resolutions from the Special Convention provided.”
I stood and asked if the Diocesan Chancellor had issued an opinion on the constitutionality and legality of the resolution.
The Chancellor (don’t know his name) was pointed out by +D. He said that he had certified the amendments as being “in order” but has not issued an opinion about their legality, because he hasn’t been asked. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hasn’t been asked???!!!! +D didn’t think that question should be answered; and the Chancellor didn’t think that as counsel for the Diocese, it might behoove him to check and make sure that the Diocese will not be acting illegally????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After being pressed by two of our brave priests, +D agreed to ask the Chancellor for the opinion. Course, he didn’t say when it might be ready!!
A man who did not identify himself told +D that “I’m not sure I can go where you’re going….will you take steps to make us a transitional parish if we withhold our funds?”
+D said that the “resolution of 1994” allowed parishes to redirect their monies. “The majority of the convention has said that this is their wisdom. I’m sure the Council will be as fair about this as about other matters.”
+D said that no legislation regarding the property issues addressed in Resolutions 4-6 at the Special Convention is on the agenda, because this constitutional amendment needs to be passed first. “There is no point putting those forward until the Constitution allows it.”
+D said that neither of the amendments can take effect until they have been approved at two conventions.
Nancy Norton talked about the budget:
--Total budgeted income only slightly more than last year, due to poor economy.
--Had a $106K surplus last year, so previous deficits have been completely retired.
--Diocesan staff being very frugal.
--She does not expect deficit for 2003.
--“It’s always been my dream that we would have money left over to use for missions.”
--In 2004, support for Happening will be up; support for Calvary Camp will be the same.
--No money is budgeted to be sent to ECUSA.
--Under the redesigned “Covenant of Giving,” parishes can decide what to do with their share of ECUSA and international funds.
--“There is a national network being developed to coordinate the redirection of” ECUSA funds. DO YOU SMELL THE AAC HERE???
I asked her is she had given any thought to possible budgetary problems arising from actions of +D. She said she had considered it, but “at this point, it is not prudent to do anything to the budget,” since she has no way to project possible budget issues.
She also said that any budgetary shortfall might be made up by other parishes becoming a part of our diocese. When asked to confirm that astonishing statement, she said, “It is not totally out of the realm of thought that other parishes will be part of our diocese.”
And one last AMAZING remark from +D: “During my episcopacy, I have been committed to transparency in our finances.” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This pushes the boundaries of even “wildly inaccurate”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SEE YOU ALL AT CONVENTION ---LET THE FUN BEGIN!!!
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Alternative Versions of Primates' Statement
NOTE EVERYONE: The version of the Primates' Statement published by ENS has an endnote to the section on the ABC's establishing a commission on his role in maintaining communion. The AC's version, on its website and listed as the issued Statement, does not have the footnote. The alternative part of the ENS version is below, from the endnoted sentence through the endnote, with the additional language highlighted.
I have seen no formal explanation of this discrepancy. However, we do know that there were late language changes to the document. I believe that absent other indications, the version posted at the AC website is the "real" version. Others may be continuing to use the original version, either because they had it ahead of time and just didn't check for differences or because the endnote is significant to them in some manner.
"We have noted that the Lambeth Conference 1998 requested the Archbishop of Canterbury to establish a commission to consider his own role in maintaining communion within and between provinces when grave difficulties arise[1]. We ask him now to establish such a commission, but that its remit be extended to include urgent and deep theological and legal reflection on the way in which the dangers we have identified at this meeting will have to be addressed. We request that such a commission complete its work, at least in relation to the issues raised at this meeting, within twelve months.
"We urge our provinces not to act precipitately on these wider questions, but take time to share in this process of reflection and to consider their own constitutional requirements as individual provinces face up to potential realignments.
"Questions of the parity of our canon law, and the nature of the relationship between the laws of our provinces with one another have also been raised. We encourage the Network of Legal Advisers established by the Anglican Consultative Council, meeting in Hong Kong in 2002, to bring to completion the work which they have already begun on this question.
"It is clear that recent controversies have opened debates within the life of our Communion which will not be resolved until there has been a lengthy process of prayer, reflection and substantial work in and alongside the Commission which we have recommended. We pray that God will equip our Communion to be equal to the task and challenges which lie before it.
