Episcopalians File Formal Complaint Against Presiding Bishop over Massive Litigation Costs

The estimates are: 90+ lawsuits, over 700 clerics deposed, and over $23 million dollars spent and rising.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=18688#.UyIccMKYZjo

Episcopalians File Formal Complaint against Presiding Bishop over Massive Litigation Costs
Katharine Jefferts Schori has violated the Episcopal Church's Constitution and Canons, they say

EXCLUSIVE REPORT

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
March 12, 2014

A document leaked to Virtueonline says that a group calling themselves the American Anglican Fellowship, (AAF), has filed a complaint with Bishop Clay Matthews, Intake Officer of the Episcopal Church, saying that Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori has violated the Episcopal Church's Constitution and Canons.

The group of current and former members of The Episcopal Church, say that the AAF took this action only after prayerful consideration and the exhausting of all reasonable means of communication and not receiving a single response to their many concerns.

"In recent years more than 700 Clergy and 5,000 Christians have petitioned The Episcopal Church and five Episcopal Bishops also requested information and transparency in The Episcopal Church with spending more than $22 million dollars of church funds in 80 or more secular lawsuits against departing churches and dioceses. These lawsuits are ongoing with no solution in sight," noted the document.

The group filed the information on December 19, 2013 with Bishop Clay Matthews who later recused himself and replaced by Canon John N. Osgood of New York as did Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori. Former New York Bishop Mark Sisk has been appointed Canonical Authority. George E. Wade, Esq., also of New York, has been appointed to provide counsel.

The group still awaits a formal response from the Church.

"We framed this document in a caring and loving way that would be acceptable to all, not to discipline, but to achieve an Accord of conciliation as Christ would have us do, to bring an end to this madness of Christians suing Christians," said the document.

Among the charges by the AAF are:

* That Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori has violated the Constitution and Canons specifically Canon IV.6.2 and with the understanding that, "by virtue of Baptism, all Members of the Church are called to holiness of life and accountability to one another" (Canon IV.I).

* Many Episcopalians believe TEC has departed from the traditional faith held by the consensus of the Anglican Communion and world Christendom. To remain in unity with the "One holy catholic and apostolic church" (Nicene Creed, John 17:21-23, 1 John 1:3), some have transferred to another Anglican body (e.g., Anglican Church in North America) or to another denomination. Some parishes have departed TEC with their properties after diocesan negotiations. However, in the vast number of situations, the Presiding Bishop and various bishops (her assigns) have filed lawsuits to seize these properties and taken action to extinguish TEC clergy from the ordained ministry who have transferred to another Anglican Church.

* A petition by more than 5,000 Christians, including 697 clergy and 24 bishops, unsuccessfully sought to obtain an explanation from the Presiding Bishop concerning the litigious actions that have squandered an estimated $21.5 million in Church funds - money that should be used for traditional Christian purposes.

* The litigation and punitive administrative actions are a discredit to all as they contradict Christ's teaching to be charitable and loving towards fellow Christians (Mt. 5:43-48); Secondly that apostolic instructions not to sue other Christians (1 Cor. 6:1-7); policies of past presiding bishops' allowing parish departures with property; and practices of other denominations (e.g., Presbyterian and Lutheran). When the Israelites were called by God to leave Egypt, they were allowed to leave with their property (Ex. 12:31-36). TEC should do nothing less. Pharaoh's attempt to get the Israelites and property back had disastrous consequences. The same can happen to TEC. With departing parishes, TEC should have the spirit of Gamaliel -- if it is God's will, these parishes and TEC may someday re-unite (Acts 5:38-39). In the Civil War, TEC split between North and South. After the war, parishes and dioceses re-united.

The AAF cites a number of public reports and articles issued over the past few years describing conduct alleged to violate TEC's Constitution and Canons. The group cites six alleged offenses.

First. The Presiding Bishop has violated and continues to violate Canon IV.19.2 by seeking an interpretation of TEC canons from secular courts, and (2) Canon IV.4.1(e) requires the safeguarding of TEC property and funds.

Public reports indicate that the Presiding Bishop, acting through her Chancellor's law firm, and various bishops have initiated (or continued) litigation of over seventy secular lawsuits against dioceses, parishes, clergy, and volunteer vestry members seeking to depart with parish property for which they hold title. These lawsuits include sixteen states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Over forty of the lawsuits involve actions against parishioners who voluntarily served as vestry members or other leadership positions. In some cases, the Presiding Bishop and various bishops are seeking personal assets of these parishioners for monetary punitive damages causing undue and unjust personal financial hardship and mental suffering to them. The current estimated cost for TEC litigation exceeds $21.5 million. This estimate would be even higher if it included the money spent by individual dioceses participating in the litigation and that of parishes, dioceses, clergy and lay people being sued by TEC.

Litigation is not how Christians resolve conflicts with each other. Presiding Bishops in the past have not acted litigiously; some diocesan bishops do not wish to act this way today. In 1873, Bishop George Cummings of Kentucky and Reverend Charles Cheney of Chicago met in New York City and, with a number of clergy and laity, left TEC to establish the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC). Research on this event did not reveal any administrative charges or litigation over property by TEC. Today, some dioceses have allowed clergy and parishes to leave to join another Anglican body or the Roman Catholic Church. (e.g., parishes in Dallas, Kansas, and Washington left with property and a Maryland parish left without property).

Press reports and other sources indicate the Bishop of Virginia, with tacit approval from the former Presiding Bishop, had been negotiating a departure of over seven parishes seeking to leave TEC with their property. After the new Presiding Bishop's election, negotiations ceased and litigation began.

Two fellow denominations, the Presbyterian and Lutheran Churches, have allowed parishes and clergy to depart with their property. In 1973, many presbyteries (similar to dioceses) in the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PC-USA) allowed parishes to leave to found the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Inquiry to the national PCA office did not reveal any litigation over property.

Last year, 2012, the Pittsburgh Presbytery publicly announced that parishes wishing to leave could do so after negotiation. In the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) one hundred ninety-nine (199) parishes left in 2010 to form a new Church body. One hundred thirty-six (136) other Lutheran churches await a second required vote of convention to leave peacefully.

In light of this comparative information, the litigious policy by the Presiding Bishop is out of step with any of the other mainline denominations.

The litigation authorized by the Presiding Bishop and various bishops asks courts to interpret provisions of the Constitution and Canons. The litigation thus violates Canon IV.19.2, which provides that "No member of the Church, whether lay or ordained, may seek to have the Constitution and Canons interpreted by a secular court, or resort to a secular court to address a dispute arising under the Constitution and Canons, or for any purpose of delay, hindrance, review or otherwise affecting any proceeding under this Title."

The litigation further violates Canon IV.4.1(e), which requires the Presiding Bishop and various bishops, as members of the Clergy, to "safeguard the property and funds of the Church and Community." The expense for litigation is a violation of the canon since other solutions with substantially less cost have been used in the past and today by TEC as well as the Presbyterian and Lutheran Churches.

