Updated again Saturday morning
The Church Times has a report by Pat Ashworth Lambeth ban on Robinson upheld. The CT went to press before the Wednesday announcements re San Joaquin etc.
The Living Church has a report No Decision on Bishop Schofield’s Lambeth Invitation.
The Church of England Newspaper has a report by George Conger Lambeth invitations reviewed.
For secular press reports on San Joaquin there is a round-up at epiScope Schofield minus plus. And this item at Episcopal Café.
The soon-to-be new Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin has a new website.
There are further comments and reactions in this ENS report House of Bishops’ actions draw reactions from interest groups, ELO readers.
Two further items:
Forward in Faith North America reports that Bishop Edward MacBurney, bishop retired of the Diocese of Quincy, has been formally charged with canonical violations by the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. See Former Quincy Bishop Charged.
And Stand Firm reports that Presiding Bishop Plans to Try Bishop Duncan before the Lambeth Conference. (What this means is to some extent explained in the comments to the article.)
Friday evening update
Several bishops have posted comments on their recent meeting, see here.
There is a report in the Living Church by George Conger and Steve Waring which asserts that Deposition Votes Failed to Achieve Canonically Required Majority.
Added Saturday morning
Official response to the above: House of Bishops’ votes valid, chancellor confirms. See text below the fold.
House of Bishops’ votes valid, chancellor confirms
March 15, 2008
[Episcopal News Service] The Presiding Bishop’s chancellor has confirmed the validity of votes taken in the House of Bishops on March 12, correcting an erroneous report published online March 14 by The Living Church News Service.
Chancellor David Booth Beers said votes consenting to the deposition of bishops John-David Schofield and William Cox conformed to the canons.
“In consultation with the House of Bishops’ parliamentarian prior to the vote,” Beers said, “we both agreed that the canon meant a majority of all those present and entitled to vote, because it is clear from the canon that the vote had to be taken at a meeting, unlike the situation where you poll the whole House of Bishops by mail. Therefore, it is our position that the vote was in order.”
A quorum had been determined at the meeting by the House of Bishops’ secretary, Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of Southern Ohio.
In re: Bishop MacBurney–
Since TEC doesn’t accept the fiction that a parish can leave TEC and join another province, the idea that MacBurney was ministering to a non-Episcopal church exists only in the heads of Forward in Faith and its allies.
Even if the ABC’s advisors did change their minds and decide he should invite Martyn Minns et al., surely it’s too late. Peter Akinola, Peter Jensen and others have made too much noise about not going to Lambeth to be able to turn round and attend after all without losing a huge amount of face. They’ve painted themselves into a corner, and left themselves no alternative to forming their own communion. So why not invite Gene Robinson after all, if the damage has already been done? But no, that would mean the ABC losing too much face himself, not to… Read more »
One of the more fascinating presuppositional things about so much of the conservative realignment campaigns framework is how magically it moves threat and safety around, manipulating the narratives about what is really real, through typically unexamined ploys of redefinition, categorical and unquestioned. Thus, having to live on the same planet as queer folks involved in common sense daily living ethics, say, or women in the professions is defined as a threat to safe believerhood. One wonders where these conservatives live, most of the time. Do they have no competent women on their work teams, to whom they are consistently beholden… Read more »
Regarding both Bishop MacBurney and Bishop Duncan: many of us have felt is more appropriate to bring charges under Canon IV.1.h: “Any act which involves a violation of Ordination vows;” or IV.1.e: “Violation of the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention.” Unlike the canon on Abondonment, there is no requirement of consent from the three senior bishops to inhibition, as there is in the “Abandonment” canon. In addition, such violations would seem simpler to prove or disprove. Attempting to disassociate a diocese from the national Church, or alienating property held in trust for the national Church, would both fall… Read more »
Re Bishop MacBurney:
“Bishop MacBurney is a loving man and is not the kind of man who would refuse to respond to the needs of God’s people in any part of the world.”
Would that include LGBT people – clergy and lay people and bishops?
“The soon-to-be new Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin has a new website.”
That’s the *RENEWED* Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, Simon! 😉
What about the Robert Duncan news on Fulcrum and on Stand Firm ?
Pat,
If I recall, the departure of Christ Church Overland Park was an amicable separation, in which the departing members purchased the property from the diocese, and provision was made for those who wanted to remain in TEC. So it truly is a non-Episcopal church.
