Total visitors right now: 123

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

House of Bishops Consents to Deposition of Bishops Schofield, Cox

Wednesday, March 12, 2008 • 12:10 pm


The House of Bishops voted March 12 to consent to the deposition from the ordained ministry of the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield, bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, and the Rt. Rev. William Jackson Cox, bishop suffragan of the Diocese of Maryland, resigned.

Members of the House of Bishops are preparing a statement regarding these actions and for release after a March 12 afternoon session.

The process used to work through these resolutions took into account the importance of prayer and careful reflection before each vote was taken. Specifically, in both cases the House was first led in prayer by a chaplain, followed by small-group discussion, and then plenary discussion. After this, voting commenced. Each vote was cast clearly in the majority, with some nay votes, and some abstentions.

Read it all.


97 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

Very sad, but no real surprises there. I’d love to know who voted ‘no’.

Come the Revolution, I’m going to be second, possibly third up against the wall

[1] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 03-12-2008 at 01:19 PM • top

The House of Bishops have convicted themselves out of their own mouths.  By deposing +Schofield and +Cox for “abandoning the communion of this Church”, they do nothing other than prove how they have abandoned the Anglican Communion—-which was the communion of this Church until GC 2003.

[2] Posted by Chancellor on 03-12-2008 at 01:21 PM • top

I’m so glad I have the H.O.B. looking out for my spiritual well-being.  I can scarcely fathom the heresies that bishops Cox and Schofield were subjecting us to!

[3] Posted by anglicanhopeful on 03-12-2008 at 01:22 PM • top

“Being thrown out of a place like this is significantly better than being thrown out of a leper colony.”  Gay Toddy - Victor/Victoria

[4] Posted by Violent Papist on 03-12-2008 at 01:24 PM • top

ECUSA has as much authority to depose a Christian bishop as I do to appoint the next Dalai Lama.

[5] Posted by Phil on 03-12-2008 at 01:27 PM • top

More Bovine Flatulence.

the snarkster

[6] Posted by the snarkster on 03-12-2008 at 01:29 PM • top

This is the face of TEC.  Disgusting.  I applaud the brave who voted no but who hid behind the abstentions?

[7] Posted by Elizabeth on 03-12-2008 at 01:31 PM • top

pathetic.  God bless these two godly Bishops.
Perhaps this will show those still sitting on the fence what the true colors of TEC really are.

[8] Posted by Tony Romo on 03-12-2008 at 01:32 PM • top

who were the 2?

[9] Posted by ewart-touzot on 03-12-2008 at 01:37 PM • top

I ‘m these folks feel good about themselves and the fruits of their labor the last 5 years: Steenson, Lipscomb, Bena ( and a few others I’ve forgotten) and now Scofield and Cox. So much for the Body of Christ. We can olny shudder at what they may accomplish next. May God have mercy on them.

[10] Posted by Doubting Thomas on 03-12-2008 at 01:37 PM • top

Hoped for News Flash:
Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori has failed to submit to the Primates of the World Anglican Communion and the Archbishop of Canterbury sufficient retraction or denial of her actions found by, inter alia, the Eames Commission, the Primates, etc. There being no likelihood of repentance, accordingly, the Archbishop has presented the matter to the Primates and requested consent to Jefferts Schori’s Deposition and Excommunication.

[11] Posted by Runes on 03-12-2008 at 01:43 PM • top

” see how they love one another…” oh yeah, right… I forgot. This IS the CHURCH…

[12] Posted by bicthus on 03-12-2008 at 01:47 PM • top

That’s horrible.  I don’t know +Schofield, but have met +Cox - one of the most Godly men I have ever met.  Shori and crew are just evil.

[13] Posted by B. Hunter on 03-12-2008 at 01:50 PM • top

Let me think…Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield or The Right Reverend
John Shelby Spong. Bishop Schofield or Bishop Spong. Schofield or Spong. Hmmm-just can’t decide who is less faithful. Oh well, may as well be Schofield.

[14] Posted by AngloTex on 03-12-2008 at 01:51 PM • top

NOT a Gamaliel among them?  A Sanhedrin under Caiaphas and Ananias?
My how history repeats itself, but you know, this is not a surprise, given the Gospel record of what happens to those who stand for the Lord - especially in their own land.

[15] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 03-12-2008 at 01:52 PM • top

Too bad they are not ECUSA/TEC/GCC to be bothered by this!