For failure to safeguard the property and funds of the Church, the Presiding Bishop "shall be accountable" (Canon IV.4.2).

Second. Based upon information and belief, the Presiding Bishop has violated and continues to violate Canon IV.4.1 for misuse of the Abandonment of Communion canons by charging numerous bishops, priests, and deacons with Abandonment for transferring to another Anglican body.

According to a 2012 report issued by the American Anglican Council (AAC Report), the Presiding Bishop and various bishops abused the Abandonment of Communion canons for disciplining four Bishops and hundreds of priests and deacons who transferred from TEC to another church in the Anglican Communion.

If the Presiding Bishop and various bishops wish to remove TEC clergy from ordained rank status, the AAC report indicates the appropriate canons would be IV.1 and IV.5. These canons call for a trial or other hearing, with confrontation of witnesses and the presentation of both sides of a case. Traditionally, the Abandonment of Communion canons apply to situations where there has been a full departure of a clergy person from TEC and the Anglican Communion.

The revised 2012 canons specify "the Church" rather than "this Church" which makes the traditional view more explicit. "The Church" is broader and apparently applies to the Anglican Communion or the "whole Church" (BCP 328-329)

By misuse of the canons, the Presiding Bishop and various bishops have extinguished the right of the clergy to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority conferred in ordination in the Anglican Church body where they transferred. Apparently recognizing the harshness of this action, TEC replacement Bishops in the Dioceses of Pittsburgh and South Carolina lessened the Abandonment charge to "restrict [the] exercise of ministry" only within TEC.

The misuse of the Abandonment of Communion canons by the Presiding Bishop and various bishops violates Canon IV.4.1(g) that requires her to exercise her ministry "in accordance with applicable provisions of the Constitution and Canons of the Church."

Third. Based upon information and belief, the Presiding Bishop has violated and continues to violate Canons III.12.7, III.7.8, III.9.8 and IV.4.1(g) by abusing the Renunciation, Release and Removal canons by claiming "implied renunciation" of numerous bishops, priests, and deacons when written renunciation is required

According to the same AAC Report, the Presiding Bishop and various bishops wrongfully implied "renunciation" or "release and removal" for nine bishops and hundreds of priests and deacons in the absence of specific written declarations of renunciation required by Canons III.12.7, III.7.8, and III 9.8. In these cases, the bishops, priests and deacons transferred to another church in the Anglican Communion and informed the Presiding Bishop they had not renounced their orders.

The most glaring misuse involves Bishop Henry Scriven, ordained and consecrated in the Church of England by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Bishop Scriven was not in fact a Bishop of "this Church" as required by the canon that the Presiding Bishop invoked when she purported to remove him from the ordained ministry and to pronounce him "deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God's Word and Sacraments conferred on him in Ordinations." He was serving as an Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. TEC's Presiding Bishop had no authority to deprive Bishop Scriven of the ministry conferred on him in the Church of England. Bishop Scriven had notified the Presiding Bishop of his transfer back to the Church of England to become an Honorary Assistant Bishop of the Diocese of Oxford, subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Oxford where he would work as director of a missionary society of the Church of England. Yet, the Presiding Bishop removed him from the ministry-or at a minimum, barred him from TEC.

Abuse of the renunciation, release and removal Canons III.12.7, III.7.8 and III.9.8 violates Canon IV.4.1(g) that requires the Presiding Bishop to exercise her ministry "in accordance with applicable provisions of the Constitution and Canons of the Church."

Fourth. Based upon information and belief, the Presiding Bishop violated Canons IV.3.1(a), IV.4.1(h)(8), and I.17.8 by unconstitutionally assuming power to remove members and dissolve a lawfully existing Standing Committee under Canon 1.17.8.

Based upon public reports and an article issued by the Anglican Communion Institute, Inc. (ACI), the Presiding Bishop violated Canon IV.3.1(a) with an unconstitutional assumption of power in removing members of the Standing Committee for the Diocese of San Joaquin and dissolving that lawfully existing Standing Committee through misuse of Canon I.17.8. The Constitution and Canons do not grant the Presiding Bishop authority to remove any one from office.

From the ACI article, AAF understands that in 2006, the San Joaquin Diocesan Convention voted to withdraw from TEC to join the Anglican Communion Province of the Southern Cone. The Standing Committee, however, planned to keep the diocese in TEC and operate the diocese under TEC's Constitution and Canons. The Standing Committee President informed the Presiding Bishop of this intent. Nonetheless, the Presiding Bishop notified the President and Standing Committee that she no longer recognized it, dissolved the Committee, and called a Special Convention for the diocese.

Without Canonical authority under Canon I.17.8, the Presiding Bishop dissolved a lawfully constituted Standing Committee and appointed another. She also called a Special Convention to bypass the lawfully existing Standing Committee in the appointment of an Interim Bishop. Both actions appear to be an unconstitutional assumption of power in violation of Canon IV.3.1(a) and Canon IV.4.1(h)(8) for "Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy."

Fifth. Based upon information and belief, the Presiding Bishop may have violated Canons IV.4.1(g) and IV.4.1(h)(8) by harassing Clergy and Abusing Disciplinary Procedures.

Based upon news reports and a Religion News Service article, in 2011 and 2012, nine bishops submitted affidavits or a friend of court brief in pending litigation involving the Dioceses of Quincy and Fort Worth where they basically stated that the ultimate authority of TEC is the diocese. AAF understands that the Presiding Bishop and various bishops caused disciplinary action against the nine bishops that resulted in their agreement to an Accord.

In the RNS article, one bishop said, "All nine of us are processing some degree of anger and are feeling substantially alienated from those who brought the charges against us . . . We feel alienated and victimized. We are nowhere near happy about this outcome, even though we stand by our decision to accept the Accord."

In contrast, there was no objection to twenty-nine bishops who filed a friend of court brief in a secular court in 2013 stating a position contrary to the consensus of the Anglican Communion (of which TEC is a "constituent member"). That consensus is represented by 1998 Lambeth Resolution I.10, the "whole church" (BCP 328-329), and the mainstream interpretation of Scripture on the subject.

The disciplinary proceedings against the nine bishops can intimidate other clergy from expressing their expert views. An Accord with the bishops was reached, but that does not necessarily mean there was no undue pressure on the bishops or that they were treated equally with other bishops who have made other filings in secular courts.

For these reasons, the disciplinary action taken against the nine bishops for filing positions in courts may be a violation of Canon 4.1(h)(8) for "Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy" and Canon IV. 4.1(g) for not exercising her ministry in accordance with "Community rule" within the community of bishops. AAF believes these bishops should have a right to believe that if they file an affidavit or friend of court brief in a secular court, they will be treated equally with other bishops according to fundamental fairness.

Sixth. Based upon information and belief, the Presiding Bishop wrongfully (1) claimed that a bishop of South Carolina had abandoned communion with TEC and (2) established a replacement bishop and diocesan machinery to operate the diocese, both of which violated Canons IV.3.1(a), IV.4.1(h)(8), and IV.16(A).