"Now I appeal to the elders of your community, as a fellow elder and a witness to Christ's sufferings, and as one who has shared in the glory to be revealed: look after the flock of God whose shepherd you are." (1 Peter 5.1,2a)
"[1] In view of the very grave difficulties encountered in the internal affairs of some provinces of the Communion, [this conference] invites the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a commission to make recommendations to the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council, as to the exceptional circumstances and conditions under which, and the means by which, it would be appropriate for him to exercise an extraordinary ministry of episcope (pastoral oversight), support and reconciliation with regard to the internal affairs of a province other than his own for the sake of maintaining communion with the said province and between the said province and the rest of the Anglican Communion. (IV.13.b)"
Thoughts on Alternative Oversight: We Don't Need It
Alternative Episcopal Oversight (AEO) is a confusing issue, but I see basically two varieties, one where a parish is "farmed out" to another diocese, i.e., is deemed to be in another diocese for all practical purposes except, probably, having a vote; and the other where a "flying bishop" simply crosses diocesan borders on occasion to fulfill duties generally done by the bishop (confirmations, receptions, etc.). If I understood what +D said at Sunday's meeting, the word "appropriate" was changed because some of the Primates thought it would mean that the first of these types of oversight would happen, and that would threaten jurisdictional perogatives.
I can't say that I see all that much difference, but apparently some of the Primates did.
To me, neither of those types of alternative oversight is appropriate in this diocese.
I think the reason by the Primates' Statement "cuts" only one way is that the Primates realize that alternative oversight can only be to dissenters from ECUSA, NOT to dissenters from the dissenters from ECUSA.
It is NOT permissible for the dissenters to essentially steal the church in any diocese. Rather, if +D wants alternative oversight, he needs to relinquish his post; an Episcopalian bishop needs to be installed here; and then alternative oversight can be offered to those parishes here that agree with +D.
The problem, of course from +D's view if that if he is not a bishop, he loses the ability to provide alternative oversight. That's where the battle will be, I think.
It's clear that +D wants to set up his own church here, in place of a true Episcopal diocese, and provide "alternative oversight" for people all over the country, in reality establishing and operating an alternative church without having to relinquish any property or power. I suspect that this is the resolution to the problem of property that the AAC lawyers have come up with, since they cannot win a straight-on fight in the courts, although of course they have not put that advice out to the public for fear that people will see it for what it is--theft of a church and its property.
All of the above is why I think it is CRITICAL that we all keep our heads straight on these issues and don't fall into the trap of thinking we are, or agreeing that we are, the "dissenters" who are in need of "alternative oversight" under the terms of the Primates' Statement. WE ARE NOT. We are Episcopalians, now and for the future. We don't need alternative oversight; we just need an Episcopalian bishop and administrative structure
Corrections to Bishop's Meeting Notes
Thanks to my reviewers! Sorry I missed the class on the use of +++s; have corrected to properly indicate that +D is a bishop, not a primate. Is that something you have to be a "cradle E" to know? :)
I did know that Administrator Norton's name was Nancy; I have just been working in the EPA realm too long.
Monday, October 20, 2003
The Plain Meaning of Scripture
Got a great smile from Bill Blockley at St. Christopher's in Boulder City, Nevada, regards plain meanings of scripture:
A man and his wife were having an argument about who should brew the coffee each morning. The wife said, "You should do it, because you get up first, and then we don't have to wait as long to get our coffee."
The husband said, "You are in charge of the cooking around here and you should do it, because that is you job, and I can just wait for my coffee."
Wife replies, "No, you should do it, and besides it is in the Bible that the man should do the coffee."
Husband replies, "I can't believe that; show me."
So she fetched the Bible, and opened the New Testament and shows him at the top of several pages, that it indeed says ..........."HEBREWS"............
Thanks, Bill (from St. C's newsletter)
Bishop's Meeting Notes
It is becoming increasingly more difficult to attend and survive meetings of +D. Each meeting has been more overwhelmingly fundamentalist in tenor; less accepting or acknowledging of those of us who are and will remain Episcopalians.
Yesterday afternoon's meeting was a combination pep rally and disinformation service. Standing ovation for +D even before he spoke, all following on the heels of an extended "high mass" type evensong.
+D's prepared speech followed a printed outline, with much supplementation. He then answered questions. Throughout, dishonesty was apparent and pervasive. And, even when he was called on it by Dr. Lewis, it did not matter--the deceit was attributed to some unspecified knowledge of the "real" message of the Primates, which was the bishop said, obscured by typical "British diplomatic language." I found myself on many occasions annotating my notes with “LIES” and “NOT TRUE” in the margins.