But regardless of whether it was independent or under a foreign prelate, it was not in communion with TEC, and therefore Bishop McBurney performed episcopal acts for a church not in communion with TEC.
I think Conger’s anaylsis of the canons, as set forth in his article in the Living Church, is wrong. Canon IV.15 contains a set of defined terms applicable to the disciplinary canons. One of the defined terms is “All the Members,” which is defined as meaning “the total number of members of the body provided for by Constitution or Canon without regard to absences, excused members, abstentions or vacancies.” The section of the deposition canon in question (Canon IV.9.2) does not use the term “All the Members.” Instead, it uses “whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.” Canon IV.9.1, which… Read more »
Sounds like a potential mess – which, for a church that claims that its canons are the ultimate arbiter, is amusing. dr.promrose rightly points out that use of two different phrases *should* indicates two different intentions… but, in law, the overriding premise is that the words *must* mean what they mean. You can’t argue that the word means anything else! So, the “whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” must mean the *whole* number of Bishops… otherwise the canons would just state “Bishops entitled to vote” or to be clear “Bishops present who are entitled to vote”. The words “whole… Read more »
On the broader matter of invitations, it is rumour stage at the moment but it is still a wopping mess:
http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/03/backward-flip-somersaults-coming.html
This voting buisness as told in the Living Church is probably a hoax, anyway… I would have more been prepared to trust the claims if they came from a less interested party : = ( As to “Unlike the canon on Abondonment, there is no requirement of consent from the three senior bishops to inhibition, as there is in the “Abandonment” canon” I would suggest it’s very much about p r o c e s s and that the leadership of the American church went for the more elaborate process b e c a u s e of the required… Read more »
“in the Living Church George Conger . . . asserts”
I hope we ALL know to file that under “Consider the Source” by now???
Dr. Primrose, the problem is that the history of the canon shows this supermajority going back long before the “Definitions” canon was added. The part of the canon where “All the members” is used is new, as the Review Committee was a recent introduction. “Whole number of bishops entitled to vote” is not the same thing as “All the Members” because there are non-voting members. (The house has collegial and honorary members without vote.) Moreover, as the introduction to the “Definitions” section states, “Except as otherwise expressly provide for unless the context otherwise requires, as used in this Title the… Read more »
drdanfee, Again we have a lot of talk about how cons talk others down by talking them down! In actual reality again, J I Packer hardly talk about b Ingham at all, just that in light of his long held convictions and efforts to fit in and make Packer’s church conform it became impossible (see his own description or A Goodard on Fulcrum). One wonders where you meet these people you call evangelicals (always in general – would that do if we found certain gay people and then lumped them all together?). I have worked with women in colegial relations… Read more »
Still waiting for that list that describes where this hurts you personally David wh.
Maybe you need to apply to 815 Second Ave. and tell them where their canons are limiting. Maybe they can get you a green card for your “CECON” thoughts.
Here’s the report of another deposition in 2004:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_33340_ENG_HTM.htm
The procedure doesn’t seem to have been questioned then.
“One wonders where you meet these people you call evangelicals (always in general – would that do if we found certain gay people and then lumped them all together?). I have worked with women in colegial relations and as supevisors, I know gay people who are capable at work and for whom I have great regard etc. All this is part of the world in which many of us live (a young friend just finished a term of service in Mumbai working with HIV aids people). So maybe you need to get out more?” You remind me of the person… Read more »
David comments: “in law the overriding premise is that the words “must” mean what they mean. You can’t argue that the word means anything else.”
Haven’t you ever heard of lawyers, David? If it was all so crystal clear, there’d never be another court case.
Or possibly another disagreement about what the Bible says either…..
Yes Stephen And if the “word” is so clear, why is there a Judaic principle of recording minority reports. Why do we spend so much time contemplating biblical paradoxes and praying about the best way to handle things. Why do we have determinations that in one set of circumstances certain conduct is okay but is an anathema at other times? Why does God talk about beating swords into plowshares? Nor do we have simply human courts and rabbinical councils. We also have debates in the metaphysical great assembly and even angels debate. See this Jewish article http://www.torah.org/learning/ramchal/classes/fundamental6-5.html Even Jesus acknowledges… Read more »
According to Bishop Pierre Whalon (Convocation of American Churches in Europe) a clarification of the interpretation was made at the last General Convention in 2006 (Journal pg 81) on the meaning of Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution and how to count the quorum was given in a note. It reads, “Note: A quorum is defined by Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution as “a majority of all bishops entitled to vote (281), exclusive of bishops who have resigned their jurisdictions or positions (156)” Thus the present quorum is 63.” At Camp Allen, Bishop Kenneth Price, Secretary of… Read more »
“make Packer’s church conform”
This is a lie.