Based upon news reports and an Open Letter to the Bishops by the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI) dated November 27, 2012, with "Appendix: A Comprehensive Assault on a Diocese," the Presiding Bishop wrongfully caused Abandonment of Communion charges to be made against the Bishop of South Carolina when the Bishop was keeping the diocese "intact and in TEC."

The ACI Letter reported that "The evidence is overwhelming that [TEC] violated canons and engaged in discussions deceitfully. We disagree with those who accept the evidence, but think the matter inconsequential. If our leaders will not follow the canons and formal procedures of the church, not only in letter but in spirit, they forfeit any trust they may hold and undermine the mutual trust of the church as a whole. We disagree with those who think that such disregard of letter and spirit is merited by the misbehavior of [the Bishop of South Carolina]. Canonical violation and deceit will never produce peace in the church or render a just outcome."

From the ACI Letter to the Bishops, these actions appear to violate (1) Canon IV.3.1(a) for "knowingly violating or attempting to violate, directly or through the acts of another person, the Constitution or Canons of the Church or of any Diocese;" (2) Canon IV.4.1(h)(8) for "Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy," and (3) Canon IV.16(A) which requires for Abandonment of The Episcopal Church (i) "an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline or Worship of the Church [not this Church - see Second Offense];" (ii) "formal admission into any religious body not in communion with the same;" or (iii) "exercising Episcopal acts in and for a religious body other than the Church or another church in communion with the Church."

AAF REQUESTS ACTION

The AAF is calling for an immediate investigation into these reported violations to determine whether this information, if true, constitutes offenses that should be forwarded to the Reference Panel (Canon IV.6.4-10). The secular lawsuits are continuing. One lawsuit was filed by the Diocese of Chicago as recently as November 6, 2013.

There can be little doubt that most Episcopalians are deeply troubled by this litigation and want TEC to put an end to the madness of Christians suing Christians and wasting millions of dollars of church funds. The parishioners and clergy departing TEC are not mean-spirited people in an "organization who wants to put us out of business" as the Presiding Bishop has reportedly said. To the contrary, they are fellow Christians who are faithful people acting out of Christian conscience. They should not be subject to wolves in the Episcopate (Mt. 7:15; Acts 20:29)


There website can be seen here: http://www.usanglicanfellowship.com/

END

Theological Rage & Bitterness: Earth Shifts As Episcopal Leaders Rage, Revise & Respond to the Diocese of South Carolina

Stand Firm | The Earth Shifted: Rage, Revisionists & Responses for The Diocese of South Carolina

The Earth Shifted: Rage, Revisionists & Responses for The Diocese of South Carolina

Over the past nine years, I’ve gotten to know a limited number of fellow Episcopalians who enjoy analysis, trending, forecasting, and strategy. All of us check in with one another periodically by phone, email, and skype and enjoy some great conversation. In fact, a group of us got together a few years ago—from all over the States—simply to chat and enjoy one another’s company, all the while feverishly analyzing, trending, forecasting, and strategizing. It was a delight, simply because most of my friends don’t have those interests [believe me, they have others that keep me busy!] and it’s nice to be around people with similar minds on occasion.

One of the favorite conversations has been in predicting what 815—specifically Katherine Jefferts Schori, David Booth Beers, and their various apparatchiks—would do about the Diocese of South Carolina.

That Diocese has been the one that has been the most disciplined and effective in continually differentiating itself from the foundational worldview—the particular and customized gospel of 815—and actions of the current leadership of our church, while at the same time remaining within The Episcopal Church. As a result of its persistent and vocal differentiation it has earned the ire of our church’s current national leadership.

My thesis was always the same.

The actions of our church’s current leadership at the highest levels towards the remaining traditionalists in our church—particularly those traditionalists who are stating and acting in clear, public, formal, official ways that demonstrate their repudiation of the beliefs and actions of our current leadership—are largely driven by rage, and that rage blinds them to reasonable, clear-headed decisions that allow them to preserve resources, manage our church’s image, and look to positive future actions.

Since my thesis was that our national leadership was driven by fury—outrage and bitterness—then it made sense that such intense emotion would not allow them to do what was clearly the best, most helpful thing for The Episcopal Church as a whole. Instead, their emotions would force them to behave ridiculously and foolishly and ineptly and they would move to rid themselves of those with whom they were most angry, most outraged—and that, obviously, would be the Diocese of South Carolina and through the most draconian means.

Over the past two years, as our leaders took the next steps at General Convention in keeping with their particular, customized gospel, and as the Diocese of South Carolina continued to clearly and publicly distance themselves from the unique theology and worldview of our current leadership and differentiate the Gospel which the Diocese held from the particular unique gospel of our current national leadership, fellow analysts and forecasters would tell me that “surely our leaders would not be so foolish as to move against a diocese that was so clearly in a weak position already.”

Why move against a diocese when there is no need, and when that diocese is in an extraordinarily weak, minority position within the denomination as a whole? It would be like blowing a mosquito away with a cannon—aimed at the floor of one’s house.

This line of conversation always led to other competing theses regarding the revisionist activists in The Episcopal Church. For if there’s one thing that’s always troubled me about some of my fellow conservatives in The Episcopal Church, it’s been their seeming inability to recognize the intensity, commitment, and emotional fervor with which revisionist activists hold their beliefs—and how utterly amoral, bullying, and controlling they are. There truly are little to no limits to what they will do to further their ideology; and for that ideology—that religion of theirs—there is no compromise. There may be “temporary truces” while they gather more strength in order to force eventual compliance, but their commitment is to forcing their religion on the rest of us. And they will not stop at anything to do that.

It remains stunning to me that so many conservatives seem unable to recognize those hard truths about the nature of their opponents in the church and the fervor with which they hold their competing and antithetical gospel. What that means is that many conservatives are left attempting to “reason with” revisionist activists, or negotiate, or compromise, or hope for grace or generosity from them, while assuming that they share the same basic foundational principles and values.

Such misconceptions lead to heartache and disappointment and confusion in the end. “We thought we had a good, positive discussion; we thought there had been some mutual agreements and commonalities. What happened?” Truth is, revisionist activists and conservatives simply don’t share the same moral universe, the same faith, the same values—they come from antithetical worldviews, and there is no unity of mission with such mutually opposing foundations.

But as the months rolled on, I began to wonder. Had I been advising 815 on what to do with so hated an enemy as the Diocese of South Carolina, I’d have told them to simply pat the diocese figuratively on the head, chuck it under the chin, and proceed onward with ones’ activities. For the position of the Diocese of South Carolina was strikingly weak—one of waiting, powerless, while internally the diocese fractured with differing views as to what to do.

As I predicted some years ago, I didn’t believe that many parishes would follow St. Andrews’, Mount Pleasant—and as it turned out, it was only St. Andrews—but I did believe that the Diocese would grow steadily less united in its determination to remain within, and wait for the leadership of TEC to move against its leadership. Some parishes would wish to leave. Some would wish to “take further action.” Some would wish for everything to “just die down and go away.” And the four revisionist parishes would continue clattering and sniping whatever happened.