It is the dishonesty that is most difficult to endure. But to be expected, I guess, if the history of fundamentalism is any indication.
Re the Primates' meeting, +D said:
–That "by every account" the meeting had been the "most honest" and "most difficult." But, he said, the "Holy Spirit blew through the place" on Thursday, convincing the Primates to do the right thing.
--The appeals by the AAC and our diocese were "so successful" that "lawyers from all over the world had produced reams of paper" in their anxiety to have the ABC avoid dealing with legal questions. I have no idea why +D thinks that the fact that many lawyers pointed out the fallacy and illegality of what the AAC and +D wanted done at the meeting equals a "success" for the AAC. Seems to me that the Primates' letter itself recognizes what all of us knew all along--that the AAC was asking for the (legally) impossible when it demanded before the meeting that ECUSA be tossed out on its ear and that the Primates "create" a new church (i.e., the AAC's church) and/or recognize the AAC as the REAL ECUSA. Where the "success" is in being slapped down, I don't know.
--The “power has shifted to the global south" and that the "era of 'yes, sir' was over." One wonders if +D and/or his consultant/publicist ever stop using offensive language and metaphors?
–The Primates' Meeting now has replaced the Anglican Consultative Council as the important and active AC body. He sees limiting AC decision-making to the Primates (most, he says are fundamentalists) as a good thing, rather than having the more representative and, therefore, less fundamentalist ACC doing the decision-making or speaking for the AC.
–The British press have called the meeting "an extraordinary diplomatic triumph" on the part of the ABC. He attributed that to the work of the Holy Spirit, at the behest of the fundamentalists.
–The meeting had not been held at the AC's headquarters, but on the ABC's "turf," i.e., his home/castle.
–The “limits of AC diversity” were made “clear” in the Primates’ Statement; that “scripture and Lambeth Conference teachings are determinative” and “no province can go its own way.” Of course, this is NOT what the Statement says. The Statement only says that a province cannot either force its alternative teaching on other provinces or presume or imply that it speaks for the entire AC when it has an alternative teach. And, of course, ECUSA never has done either of these things.
–The AC affirmed that members “may break communion with errant partners.” This always has been true.
–If Bishop-elect Robinson’s consecration proceeds, “individual provinces may take immediate action to sever relationships.” “What we have is a two-week period that all the provinces can use to organize their responses” to the consecration. It is a “16-day warning and ultimatum. The majority of the primates cannot tolerate this direction....Each province will have to decide what to do.”
–The Primates did not enter ECUSA’s legal battles. Because they couldn’t.
–ECUSA was “rebuked” but not expelled. WRONG! In his dreams, maybe. As Geoffrey said this morning, he should have plenty of examples in hand of what rebukes actually look like.
Re the Meeting with the ABC on Friday, +D said:
–He and the bishops of Fort Worth, Albany and Central Florida were graciously received by the ABC around his breakfast table, on Friday, October 17.
–There is widespread expectation that New Hampshire will proceed despite the ultimatum, but not sure that the PB will attend. At that point, “most provinces will break with ECUSA.” To be seen just what percentage will take that step. Surely will be at least a few; that’s just a fact of life. Heaven help us, though, if Bishop-elect Robinson were to decline to go forward. Then, I think, the Church actually would die.
–The ABC sees this as a “very, very significant moment” and the whole situation as “messy.”
–An “orthodox churches in communion network will emerge in the U.S.” Not sure whether that’s supposed to be a proper name?? Sure wish he would name his new church and also give us a copy of its creedal statement!
–The ABC predicts that a “Celtic missionary model” will take the place of the territorial principles now guiding the AC. That there will be centers of fundamentalism that will send out “sons and daughters” to evangelize the errant nations, similar to the motherhouse of the Benedictines that is in Latrobe. Here’s where I starting scratching the “LIES” in the margins. Not that this wasn’t discussed, but I do NOT believe that it is coming from the ABC. This more than likely was what the four bishops told the ABC that they want. Clearly, the “motherhouse” idea is one that +D is fixated on, because he wants the center of the fundamentalist universe to reside in his office here, and for our diocese to become nothing but throne.
–The commission called for by the Primates will deal with “realignment and legal issues” arising from the “breaking down of the territorial principles.” The ABC will “resist sending any questions of sexuality to the commission.” +D did not say how a commission of the AC could do something (interfere in legal and jurisdictional matters) that the AC itself cannot do. Makes no sense to me.