[16] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 03-12-2008 at 01:55 PM • top

President Lincoln liked to tell this story:  “You have heard haven’t you, about the man as he was ridden out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered, somebody asked him how he liked it, and his reply was if it was not for the honor of the thing, he would much rather walk.”

There needs to be a Great Hall of Honor for all those priests, deacons and now bishops being deposed on the trumped-up charge of abandonment of communion. 

What a disgrace!  No trials, no justice, no guts.  Shame on the HOB and the GC church.

[17] Posted by hanks on 03-12-2008 at 01:57 PM • top

Duncan and Iker are not far behind.

[18] Posted by Randy Muller on 03-12-2008 at 01:58 PM • top

“The process used to work through these resolutions took into account the importance of prayer and careful reflection before each vote was taken.”  YAH YAH YAH !
Tom of San Joaquin

[19] Posted by tom on 03-12-2008 at 01:58 PM • top

“The process…took into account the importance of prayer…”

I wonder to whom/what they offered their prayers?

[20] Posted by cautiously optimistic on 03-12-2008 at 01:59 PM • top

Those that didn’t listen to the audio of Kendall Harmon’s takedown of Schori over Bishop Cox missed a gem.  Canon Harmon asked twice what the point was of going after this 86-year-old man, whose Alzheimer’s-ridden wife was terrified at his being targeted, etc.  Schori, having earlier expanded on the infinite elasticity of Holy Scripture, mumbled something about how rules are rules.

Point is, she was given advance notice of what a heartless, malicious coward she would look like if this action proceeded.  I see that had no effect on her heart of iron.

[21] Posted by Phil on 03-12-2008 at 01:59 PM • top

It’s now becoming a badge of honor… being inhibited and/or deposed by bishops in the Episcopal so-called Church!

[22] Posted by Goughdonna on 03-12-2008 at 02:01 PM • top

Good luck Mr. Schofield in your new venture.

[23] Posted by Brian from T19 on 03-12-2008 at 02:09 PM • top

WHY does the HOB act on polity (which is simply whether
or not one’s organization follows the organizational rules of
the larger organization of which one is a member) but not doctrine?  And when the HOB is clearly acting on polity alone, why does it say that the bishops abandoned the doctrine of the church, when they clearly have not abandoned the doctrine—and bishops like Spong and Pike have directly challenged it? The HOB doesn’t seem to know how to read our constitution thoroughly.  How does it justify the actions on the one part, but not on the other?  Obviously, all of us on this list think doctrine comes before polity, but why isn’t someone on the HOB asking the other bishops if by “doctrine” they mean something other than what’s clearly stated in the constitution?  We’re all just batting our heads against the wall until someone asks that question and it’s heard and responded to.

[24] Posted by celindascott on 03-12-2008 at 02:11 PM • top

Dear Father forgive them for they know not what they do.

[25] Posted by BettyLee Payne on 03-12-2008 at 02:12 PM • top

I hope that everyone will take advantage of the opportunity to leave a comment at the Episcopal Life website.

[26] Posted by Chazzy on 03-12-2008 at 02:13 PM • top

Brian from T19—I knew you were snarky, but I didn’t know you were an @$$h013.

[27] Posted by 0hKay on 03-12-2008 at 02:19 PM • top

Would someone summarize why Cox resigned or provide a link?

Also, does anyone know anything about the candidates for bishop in the Diocese of Maryland?

Thanks to any who may.

[28] Posted by Seen-Too-Much on 03-12-2008 at 02:19 PM • top

To: TEC.  Today you have forced two more old timer who have spent their lives living a working in the Church to the sidelines.  When you can take a 87 year old great Christian Bishop with a very ill wife, and humiliate them in this way, when they have already been out of the Church for two years is beyond imagination.  You folks have no shame, no shame, no shame.
Bishop Cox, there are many thousands of us out here who will always love you.
What a sad day.

[29] Posted by roanoker on 03-12-2008 at 02:22 PM • top

celindascott,

Because TEC today is not a Church, but an Organization (see MCJ) run by left wing secular totalitarians. Ironically, they held sessions earlier talking about reconciliation and listening, and yet see no irony in today’s actions, which are completely lacking in reconciliation or listening.

[30] Posted by BillS on 03-12-2008 at 02:25 PM • top

Chuck ‘em out and if anyone on this side of the pond supports this persecution chuck ‘em out too.