No church in the Diocese of New Westminster has been made to “cpnform” with same sex blessings. No parish is obliged to be involved in same sex blessings. The onus is on parishes which want to perform such blessing to seek permission.
This discussion would be so much easier if the lying would stop.
Malcolm+ wrote: “This discussion would be so much easier if the lying would stop.”
What would they say ; = )
Malcom,
More cheap and easy talk about “lying” instead of what is actually going on in the Westminster diocese? Who said it was a matter of someone coming in making a particular church do same-sex blessings? As such I never even mentioned them. But who will deny in this situation at different points there is pressure to conform? The clear indication of that is the threat hanging out there – and now the eventuality – of being ousted! Try to talk about what is actually going on.
Ben W
Pat,
Another cheap throw-away line but no advance in the conversation.
Do any of us – do you – just lump all people into one and say “I like people?” The snide remarks here from you are evidence that you are far from that!
Ben W
“Another cheap throw-away line but no advance in the conversation. Do any of us – do you – just lump all people into one and say “I like people?” The snide remarks here from you are evidence that you are far from that!” Yes, if you are a Christian that is what you do…in fact, if you are a Christian you say you LOVE people. It is what we are called to do by the second of the great commandments. “More cheap and easy talk about “lying” instead of what is actually going on in the Westminster diocese? Who said… Read more »
The alleged “compulsion” to “conform” is a common charge among “conservatives.”
There is no “compulsion” in the Diocese of New Westminster to conform to the synodical approval for same sex blessings.
There is no “compulsion” in the diocese of New Westminster to conform to liberal theology.
Claim otherwise all you want, Ben. It is simply, categorically and demonstrably false.
There IS compulsion to conform to the constitution and canons of the Diocese of New Westminster, the Ecclesiastical Province of British Columbia and Yukon and the Anglican Church of Canada.
Pat,
The intent of my original statement is just this: I know capable gay people in the work setting and have great regard for them (drdanfee’s question was “do evangelicals know anybody like this”), the point is these are real people and my regard for them. If you want to object you should perhaps best take it up with drdanfee.
My point further is, to love people is not simply to approve whatever they may do. It is possible that we may do this without proper discernment but the point still stands.
Ben W
Pat,
The letter from b Ingham to Packer is out there that anticipates suspension (see: LambethConference.net.). These churches in this diocese have sought other oversight for years. The promise of this appeared on the horizon through earlier action by the primates but was aborted because of inaction in N Westminster and the ACC. What qualifies as pressure or “compulsion?” What do you call what has happened there?
Ben W
“My point further is, to love people is not simply to approve whatever they may do. It is possible that we may do this without proper discernment but the point still stands.”
Certainly–but, also certainly, to love people is definitely not to tell lies about them, to slander them with falsehoods about their lives, loves, and beliefs.
To me, pressure or compulsion boils down to “do as I do or else….” If the situation is merely, “I permit others in this diocese to do X, I believe it is proper to do X; if you do not, I will not act upon you in either direction,” that is not pressure or compulsion. Those who see having to live under an authority that disagrees with them as some form of compulsion to conform to that authority’s beliefs are simply wrong. I have lived, as an example, for seven years under the authority of a presidential administration with which… Read more »
Pat, Good to note that we can agree on the first point. I believe in any case that your original qoute is actually supposed to be the reverse: “I like people, it is individuals I can’t stand” (I think originally from Kierkegaard but I can’t now confirm it). That is, we can easily affirm our love for people in general but to love the actual person right now accross from me is another matter. When it comes to faith and church life it is not quite that simple, you say: “If the situation is merely, ‘I permit others in this… Read more »
Ben: Maybe it’s different in Canada, but in the USA no parish rector in the Episcopal church is dependent upon his bishop for employment or advancement. He is employed by his parish, not the diocese. Even his parish cannot dismiss him without cause–and, in most cases, cause is defined as something more than doctrinal disagreements (usually it’s moral or financial misfeasement). Yes, the priest requires a license from the local bishop…but absent outright defiance, I am unaware of any parish rector who has had his license yanked. (There’s one case I know of in my diocese–but in that case, the… Read more »