–The name “network of confessing diocese and parishes” that was used at the Dallas meeting now can be revealed as having been generated by the ABC, and that that type of church system has the ABC’s “encouragement.” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DISINFORMATION ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don’t believe this for a moment! A “confessing church” would be an anathema to everything that the COE and the AC has been and is. To suggest that the ABC would encourage fundamentalism of this sort boggles the mind. If there is any truth in this–which I don’t believe–the ABC who was at the breakfast must have been an imposter.
–The NCDP (network of confessing dioceses and parishes) will have at its heart mission; “will be transnational” (reaching into Canada); and will “gather in” the churches that previously have broken with ECUSA. I’m sure the Canadian province will be thrilled to know that +D “will be back” in the most scary of senses.
About the Dallas meeting, +D, his “manservant” and his staff said:
Jed Roseburg (aka “manservant” and TSM student):
--The fundamentalists walked around the palace praying, and so the HS descended on the room.
–“We are called to do his work; after that, then we have to let go and let God be in control.” Now I know what the problem is–they teach backwards theology at TSM. Last time I looked, God was supposed to be in control first, last and always, not just after we have done our dirty work.
Nancy Norton, diocesan administrator:
–It was a “magnificent experience.” It was “not an experience of whose side you’re on, winners and losers.....” Apparently, she was at a different meeting than her boss, or missed his lecture!
–The meeting was “great for building up the church.” What/which church?!! According to the agenda for the meeting, a good share of the meeting was comprised of advise on how to tear apart the Church and get to take the property with.
Canon Mary Hayes:
–The meeting was “not primarily about what we are against, but what we are for.” She, too, didn’t go to the same meeting with her boss.
++D:
–Proof positive that women in the ministry are not in jeopardy, because at the Tuesday night eucharist, 100 women priests participated along with 150 men priest who don’t believe women can be or are priests. Anyone see anything wrong with the validity of +D’s argument, based on those stats? Does +D really think this won’t be the next issue to be ceded after his NCDP gets on line? Don’t think so, actually, but he can’t afford to lose the women just yet. By the time they wake up and smell the coffee, it will be too late for them to back out.
Answers to Questions: (NOTE–I may not have gotten all the names right; it was hard to hear)
Q from Rev. Rob Dickenson, St. Stephen’s Sewickley: If “we” “engage in the process” (I think he was referring to use of alternative oversight) and stay in ECUSA, will the orthodox churches gain any ability to discipline ECUSA? I “am tired of it” and ready to “back off and let them have this stupid church.”
+D: He will be taking the issue to the Standing Committee, to decide what to do once the consecration takes place. “My expectation is that the relationships will never be the same again.” He said that he and other fundamentalists “can’t imagine” being a part of the House of Bishops with Bishop Robinson in it. He said that “the ABC counseled us that it would be completely appropriate to say we are not in relationship” with NH or the other dioceses that go along with NH. !!!!!!!!!DISINFORMATION ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don’t believe this one for a second. The ABC might have admitted that he expects that to happen with these folks; don’t believe he ever said it was “completely appropriate”!!!
Q from Robin Sewilliger, Ascension: Specific points to pray for.
+D: Pray and fast tomorrow (Monday, today) for the Presiding Bishop’s meeting re alternative oversight; about how the church can move forward with adequate episcopal oversight. That “those of use in leadership, that we would act in ways that would speak of our commitment to Jesus.” AMEN! It’s interesting to note, however, that when the ABC asked all to fast and pray on Tuesday for the meeting on Wednesday, the fundamentalists instead held strategy meetings all day (according to the British press). “The orthodox in the U.S. have been given a pretty significant vote of confidence by the rest of the world....” REALLY???? What was that???!!!
“There are two irreconcilable views....we are a family now in two parts....how do we live with this?” He has been, in large part, the divider; now he wants prayer.
Q from Jim Harter, St. Davids: Will other bishops be willing to open up to alternative oversight?
+D: Originally, the word in the Primates’ Statement was “appropriate,” not “adequate.” It was changed because appropriate implies a switch of parishes from one jurisdiction to another, while adequate is more in keeping with just allowing bishops to come into another diocese to take care of individual parishes. “Individual bishops can behave badly.” Margin note: NO KIDDING. Of course, he wasn’t referring to himself, but to the bishop of the Diocese of PA. “Neighbor to the east” has produced the “most notorious” example of refusing alternative oversight and “most singular failure at doing so.” !!!!SPIN ALERT!!!! As I recall, +D didn’t come out of that smelling like a rose. “We’re all doing our best to see that everyone’s dealt with fairly.” Uh-huh!