The very best thing that could happen to the Diocese of South Carolina would be for the emotions—the fury—of our church’s national leadership to get the better of their clear-headed strategy of allowing the Diocese to fracture and come apart at the seams.


The most helpful and unifying and energizing thing for the Diocese of South Carolina would be for our Presiding Bishop, her legal advisor, and others to “give the Diocese her freedom” by attempting to rid themselves of the troublesome diocese in the most ham-handed of ways.

But could our church’s national leadership really be that foolish? Would they allow their feelings—intense as they were—to over-ride clear thinking and calculation? Perhaps not, I thought. Perhaps—through sheer force of will—our church’s national leaders had determined to simply allow the Diocese to die “from within”—or continue to raise a clamor, with no power whatsoever. As galling as it would be to hear the continuous clatter of a diocese which didn’t share the same faith as our church’s national leaders, surely that was the better part of wisdom, since there wasn’t actually anything that the Diocese of South Carolina could accomplish other than speak, albeit loudly.

Nevertheless, my stance has always been that ultimately, against all reason and strategy and wisdom, our Presiding Bishop and other advisors, along with multiple other revisionist activists on the disciplinary board, had to do what they did this week, because of who they are—they simply could not allow another entity to be so publicly and boldly differentiated from their own personal faith and agenda, and remain within The Episcopal Church. They did what they had to do, considering the level and force of their emotions—considering who they were. They were never going to be able to overcome the depth of their own bile, spite, vengefulness, and anger.

General Convention 2012 occurred—and the canons were changed yet again, this time to force parishes to consider cross-dressers as potential clergy, not to mention approving a vacuous temporary “rite” for blessing sexual relationships between two men or two women. My greatest personal concern was that the Diocese of South Carolina would simply leave TEC, because of the rank inconvenience of having to continually and loudly say “yes, yes, our denomination’s leadership as a whole does not share the same faith as our diocese’s, but we are willing to stay within it and harry and hound our leadership to the end, proclaiming our differences to the world.”

As I’ve been clear over the years, I believe that it is perfectly possible to remain within a corrupt and evil organization, and I believe that some are called to do so—until they are not. It is not intrinsically immoral to remain within a corrupt and evil organization, as long as one’s differences are made clear. [Indeed, there are some who are a part of China’s government, or Russia’s, or Cuba’s who are hiding within those governments and making no such public distinction—and they are doing good work.] And there were some who were a part of the highest levels of leadership of countries whose very nature was intrinsically religious: Daniel in Babylon and Joseph in Egypt are obvious examples, but there have been many more down through the ages, not to mention, of course, faithful Jews within a corrupt and evil Israel, century after century after century.

But my goodness, it’s a tough thing to carry forth—continually, over and over and over, maintaining one’s antithetical differences with the leadership of an organization, while maintaining a stressful, high-conflict position within such an organization.

Given the best possible option, my hope was that the Diocese of South Carolina would remain within TEC and continually and loudly assert its differences with our leadership and re-assert the Gospel, which they have done so well. My hope was that the leaders of our church would swallow their anger and do the wise thing, not seeking further fracture, and simply allowing the Diocese of South Carolina to continue as a tiny, irrelevant, and powerless minority.

The second best option—and “second-best” is poor phrasing, since it is indeed a historically tragic decision—was for The Episcopal Church’s national leadership to behave as it did on Monday, October 15, 2012 and attempt to rid themselves of their most active internal opposition by attempting to depose Bishop Lawrence on three charges, two of which had already been declared as invalid charges by a previous committee. Quite rightly, diocesan leadership had already decided in advance what its response would be to such an act; they rather cleverly had created a contingency action beforehand that was automatic, should our national church leaders behave so stupidly as they did. And so now, the Diocese of South Carolina, one of the oldest, thriving dioceses in The Episcopal Church, is gone.


The next steps are fairly obvious, since we’ve seen them enacted so many times now within The Episcopal Church. The Presiding Bishop will assert that she “no longer recognizes” the Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina, and appoint her own potemkin crew as the “Standing Committee” of a faux “diocese” made up largely of the parishioners of the four revisionist parishes in the Diocese, and then attempt to freeze the Diocese of South Carolina’s funds. Then the lawsuits can begin—and along with that, many more millions of dollars, probably between $3-6 million over the next few years on the Diocese of South Carolina alone, all funded through portions of the pledges that Episcopalians give to their local parishes. [By the way, if you haven’t yet Written The Letter regarding future pledges, now is a perfect time to do so.]

With all of the above being fairly obvious, let’s go ahead and list the consequences of these latest actions of the national leadership of our denomination.

1) The Diocese of South Carolina—with the exception of the four revisionist parishes—is now beautifully unified and energized, and it didn’t have to make any kind of divisive or frightening decision regarding its future within The Episcopal Church. Its strategy was, after all, correct—it had but to wait for the leaders of our church to surrender to their fury and act against the Diocese by moving to rid our church of Bishop Lawrence, while having already pre-set a response from the diocese that would be triggered by the actions of the leaders of our church.
 
I am so proud of the Diocese of South Carolina and its leadership. They waited it out—against all the anathemas and castigations from both within and without The Episcopal Church—and their patience and discipline were rewarded with a buffoonish, ham-fisted, and petty action from the national church. 

They were strategic, and they were ready, without ever jumping the gun or leaving from mere inconvenience, hurt feelings, frustration, depression, or a simple desire not to fight anymore. They committed to the inconvenience, the hurt feelings, the frustration, the depression, and the fighting; they were willing to undergo anything but annihilation, and I honor that more than I can possibly describe.

They didn’t leave until the triggering action occurred—as was inevitable, considering who our leadership is and the depth and intensity of their emotions. The diocese suffered through a lot of grief and horror—but they never just “sat there and suffered” or whined, while wringing their hands. They were a bold and constant, public and differentiated witness within The Episcopal Church. They left it all out there on the field of honor, never wavering, always clear, always forthright. Nobody ever “wondered what the Diocese of South Carolina believed.” Everybody knew what they believed—and the Gospel was preached in our church, thanks to the Diocese of South Carolina.


And now, they will, by the grace of God, be a bold and constant witness outside The Episcopal Church.

2) Provinces all around the Anglican Communion will be aghast at further demonstrations of the consequences of our leadership’s particular customized foundational worldview and faith. It’s hard for me to imagine just how awful this will look to bishops, clergy, Primates, and laypeople in just about every Province of the Communion, from the Church of England, to the Middle East, to Nigeria, to Australia—for without any need or provocation, other than vengeful bile, the leadership of our church has managed to lose another diocese.

3) Conservatives, moderates, and even some old-fashioned liberals within The Episcopal Church will recognize this act by our church’s leaders for what it is: petty, controlling, angry, aggressively domineering, and very very stupid.

4) We will have very very interesting times in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina.