[31] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 03-12-2008 at 02:26 PM • top

ewart-touzot—I think the person who mentioned two bishops was referring to the two who were deposed, not whoever voted no in the House of Bovine methane.

[32] Posted by 0hKay on 03-12-2008 at 02:26 PM • top

Posted at EL Once again a house of the General Convention has demonstrated that a majority vote by either house has fails in defining truth, a process they began in and continued since 2003.

[33] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 03-12-2008 at 02:28 PM • top

This is truly one of most sad/pathetic/ridiculous days in my life as an Episcopalian.  The PB’s “Easter” message and the deposition of two godly bishops take place without any apparent response from the “Windsor/Camp Allen/Communion Partners…... 

The article states that there were a few nays and abstentions.  I know the response will be that this was a procedural necessity and that opposition would be pointless.  I would hope that we would know who voted no and who abstained.  My guess is that will not be clear. 

Meanwhile, The Person Who Has Been Consecrated as a Bishop in TEC and Elected to Preside Over It (I cannot call her a presiding bishop) produces a message that is not only void of the Good News, but also non-Christian and there will not be a word said.  No call for her to clarify, recant or convert.  The explanation for this will be that they did not know about it, or that it was simply her thoughts.

We no longer have bishops in TEC.  I don’t know what we have, but we do not have bishops.

So we are now just The Church; Episcopal has left the building.  Realistically we are just The; we have no claim of being a church with the Apostolic ministry and teaching.

It is finished.

Craig Reed
Dallas, Texas

[34] Posted by frreed on 03-12-2008 at 02:30 PM • top

Here you are, Seen-Too-Much.

The next test will fall on ++Rowan Williams.  He has to decide whether to “disinvite” +Schofield to Lambeth, and thereby recognize that TEC has the ability to depose a Bishop of another Anglican Province, or else maintain his invitation, and thereby show to all how empty TEC’s actions really are.  If he chooses the former, he sets a dangerous precedent (and loses the entire Global South); if he chooses the latter, well, you haven’t seen the Furies of TEC loosed yet!

[35] Posted by Chancellor on 03-12-2008 at 02:32 PM • top

#16, I’m not sure about a Great Hall of Honor for these faithful priests and bishops, but I did hear +David Anderson say a couple of years ago that the AAC has a “Wall of Honor” in its office on which is hung letters of deposition. My parish left ECUSA in 2004, so my rector’s letter from Bp. Bruno must be hanging there, now joined by dozens of others.  Maybe they’ll have to get a larger wall when all of those SJ clergy are deposed. (But just who is going to depose them?  Not Bishop Schofield!)

[36] Posted by Sue Martinez on 03-12-2008 at 02:33 PM • top

Thanks, Bill S, but that doesn’t help.  It might relieve your
feelings, and perhaps that’s mostly what this blog is for,
but it doesn’t jibe with what I see in the church—plenty
of orthodox leadership which is at present outnumbered,
but I don’t see why that has to be the case forever.

[37] Posted by celindascott on 03-12-2008 at 02:34 PM • top

However . . . it is OK for Bp Swing to participate in a Gaia mass with not only wafers and wine; but also earth, air, fire, and water (a Communion of the Elements) and for Bp Spong to teach that the fall of Adam, the virgin-birth, death on the cross, resurrection and ascension to the heaven are all pieces of a religious mythology.

[38] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 03-12-2008 at 02:35 PM • top

Chancellor

If he does not ‘disinvite’ Mr. Schofield then he would need to extend invitations to +Minns et al.  So it will be interesting to see if he remains consistent.

[39] Posted by Brian from T19 on 03-12-2008 at 02:38 PM • top

As for the Holy Spirit told us to do it after lots of prayer and a talk on reconciliation by Canon Cox - well - just what spirit were these folks listening too.  Like the persecution of JI Packer by the bishop of New Hampshire these folks are a disgrace to the kingdom and a slur upon the name of Anglicans everywhere.

[40] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 03-12-2008 at 02:39 PM • top

Wasn’t it the bishop Richter presentment trial that established that there is no core doctrine (at least when it comes to human sexuality)?So polity is all that remains.

[41] Posted by anglicanhopeful on 03-12-2008 at 02:41 PM • top

Sincere apologies to the Bishop of New Hampshire on whom there is no reflection; the reference above was to the Bishop of New Westminster in Canada.

[42] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 03-12-2008 at 02:42 PM • top

Best wishes on your alternative/new age/hindu/buddahist venture Mrs. Shori.  Authority is not about titles.