Q from ??? at Ascension (teaches global Anglicanism at TSM): Wants to know is a Sudanese church can be established in the U.S. under African oversight, for all the Sudanese refugees who are oppressed by their dioceses.
+D: “I am sure that is actually possible. That’s the kind of thing we can begin to work on.” Even the Primates’ Statement does not contemplate any cross–province-border incursions.
Q from Tom Moore, Calvary: Who will be at the PB’s Monday meeting?
+D: Don’t know who is on the Pastoral Committee; Clay Matthews is the chair. Not sure that any “dissenting bishops” are on it. Hopes they will want to talk to the dissenters at some point.
Q from Paul Henry, rector at Brighten Heights: The language of the Primates’ Statement re alternative oversight does not seem to go both ways. What about progressive parishes in orthodox dioceses? And what is Brighten Heights supposed to do about its confirmation/reception coming up, where +D is supposed to receive; will there be alternative oversight for that?
+D: He or +Scriven will be there....”living out our baptismal vows will continue.” Apparently, he didn’t catch that he was being un-invited! The Primates’ Statement “only cuts in one direction. We can be more generous than the Primates; but we would not have to be.”
Q from Dr. Lewis, rector Calvary: No rebuke in language; and a bit strong to say ultimatum. (Read pertinent part of the Statement.)
+D: The Primates’ Statement “followed the pattern of statements couched in British diplomatic language.” Statement “makes clear” that no province can go beyond what the AC teachings are. The ABC “sees this as a defining moment, a clear rebuke and ultimatum,” that they will end up outside our fellowship. Notice the “our”. Apparently, British diplomatic language is not susceptible to ordinary reading skills, only to the all-knowing reading/mind-reading skills of the fundamentalists.
Q from Wes Hayes (Canon’s hubby): In Dallas, +D said the NCDP was going to be “irrepressibly missionary.” How can that happen when people are scared and don’t have your visionary leadership?
+D: As this network develops, these things will be taken care of. “What I am going to invest in is our missionary work.” Might we suggest that he start by using the money he has been wasting flitting around the world on AAC business? “We’re claiming to be the Episcopal Church that’s always been.” Nightmare stuff.
Q from Melissa Sterling, Calvary: What does this diocese now offer gays and lesbians?
+D: If a gay couple comes in through the door, you’ll just love them to death; help them understand God’s transforming love. Our task is not to bless things as they are.” One of his “great sadnesses” is that the fundamentalists have been labeled homophobic. “We shouldn’t be afraid of anyone, whether because of sexual affection or idolotry....”
2nd Q from Ms. Sterling: Will you offer alternative episcopal oversight? I understand the question and how important this issue is. BUT, I am alarmed that those of us who are Episcopalian and desire to stay Episcopalian may by such questions imply that we are willing to be “farmed out” to another diocese. What we need is an Episcopalian bishop in our diocese, not to be farmed out to another diocese and abandon the Pittsburgh Diocese to the fundamentalists.
+D: “If there are parishes who want to live into the innovations, will allow that.”
3rd Q from Ms. Sterling: Will there be a remedy for us?
+D: “Our commitment is to provide a remedy. I’ll put them under another bishop.”
Q from ???, Ascension: Will the NCDP be accountable to the PB? or who? Will we get our own Primate?
+D: That’s “one of the key questions that the commission will have to address in the next year. The answer will evolve.”
Q (rhetorical) from Barbara Kosta, Grace (Administrator at TSM): When priests are ordained, they take an oath to (paraphrasing here) be loyal to their bishop. “I ask you to be sure that come December and come June, they are all able to say “yes”. QUESTION: What about +D’s oath to uphold the canons and unity of ECUSA. That oath doesn’t bind??? Can we get TSM to move to Nigeria??
Q from ???, Ascension: Need more Alpha-type training for our youth, so they won’t be so confused and in pain about all of these issues.
+D: “This bishop and this diocese stand with tradition. There are those who stand with the innovations. I never would have sought this season.” !!!!!!DISINFORMATION ALERT!!!!! He and the AAC have been hankering for this season–and all of its pain–for years!!! “I have teens coming up and saying, ‘thank you for speaking so clearly.’” My teenage daughter was amazed at this statement; wants to know what teens he is talking about.