—We’re a very happy, unified state. We vacation at the beach, our parishioners are all connected by family and politics, we have relatives all over both dioceses, and—save for the 2/3 imported revisionist clergy in Upper South Carolina—there’s a sympathy for the lower diocese.

—Bishop Waldo is happily trampling towards instituting same-sex blessings in our diocese, using a heavily weighted revisionist “Unity Task Force” to rubber stamp the decision. It’s not going to go well, since there is absolutely no outcry for him to authorize the trumped up, tawdry rite that the General Convention approved in our diocese for the significantly less than 1% who are actually both a) gay and b) in a sexual relationship and wanting that particular sexual relationship to be recognized and approved of. Parishes will fracture over it, those moving to the area will recognize that the Diocese of Upper South Carolina is no longer a moderate option, and plenty of individuals will depart for happier Christian climes. I personally think that revisionists in the Diocese recognize those consequences as utterly predictable. So all the authorization of the rite by Bishop Waldo will ultimately accomplish is a further use of another bizarre form of diocesan and/or parish seppuku, of which there are obviously many varieties.

—But now . . . well, things are getting interesting. Because there’s going to be all sorts of pressure from national church apparatchiks for our diocese to recognize the faux “Standing Committee” and the faux “diocese” in the lower diocese and engage in joint liturgies and hand-waving meetings.

—And Episcopalians up here . . . and in East Carolina . . . and in Georgia . . . and in Northern Florida . . . and in other parts of the country, are positively salivating over the possibility of simply joining the Diocese of South Carolina, and asking that Diocese to act as a sending diocese for mission outreaches.


—If a group of parishioners up here should decide to plant a church, there’s nothing to prevent them from petitioning the Diocese of South Carolina to accept them as a parish or mission of the diocese, contingent within the congregation’s bylaws of the diocese not joining any alternate Anglican entity save a Province of the Anglican Communion. At that point, you’ve got an opportunity to found congregations and parishes that are allied with a single, functional, healthy Anglican diocese without the entanglements of being involved in various dysfunctional, unhealthy umbrella Anglican options.

This has Gold Rush possibilities.

—Long term, the decision by our national church leaders to eliminate their opposition in the Diocese of South Carolina has utterly devastating implications for the Diocese of Upper South Carolina. Without a major miracle, and some kind of born-again conversion of revisionist clergy and bishop [akin to God pouring fire down from the heavens onto the soaked altars and burnt offerings to Baal], we will have a slow and determined migration—physically and/or ecclesially—between the two regions.


Ultimately, because we don’t share the same gospel, the revisionists will end up together. And the conservatives will end up together. And that can only mean decline for Upper South Carolina over the long term as “the earth shifts under our feet.”

People go where there is health and wholeness—that is our nature and migration is inevitable. I could go parish by parish in my diocese and point out the hard cold facts. But there is no need to do that—we have but to watch in the coming years.

In one sense, this day is a very sad day. We’re seeing another massive fault line open up in The Episcopal Church—and another self-slaughtering act by our leaders. We’re seeing another diocese depart—like chunks of a melting ice floe detaching and drifting away. We’re seeing the gradual break up of a historic denomination—one that will always hold a very dear place in my heart. We’re seeing quite epic mistakes made that will feature huge consequences in money, time, energy, public relations, and ultimately identity and failure and death.

But in another sense, it’s a relief. Our church’s leaders are doing what they do, and “living into” who they are, at core. They are demonstrating their foundational worldview, their unique gospel, and its values and theology, to the entire world, Anglican and otherwise. It helps to see reality. It helps to have clarity.

Now—in consequence of our church’s decisions, other people get to make decisions—Primates, bishops, clergy, laity—in a continuous round of actions and reactions, behavior and consequences.
I am reminded of the Pharaoh and his armies—his pride and anger urging him forward into a foolish and dangerous situation as his armies pursued the Israelites. I wonder what those men felt as their chariot wheels sunk into the mud of the sea.

I wonder at what moment they recognized that they had made a series of terrible and foolish mistakes.
I don’t think this ends well for The Episcopal Church.
But God bless the Diocese of South Carolina!

South Carolina Diocese Expelled From Episcopal Church

http://religiousintelligence.org/churchnewspaper/?p=28657

 

South Carolina expelled from the Episcopal Church

 

Posted by George Conger on Thursday, October 18th, 2012 and filed under International news, News.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

 

The Diocese of South Carolina has been pushed out of the Episcopal Church of the USA. The involuntary secession of the 39,000-member diocese comes as charges have been brought against its bishop, the Rt Rev Mark Lawrence for allegedly “abandoning” the communion of the Episcopal Church.


On 17 October 2012 a statement printed on the Diocese’s Website said that two days earlier Bishop Lawrence had been notified by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori that on 18 September 2012 “the Disciplinary Board for Bishops had certified his abandonment of The Episcopal Church.”


The diocese reported that Bishop Lawrence was “notified of these actions taken by the Episcopal Church between two meetings, one held on October 3 and one to be held on October 22, which Bishop Andrew Waldo of the Upper Diocese of South Carolina and Bishop Lawrence had set up with the Presiding Bishop to find a peaceful alternative to the growing issues between The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of South Carolina. The meetings were to explore ‘creative solutions’ for resolving these issues to avoid further turmoil in the Diocese and in The Episcopal Church.”


The diocese noted that “two of the three charges had previously been determined by a majority vote of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops in November 2011 not to constitute abandonment,” however protections against double jeopardy are not given to defendants in Episcopal ecclesiastical proceedings.

The diocese added that it had not been served with a “signed copy of the certification and also remains uninformed of the identity of those making these charges.”

It stated: “We feel a deep sense of sadness but a renewed sense of God’s providence that The Episcopal Church has chosen to act against this Diocese and its Bishop during a good faith attempt peacefully to resolve our differences. These actions make it clear The Episcopal Church no longer desires to be affiliated with the Diocese of South Carolina.”


South Carolina’s diocesan constitution and canons do not recognize the authority of the disciplinary canons inaugurated by the national Church in 2009, and it is unlikely the bishop will make a formal response to the charges — thereby recognizing their jurisdiction over him.


However, the diocesan convention has adopted defence measures against the contingency of a theologically motivated attack by liberal clique currently controlling the Church’s offices in New York and adopted resolutions to protect its independence.


The diocese is also protected by South Carolina law. The state’s Supreme Court has struck down the national Church’s property rules, the “Dennis Canon”, holding they have no legal effect in the state. While the national Church has set aside a $3million war chest to fund litigation, canon law experts tell The Church of England Newspaper it is unlikely to prevail in a fight to seize church property.


The diocese noted “this action by The Episcopal Church triggered two pre-existing corporate resolutions of the Diocese, which simultaneously disaffiliated the Diocese from The Episcopal Church.” A special convention has been called for 17 November 2012 in Charleston to discuss a way forward for the diocese.
 