[43] Posted by cautiously optimistic on 03-12-2008 at 02:43 PM • top

Right, Jill, doctrine is ignored.  That’s my question to the HOB:
they cite “abandonment of doctrine, discipline, and worship”
in their inhibition, but it’s polity that has been abandoned, not
doctrine—which is clearly defined in the constitution, and over
which some bishops have run rough-shod with impunity.  In the name of logic and consistency and faithfulness to the constitution, I’d like to see how the HOB justifies their illogical behavior:  how they can follow one part of the constitution, but ignore the other.  I know many of the names used to describe members of the HOB who vote that way, but what I don’t know is how those members justify their
lack of attention to the whole constitution.

[44] Posted by celindascott on 03-12-2008 at 02:43 PM • top

Finally…The esteemed Episcopal Church House of Bishops are now all primped up and ready to meet Rowan at Lambeth.
God is taking careful note.
Shalom,
Intercessor

[45] Posted by Intercessor on 03-12-2008 at 02:49 PM • top

Wasn’t it the bishop Richter presentment trial that established that there is no core doctrine (at least when it comes to human sexuality)?So polity is all that remains.

Actually, if memory serves, it established that the only ‘core doctrine’ rests in the nature of Christ and the Trinity.  This would, of course, be ample reason to depose +Spong, but no one wants to try.

[46] Posted by Brian from T19 on 03-12-2008 at 02:49 PM • top

celindascott,

Thanks for your more irenic response. The problem is that the left wing political secularists have gained positions of power in TEC, and they are not about to relinquish it. The few remaining orthodox will continue to to be squeezed out, much as Mao and Stalin purged those in opposition.

As someone else suggested, Iker and Duncan will be next. Schori is in place for the next 7 years, and if we thought GC 06 was bad, GC 09 will be worse. Power will become more consolidated in her hands and the hands of the EC. Conservative, orthodox Episcopalians have lost the battle for PECUSA, and there is no mechanism to regain it.

Lest I sound too negative, there is hope for the future, but it lies with the Global South, certainly not with TEC, and perhaps not with the ABC.

[47] Posted by BillS on 03-12-2008 at 02:50 PM • top

I see your point, Brian from T19, but they are not exactly parallel cases.  It was ++Rowan’s predecessor who refused to recognize the “regularity” of the ordinations of +Minns et al., and he sees himself as upholding that decision by not inviting them.  There was no ordination involved in +Schofield’s move to the Southern Cone, just a transfer of jurisdiction.  If ++Rowan decides he cannot recognize the validity of that transfer, he could on the face of things “disinvite” +Schofield without being obliged to recognize the CANA and AMiA ordinations.  But as I say, he will then lose the Global South, and I daresay civil war will erupt between TEC and the Southern Cone.  +Schori and those supporting her in this are truly playing with fire on this one (a dangerous activity amid so much bovine flatulence!).

[48] Posted by Chancellor on 03-12-2008 at 02:51 PM • top

The best course for the ABC (in my opinion, FWIW) would be this:

- +Schofield goes to Lambeth
- +Schori gets uninvited

NOT on the basis of any “polity” or jurisdictional arguments, but simply and purely because she has now presided over a spectacular scandal.  As Chancellor notes, this is a divisive and provocative action, without (real) necessity and with no practical effect.  As a symbolic gesture, the ABC should go back to the Windsor Report - HIS Windsor Report - and say that this latest straw is one that compels him to request that TEC not despoil the councils of the Church with its presence until it can demonstrate some Christian maturity.

This can be said withOUT appearing to defend +Schofield, and withOUT any interference in TEC’s governance.  Just simply: “you’re an embarrassment to us.”

[49] Posted by Connecticutian on 03-12-2008 at 02:53 PM • top

Anglicanhopeful, you’re right that the constitution is silent on sexual matters except in its reference to the authority of scripture. But the constitution is not silent in its reference to the divinity of Christ, the atonement, and the resurrection, which are affirmed by the historic creeds mentioned in the TEC constitution.  Bishop Spong repeatedly challenges the doctrines of TEC as clearly defined in the constitution, but the HOB takes no action against him.  SO—the phrase “abandoning the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the church” becomes meaningless when the constitution is selectively enforced, as it has just been in the matter of Bishop Schofield’s polity.

[50] Posted by celindascott on 03-12-2008 at 02:55 PM • top

Amen, Connecticutian.  May he stand so tall!