Q from Karen Kapsanis, Calvary: Comparing the Primates’ Statement with the AAC restatement and the Duncan restatement; significant differences. Will there be a formal statement from the ABC re the Friday meeting so we can compare that to what has been said by +D? YEAH, KAREN, as they say, ‘you have cajones’!
+D: “No expectation of a statement. No reason he would give a public account of a meeting with four American bishops.” Or at least, +D hopes that is so, because otherwise, he might have to wear his dishonesty.
2nd Q from Ms. Kapsanis: Since the Primates’ Statement recognizes that there may be legitimate differences of interpretation of the Bible, how did you decide to translate the Hebrew in Leviticus as meaning “men” rather than “male animal of sacrifice” or another possible meaning?
+D: Read Robert Gagnon’s book; it’s the best study regarding homosexuality. The author’s last name is appropriate!
Request from Ms. Kapsanis: Please, when referring to our Diocese being fundamentalist, say “majority” rather than whole Diocese.
Q from Doug McGlen, Ascension: What do you say to those who are tempted to just chuck the whole thing (being the church?; don’t know)?
+D: “The Lord has used Anglicanism powerfully in most of the world. It is the most rapidly growing kind of Christianity” where orthodox. “If reform happens, it can still be among the most reliable” of religions.
Q from Daniel Kaven??; TSM: Will it be possible to stop the consecration of Bishop-elect Robinson by going there and making a formal protest during the ceremony?
+D: There “will be those, chiefly from NH, that will. Also some bishops. I hope that what the Primates’ said clearly may be heard.....that we might be spared this terrible division.” !!!!!!!DISINFORMATION ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!! +D no more wants this division not to happen than he wants to give up his anticipated throne. He and his fellow fundamentalists at the AAC have been planning for this day for years. Even if Bishop-elect Robinson disappeared today, the division would be pushed on by these folks. They lie most when they speak in this vein.
Q from Karen Johnston: What can be done about gays going into one of the conservative churches and not being respected?
+D: It is the “responsibility of the church to treat all in love and in love speak the truth. Many of our ministries in the diocese work with gays and lesbians; most work for transformation.” +D’s love never comes unaccompanied by the mandate for change.
Q from David Charonis, St. Andrews HP: Friend died in WTC; was offended by +D’s use of 9/11 analogy. When he talked with +D about it, +D said that his “consultant gave you that line”; that he wouldn’t use it any more. Now wants to know what to tell his 12-year-old daughter when she reads in the paper that “we’re probably not Christians if we’re in the dissent.” “Some of what you all say is pretty damaging.” Also, who pays for your trips?
+D: Trip to England paid for by the AAC. Much of the rest of his trips paid for by the Bishop’s Fund, an independent fund of the Diocese. “For all of us who are in the majority, it is important how we speak. If we’ve said anything that hurts...it may be truthful,” but need to be careful. IF they have said anything hurtful!!!!!! Amazing lack of introspection!!!!!!!!!
THAT's ALL THERE IS FOLKS!!
The Primates’ Statement: A Call for Unity
Late Thursday afternoon, October 16, 2003, at the end of an “emergency meeting” of the Anglican Primates (i.e., the leaders of the thirty-eight geographically delineated and autonomous churches that comprise the worldwide Anglican Communion) in London, issued a unanimous statement about the meeting, its purposes and its results. Taken as a whole, the statement is a call for unity in the face of difficult and divisive issues.
Almost immediately, Robert W. Duncan, Jr., Bishop of the Pittsburgh Diocese of the Episcopal Church of the United States (“ECUSA”), issued an “introductory statement” to the Primates’ Statement, in which he asserted that the Primates’ statement “reveals a crucial intervention in the affairs of North American Anglicanism” and went on to restate several of the key passages of the Primates’ Statement. Bishop Duncan’s restatement was erroneous in almost all respects, including his declaration that the Primates had intervened or intended to intervene in the affairs of ECUSA and/or Anglican Church of Canada. The clear and unambiguous language of the Primates’ Statement provides just the opposite–that the Primates neither have the jurisdiction nor are inclined to interfere with the internal workings of each other’s provinces.