American Anglican Watch: TEC Disciplinary Board says South Carolina bishop has abandoned church

Disciplinary Board says South Carolina bishop has abandoned church

 

Disciplinary Board says South Carolina bishop has abandoned church

Decision prompts diocese to claim it has ‘disaffiliated’ from the church

By Mary Frances Schjonberg | October 17, 2012
Leave a Comment |

More Sharing ServicesShare

Bishop Mark Lawrence. Photo/Diocese of South Carolina

 

[Episcopal News Service] The Disciplinary Board for Bishops has certified to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori that Diocese of South Carolina Bishop Mark Lawrence has abandoned the Episcopal Church “by an open renunciation of the discipline of the church.”

The presiding bishop spoke by phone to Lawrence on Oct. 15 to inform him of the Disciplinary Board action and to tell him that, effective noon of that day, the exercise of his ministry was restricted, according to an Oct. 17 press release from the church’s Office of Public Affairs. He is not permitted to perform any acts as an ordained person.

Lawrence has 60 days to respond to the allegations in the certification, the release said.


“These actions make it clear the Episcopal Church no longer desires to be affiliated with the Diocese of South Carolina,” the diocese said in an Oct. 17 statement on its website.

The diocese said that the action “triggered two pre-existing corporate resolutions of the diocese, which simultaneously disaffiliated the diocese from the Episcopal Church and called a special convention.” That convention will be held Nov. 17 at St. Philip’s Church, Charleston.

South Carolina Episcopalians, a group that says its purpose is “to provide news, encouragement, and support to traditional churchmen and women in South Carolina who no longer feel they have a diocesan home, issued a statement late on Oct. 17 criticizing recent Lawrence’s actions.

“Rather than using the past few days to find some common ground with the presiding bishop, Lawrence and his handlers have been working feverishly to generate some semi-plausible narrative that would cast Lawrence and the diocese as victims,” the group said.

The disciplinary board said Lawrence failed to “guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the church” by not ruling three specific resolutions out of order during a diocesan convention on Oct. 10, 2010, or otherwise dissenting, “but instead speaking in support of them in his formal address to the convention.”

The convention passed six resolutions at that convention in response to General Convention’s 2009 passage of revised Title IV canons on clergy discipline, which Lawrence and the diocesan leadership oppose.

The board said he acted similarly on Feb. 19, 2011, when the convention again passed one of those resolutions, which removed language in the diocesan constitution that adopts the Episcopal Church’s Constitution and Canons. Resolution R-6 added language saying that the diocese will accede only to the Episcopal Church constitution, and only if it is not “inconsistent with, or contradictory to” diocesan constitution and canons. It also changed its requirements for new missions and parishes, requiring them to accede only to the Episcopal Church’s constitution and not its canons. And, the resolution amended an article of the constitution that would result in a rejection of the revised Title IV.

Then on Oct. 19, 2011, the board said in its certification, Lawrence enacted Resolution R-11 to remove the so-called accession language from the purpose statement of the diocese’s corporate charter filed with the South Carolina secretary of state.

Finally, on Nov. 16, 2011, the board said, Lawrence directed Diocesan Chancellor Wade Logan to send a quitclaim deed to every parish in the diocese. A quitclaim deed generally transfers ownership of the property from the party issuing the deed to the recipient.

The 18 member board – composed of 10 bishops, four clergy, and four laity – made the determination under Canon IV.16 (A) following complaints from 12 adult members and two priests of the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, according to the press release.

The board issued its decision in a letter dated Sept.18, the Public Affairs’ release said. Following the assembly of numerous documents, the presiding bishop received the letter via mail in her church center office on Oct. 10.

The diocese said in its statement that Lawrence was scheduled to meet Oct. 22 with the presiding bishop “to find a peaceful alternative to the growing issues between the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of South Carolina.”

“The meetings were to explore ‘creative solutions’ for resolving these issues to avoid further turmoil in the diocese and in the Episcopal Church,” the statement said.

Bishop Andrew Waldo of the Upper Diocese of South Carolina and Lawrence arranged the meeting, according to the diocese’s statement.

“We feel a deep sense of sadness but a renewed sense of God’s providence that the Episcopal Church has chosen to act against this diocese and its bishop during a good faith attempt peacefully to resolve our differences,” the diocesan statement said.

The resolutions cited in the board’s certification also figured in an abandonment complaint that the board rejected late in 2011. In November of that year, the Rt. Rev. Dorsey F. Henderson Jr., disciplinary board president, said in a statement e-mailed to Lawrence and reporters that “based on the information before it, the board was unable to make the conclusions essential to a certification that Bishop Lawrence had abandoned the communion of the church.”

The resolutions were among the 12 allegations of abandonment that the board considered at that time.
The diocesan leadership has engaged in a series of moves to distance itself from the Episcopal Church, ultimately stemming from disagreements over human sexuality issues and theological interpretation.


Lawrence and the majority of the diocese’s deputation left the General Convention on July 11, objecting to the passage of resolutions that they said violate the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church.

The resolutions in question were A049, which allows for optional and provisional use of a rite to bless same-gender relationships, and D002 and D019, which affirm the full inclusion of transgender persons in the life of the church (including the ordination process).

However, the Very Rev. John B. Burwell, the sole South Carolina clergy deputy who remained, told Episcopal News Service in an interview after the House of Deputies’ last session on July 11 that “we are not leaving the Episcopal Church.” And Lawrence made it clear the next day, noting that “a deputation to General Convention has no authority to make such a decision.”

Shortly after convention, Lawrence added C029 to the list of resolutions deemed objectionable. The resolution had in its original form called for a “study of the theology underlying access to Holy Baptism and Holy Communion” and was eventually amended to state that “baptism is the ancient and normative entry point to receiving Holy Communion.” Another resolution (C040), which would have allowed unbaptized people to receive communion, did not make it out of committee.

However, Lawrence said that the amended C029 resolution “still moves the church further down the road toward encouraging the communion of the unbaptized which departs from two thousand years of Christian practice” and “puts the undiscerning person in spiritual jeopardy.”

Lawrence said the resolutions about transgendered persons would lead to an abandonment of norms because “gender may be entirely self-defined, self-chosen,” thus “condemning ourselves, our children and grandchildren, as well as future generations to sheer sexual anarchy.”

“So long as I am bishop of this diocese I will not abandon its people to such darkness,” he promised.


At the close of the letter, Lawrence said that “for me to pretend that nothing had changed [in the Episcopal Church is] no longer an option.”

That letter was followed on July 30 by one from the Rev. Canon Jim Lewis, canon to the ordinary, summarizing a meeting Lawrence had with diocesan clergy on July 25. It said in part that Lawrence “asked for a period of grace as he prayerfully seeks the face of the Lord, and asks for God’s direction” while on a vacation to be “spent on mountaintops and in deserts where the bishop will seek refreshment and discernment.”

“Upon his return at the end of August he will meet with the Standing Committee and the clergy of the diocese to share that discernment and his sense of the path forward,” Lewis wrote.

Lawrence then met Aug. 21 with the Standing Committee, “which unanimously approved the course of action he outlined for the Diocese of South Carolina,” according to a one-line announcement in the diocese’s e-newsletter.

No details were released and on Sept. 22, Lawrence told the diocese that it was still “imprudent to reveal that course of action.”

“Things are progressing — we have not stopped or dropped the ball,” he wrote. “Please know that I understand the level of anxiety and concern of many in the diocese. Nevertheless I must ask you all for your continued patience and prayers as we seek to deal wisely and carefully with a fluid situation that requires great discernment and sensitivity on a regular basis. I will communicate to you the details at the very earliest moment such a communication is prudent.”

Lawrence and the diocesan leadership have been distancing themselves from the Episcopal Church for at least three years, including the actions cited by the board.

In October 2009 the diocese authorized Lawrence and the Standing Committee to begin withdrawing from church wide bodies that assent to “actions deemed contrary to Holy Scripture, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them, the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference which have expressed the mind of the communion, the Book of Common Prayer and our Constitution and Canons, until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions.”

That authorization came in response to two 2009 General Convention resolutions passed two months earlier that focused on human sexuality and reaffirmed the Episcopal Church’s commitment to the Anglican Communion. Resolution D025 affirmed “that God has called and may call” gay and lesbian people “to any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church.” Resolution C056 calls for the collection and development of theological resources for the blessing of same-gender blessings and allows bishops to provide “a generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this church.”

“These resolutions seek to protect the diocese from any attempt at un-constitutional intrusions in our corporate life in South Carolina and were in response to the revisions to the Title IV Canons of the Episcopal Church,” according to a diocesan news report at the time.

When Lawrence was first elected bishop in September 2006, he faced numerous questions about whether he would attempt to convince Episcopalians there to leave the church. In a Nov. 6, 2006, letter to the wider church he wrote that he would “work at least as hard at keeping the Diocese of South Carolina in the Episcopal Church as my sister and brother bishops work at keeping the Episcopal Church in covenanted relationship with the worldwide Anglican Communion.”

Lawrence did not receive the required consents to his consecration in 2007 because some standing committee consent forms were canonically improper. He was subsequently re-elected, received the consents required for all bishops-elect and was consecrated January 26, 2008.

– The Rev. Mary Frances Schjonberg is an editor/reporter for the Episcopal News Service.

TEC Bishop Notes TEC-Seminary Graduates Deficient Intellectually (No Kidding!)

We are not surprised in the least by AZ's TEC Bishop lamenting the poor intellectual and leadership equipment and skills from/for TEC seminary graduates. No surprises there. We have seen that predominantly in our experience, despite TEC's longstanding effort to rebut that image. Anglicanism has had a long history of scholarly Rectors and Professors, but, with liberalism's eviserative impulse intellectually and propensity to mysticism's legacy, the fruits have been seen. Exhibit A--theologically, Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori.  She abhors classical, catholic, and confessional Christendom.

 http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=16474

Dear Brothers and Sisterswww.virtueonline.org
August 31, 2012

When you live in the rarefied world of Anglican politics where liberal and conservative theologians talk, think and rage publicly, where bishops offer up their wisdom, (a lot of it unmitigated rubbish) and priests move across the Anglican chess board with handwringing exculpations and reasons why they do what they must do, it is important to remember that Jesus began his earthly ministry with 12 fisherman who had little education, took three years to get the hang of the message, became His most radical disciples and then died pretty miserable deaths. Of course things changed with the much educated St. Paul, but the first disciples got first dibs on the Master and we must never forget that. The opening salvos were from fishermen not theologians.

I say this because The Living Church, a magazine for catholic, evangelical and ecumenical Episcopalians and Anglicans whose editor Dr. Christopher Wells is a man I regard highly and whose news (associate) editor Doug LeBlanc I regard as a personal friend, ran a number of articles in their August 26 issue that, frankly, blew my mind.

The Rev. Canon Michael Poon, director and Asian Christianity coordinator of the Centre for the Study, wrote an article titled LOOK BEYOND ENGLAND looking at the global picture of Anglicanism. He concluded the article, "For me, as those in the Oxford Movement once saw, the disestablished American Episcopal Church, holding out the vision of a catholic and missionary Church, offers a more promising future of spiritual renewal for the Anglican world. The Episcopal Church, a spiritual forbear of Anglicans in Asia, will continue to occupy a central place in God's unfinished plans for Anglicans. The shaping of the next generation is the key."
Say what?

What world is he living in? Does he not know anything about what has and is going on in TEC or why it was necessary for the birth of AMIA, CANA and, ultimately, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA)? Does someone need to buy him a round trip ticket (Singapore to NY) to see the state of The Episcopal Church? Does he have any idea what damage Bishop Gene Robinson and the later consecration of a lesbian bishop has been done to the integrity and gospel witness of TEC? Does he need to witness how multiple lawsuits over church property that has run into the tens of millions of dollars and has bankrupted the church? Does he not know of the more than 100,000 who have fled TEC and formed ACNA which now fast approaches 1,000 new churches? If he came to NY City, would he arrive in time to see a For Sale sign on the doors of 815 2nd Avenue in order to keep paying the legal fees of David Booth Beers? Is he aware of closing cathedrals, of aging and dying parishes with virtually no evangelizing going on at all? What "next generation" is Poon talking about?

TEC's seminaries are in deep financial trouble and the product they are turning out has even been criticized by the liberal bishop of Arizona Kirk Smith who publicly said we need to reduce the number of seminaries to three and then opined that "The graduates they turn out-and I speak from personal experience-are not exactly well-formed, either in intellectual knowledge or leadership ability. We need scholars in the church, to be sure, but even more we need young men and women who can grow the church. This clearly is not happening, which means..." What about this does Poon not understand? Even the liberals know the church is in trouble and Poon says that "TEC will shape the next generation."

If he was looking beyond England, why did he not see the rise of the GAFCON in the Global South, or the totality of the Global South that owns 80% of the Anglican Communion and is pretty solidly evangelical? Why did he ignore the Jerusalem Declaration which has more support than The Covenant?

Another article by Mark Chapman, an Oxford theologian, does a Retrospect on the tenure of Rowan Williams painting him as a sort of heroic failure, a man who consistently did not force his own views on people, or usually even given a steer. He closes with this, "Williams has carried the burdens of conflict, and has shown a huge and sometimes costly commitment to unity...".

What unity? When Robinson was consecrated in 2003, Williams did nothing about it except to say that this was not a nice thing to do and please don't do it again...that this could affect unity. Global South leaders never again broke bread at any primatial gathering with Frank Griswold, abandoning altogether such gatherings, and began forming their own more perfect unions. What about the absence of 200 bishops at the last Lambeth conference.

Both men write as though the C of E and TEC are still somehow viable players in global Anglicanism; SE Asian theologian Poon completely ignores the incredible evangelical growth of the Global South and their growing leadership role in the Anglican Communion. He praises The Covenant without mentioning The Jerusalem Declaration.