The meeting of the Primates was preceded by a three-day meeting in Dallas, Texas of the American Anglican Communion (“AAC”), a fundamentalist organization operating within ECUSA but committed to the “reform” of ECUSA in the AAC’s image, an image that is decidedly un-Anglican in its exclusivity and bibliolotry. At the end of that meeting, those attending approved a “call to action” that included an appeal to the Primates “to intervene in the Episcopal Church to: a) Discipline those bishops in the Episcopal church who, by their actions, have departed from biblical faith and order; b) Guide the realignment of Anglicanism in North America; c) Encourage orthodox bishops as they extend episcopal oversight, pastoral care, and apostolic mission across current diocesan boundaries; and d) Support isolated and beleaguered congregations and individuals in their life and witness as faithful Anglican Christians.” [emphasis added.] Both David C. Anderson and Bishop Duncan, president and vice-president, respectively of AAC said in statements made during the Dallas meeting that, as a part of the “realignment” of North American Anglicanism, they would ask the Primates to oust ECUSA from the Anglican Communion and recognize their organization or members as the “true” Anglican or Episcopal church in the United States.
The Primates’ Statement, while fully recognizing the tumultuous ecclesiastical times in which the Anglican Church is living, takes none of the steps requested by the AAC. It contains not even a suggestion of a move to expel ECUSA or to “recognize” the AAC or its members as a legitimate alternative to ECUSA. Rather, the Primates’ Statement reaffirms the Anglican Communion’s historic modes and manners of relationship, including the time-honored independence and autonomy of its members, and reasserts the continuing “firm desire” of all of its members to continue in communion with each other. Of special note are the following parts of the statement:
---[Unity cherished] “This has led us into a deeper commitment to work together, and we affirm our pride in the Anglican inheritance of faith and order and our firm desire to remain part of a Communion, where what we hold in common is much greater than that which divides us in proclaiming Good News to the world.”
---[Diversity is not apostasy] “Whilst we acknowledge a legitimate diversity of interpretation that arises in the Church, this diversity does not mean that some of us take the authority of Scripture more lightly than others.”
---[Honoring of autonomy and territorial boundaries of member churches] “[W]e reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own. . . . As Primates, it is not for us to pass judgement on the constitutional processes of another province. We recognise the sensitive balance between provincial autonomy and the expression of critical opinion by other on the internal actions of a province.”
---[Reaffirmation of previous Anglican Communion report on homosexuals] “We commend the report of that Conference in its entirety to all members of the Anglican Communion, valuing especially its emphasis on the need ‘to listen to the experience of homosexual persons, and ...to assure them that they are loved by God.....’”
The Primates’ Statement does acknowledge that the actions of the General Convention of ECUSA and Diocese of Westminster in Canada are theologically odious to many of the other provinces and have caused great dissension in the Anglican Communion; and that, if the consecration of New Hampshire Diocese Bishop-Elect Gene Robinson takes place as scheduled on November 2, 2003, the bonds of communion may be sorely strained or even broken. In light of that potential disintegration of unity, the Primates’ Statement also carries a statement of “regret” (but not of censure) for the actions taken by the two provinces.
The Primates’ Statement also reiterates previous statements by the Primates, asking all of the provinces to be mindful of their interconnectedness and the effects that each other’s actions can and do have on the worldwide Church. Further, the Primates’ Statement makes it very clear that no province has the right “unilaterally” to impose its “alternative teachings” on other provinces or to assert that they represent the teachings of the Anglican Communion. However, contrary to Bishop Duncan’s claim, the Primates’ Statement does not say that a province has no “right to move forward unilaterally from the teachings of the Lambeth Conference.”
Bishop Duncan also misstated what the Primates said about alternative Episcopal oversight to dissenting minorities. The Primates’ Statement does call on the individual Primates to “make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury ....” Nowhere in the Primates’ Statement is there any suggestion that such oversight will be “under the direction of the Archbishop,” as Bishop Duncan stated.
The Primates’ Statement begins with a call for unity (“what we hold in common is much greater than that which divides us...”) and ends with actions and cautions to perpetuate that unity: a request to the Archbishop to establish a commission to deal with all of the theological, canonic and legal issues which are “tearing at the fabric” of the Anglican Communion and to report back within a year; and the plea for “our provinces not to act precipitately” in reacting to the consecration of Bishop-Elect Robinson or any other perceived provocations. And, at the very end, they call for each other to “look after the flock of God whose shepherd you are.” (1Peter 5.1, 2a)
The Primates’ Statement, therefore is a call for continuing unity and to remembrance of our mission.