One sees the same kind of blindness in North American Anglican Communion Institute (ACI) theologians. I wonder if, perhaps, I am slowly losing my mind and that one day I will wake up from some spiritual fog -- just in time to see TEC rise up in glory as its finances dwindle, its parishes close, its aging flocks die off leading us all into the Promised Land of completed "listening", renewal, reconciliation and revival with a smear of Indaba to make it all work.

For a truly brilliant analysis of Poon's diatribe read Canon Phil Ashey's Look Not to The Episcopal Church here: http://tinyurl.com/8bfhy6v

Schori's Jibberish about TEC's GC 2012

I wonder what Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Hezekiah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Nahum, Micah, John the Baptist, Jesus, the Apostles, St. Paul and the English Reformers might might say to Kati, a so-called Bishop-in-Apostolic-Succession? But wait, none of those men receive a voice here with Kati. Oh, wait, Jesus strenuously warned about false teachers in Matthew 16.1-12, inter alia.

http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/2012/08/03/presiding-bishops-message-to-the-church-on-general-convention/ 

Presiding Bishop’s message to the church on General Convention

August 3, 2012

[Episcopal Church Office of Public Affairs] We emerge with abundant hope, better discipline for working together and with partners beyond this Church, for our fundamental reason for being – engagement with God’s mission,” Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori states in her Aug. 3 message to the church about the 77th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, held in July in Indianapolis, Indianapolis.

---

Message to the Church

The General Convention which took place in Indianapolis in July offered new and creative responses to the call of the gospel in our day. We saw gracious and pastoral responses to polarizing issues, as well as a new honesty about the need for change.

General Convention addressed a number of significant issues that will impact the life and witness of this Church for years into the future – and they include many more things beyond what you’ve heard about in the news. The way we worked together also represented a new reality, working to adapt more creatively to our diverse nature as a Church.

It is that way of creative engagement that ultimately will be most transformative for The Episcopal Church and the world beyond it. On issue after issue, the resolutions addressed by General Convention emerged in creative responses that considered, but did not end in, the polarized positions expected as we went into Convention. People listened to the movement of the spirit and discerned a way forward that was mutually upbuilding, rather than creating greater divisiveness or win-lose outcomes.

The hot-button issues of the last decade have not been eternally resolved, but we have as a body found creative and pastoral ways to live with the differences of opinion, rather than resorting to old patterns of conflict. There is a certain expansive grace in how these decisions are being made and in the responses to them, a grace that is reminiscent of the Elizabeth settlement. We’ve said as a Church that there is no bar to the participation of minorities of all sorts, and we are finding pastoral ways to ensure that potential offense at the behavior or position of another is minimized, with the hope that we may grow toward celebrating that diversity as a gift from God. If we are all sinners, then each of us may be wrong about where we stand. Human beings, made from humus, become Christlike when they know humility.

Major issues addressed at General Convention included approval of a trial rite for blessing same-sex unions. It may be used in congregations beginning in Advent, with the approval of the diocesan bishop. Bishops are making varied responses to the rite – a prime example of this emerging reality of local adaptation based on context – something which is profoundly Anglican.

The decision to provide a trial rite for same-sex blessings was anticipated by many across the Church – some with fear and trepidation, others with rejoicing, and yet others with frustration that more would not be offered. The decision of General Convention may not have fully satisfied anyone, yet it has provided more space for difference than most expected. The rite must be authorized by a diocesan bishop, which permits bishops who believe it inappropriate to safeguard their own theological position. Some of the responses by bishops with questions about the appropriateness of such rites in their dioceses show creativity and enormous pastoral respect for those who support such blessings. The use of this rite is open to local option, in the same way we often think about private confession: “all may, some should, none must.”

General Convention also produced creative responses to a number of other challenging issues – in particular, peacemaking in Israel-Palestine, the Anglican Covenant, and the call to restructure The Episcopal Church. The resolutions adopted reflect a higher level of investment in the health of diverse opinions and positions in the Church than we have seen for a long time. We can celebrate a bit of “growing up into the full stature of Christ” and the kind of welcome we claim to exemplify: “The Episcopal Church welcomes you,” whoever you are and wherever you stand. As a Church, when we’re at our best, we earnestly believe that that diversity helps to lead us toward the mind of Christ.

The call to restructure the Church is a response to growing grassroots awareness that we must change or die. I’ve heard it put this way, “It’s not a matter of tradition or change – tradition IS change!” We live in an age of rapid change, and if we are going to be faithful to our baptismal work of going into the world and proclaiming the gospel, our methods and support systems also need to change. We need to be more responsive and able to engage opportunities, more nimble.

Nimble is not a word usually associated with Episcopal churches, but the passion and energy at our General Convention was certainly moving in that direction. Most of us probably associate that word with Mother Goose and Jack who is nimble enough to jump over the candlestick. But there is a character to Jesus’ own ministry that has something to do with a flexible and creative responsiveness that might be called nimble. It certainly characterized the explosion of his followers across the Mediterranean world and then to India, Africa, and Europe. Nimbleness has something to do with creative risk-taking; it may have a playful character that is also profoundly creative, and it partakes of joy.

We’re looking for a 21st century Episcopal Church that can adapt and respond to a myriad of varied local contexts and missional opportunities. We’ve begun to realize, pretty widely across the Church, that the way we’ve “done church” for the last century or more no longer fits many of our contexts. We haven’t been terribly effective at evangelism with unchurched populations; we haven’t been terribly effective at retaining the children born to Episcopal parents; family structures are changing and our ability to address the needs of those families has not kept pace, whether we’re talking about ECWs and women in the workforce, or single-parent families, or special needs children.

The General Convention decided to address needs for structural change, by looking at the ways in which we live and move and have our being as a Church. A task force will be appointed to listen broadly within the Church and offer a proposal by late 2014.

General Convention adopted a budget for the coming triennium based on the Five Anglican Marks of Mission, which includes some creative initiatives in partnership with dioceses, other parts of the Anglican Communion, or those churches with whom we are in full communion or other relationships. One notable example: “Mission Enterprise Zones” will facilitate creative initiatives at the diocesan level, funded in partnership with the broader Church.

General Convention asked for a task force to study our theology of marriage. Remarkably, this happened only a few days after the Anglican province of Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia did the same thing. This may offer some very creative opportunities for study across provincial boundaries in the Anglican Communion.

The General Convention affirmed the implementation of the Denominational Health Plan, and offered some greater flexibility and more time to address health care parity issues for lay and clergy employees at the diocesan level.

All of this creative work means that we emerge with abundant hope, better discipline for working together and with partners beyond this Church, for our fundamental reason for being – engagement with God’s mission. We have moved beyond the entrenched conflict of recent years. I pray that our growing confidence is a sign of new humility, knowing that we are finite creatures who can always be wrong, that we can do God’s work only as part of the Body, and that disagreement is a mark of possibility.

God still seems to have a use for this Church, if we can remember our central focus – to love God and our neighbors as ourselves, wherever we go, and wherever we find ourselves. May God bless the journey, and may we learn to travel light.

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