[51] Posted by Chancellor on 03-12-2008 at 02:56 PM • top

An eminent lawyer makes the point that even when attempting to depose bishops for breach of their rules the tools of the Episcopal Church cannot follow their own rules

[52] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 03-12-2008 at 02:58 PM • top

Maybe we need an Honor Page on this website, Greg.

It could show the names of Deposed Bishops, Departed Dioceses, and Departed Parishes (and maybe even a count of individuals).

[53] Posted by MasterServer on 03-12-2008 at 02:58 PM • top

Not to put any special burden on +Mark Lawrence, but I have to wonder not just how he voted on these resolutions to depose, but more importantly, how he now sees TEC after the session with KJS and now this despicable vote by the HOB.  It must have him wondering why he (and South Carolina) worked so hard for his approval and consecration.  The ship is going down!

[54] Posted by hanks on 03-12-2008 at 02:59 PM • top

Wonder who they prayed to for guidance?

[55] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 03-12-2008 at 03:07 PM • top

Why am I not too upset about all this.  The God I worship is a patient God and I think we’re witnessing that.  While Schori and Robinson are busy shouting from the rooftop of the national church, God is busy in in the basement, dismanteling the building one parish at a time.

[56] Posted by The Templar on 03-12-2008 at 03:07 PM • top

Well prayers for Bishop Schofield and Bishop Cox and Mrs. Cox.  Be assured of our love and our respect in your continuing ministry.

[57] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 03-12-2008 at 03:08 PM • top

Thanks, Bill S, for the kind remark about being irenic. In the rest of your post, I guess you are implying that that there will be enough non-doctrinal bishops, clergy, and laity to vote a constitutional change in the definition of doctrine in the next few years, so it’s pointless to ask why it’s ignored now. Well, it may be ignored, but you don’t break a law just because you hope to change it: everyone on the HOB knows enough about secular law to know that, so you’d think they’d realize that the same rule holds true in the church’s law.  —If enough orthodox stay in the church, there may be a way to keep that change from being made.

[58] Posted by celindascott on 03-12-2008 at 03:09 PM • top

#23—Boy Brian, you are rude, for he has not lost his title if he is a bishop under the Southern Cone, even Roman Catholics use one title, even if they do not recognize the others authority.

[59] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 03-12-2008 at 03:20 PM • top

PageantMaster, you are right about what the lawyer says.  I know absolutely nothing about can. law, but it would seem that this lawyers comments are completely dead on.  It may be better for the bishop just to let TEC do whatever it’s going to do, and keep his current stance on the matter.  But it would also seem that a “friend of the ecclesiastical court” could file at least a response to note these inconsistencies for the world to see.  They fight in a secular way, and I’m all about the being meek thing, but hey, why not get a shot in every now and then?

[60] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 03-12-2008 at 03:34 PM • top

celindascott
>WHY does the HOB act on polity (which is simply whether
>or not one’s organization follows the organizational rules of
>the larger organization of which one is a member) but not doctrine?

Answer: Because the TEC is not a Christian Church anymore.  It is a secular humanist radical left wing pressure group.

To a political pressure group doctrine has no meaning.  Doctrine, dogma, whatever floats your boat, man.  It’s meaningless to a Marxist mindset.  But, if you are a political organisation than the politics of the situation are everything!  Polity is reality.  Religion is muck.  Spong and Pike fit in fine because their worldview supports the activists.  As long as your ‘theology’ is in line with the SOCIAL and POLITICAL agenda, it’s good.

Orthodoxy is bad and must be crushed because it stands in the way of building the socialist styled utopia free of ‘bigots’ they have in mind.

It’s quite simple.  You only end up confused of you try and think of TEC as a Christian, even a religious group.  It ain’t so no more.  That’s why the language used by the PB and co is more and more political and less and religious.  It will always be ‘religious’ in style but the content will be political and social.  That explains the legal stuff – it’s political activism to crush political opponents.  Sure, there are genuine Christians in TEC but institutionally the ‘Church’ is gone.

That explains why one part of the canons is enforced and the other not – because one side, dealing in doctrine, is unreality to TEC while the other, to do with rules and politics and straightforward power, is where it is at.

BTW, TEC is paying for Lambeth and Williams has already shown himself willing to lose the GS.  This is the last few moves of the game for the Liberal takeover of the West and the Communion splitting in at least two.  Williams is fine with that.  He’s made that pretty darn clear already.

[61] Posted by jedinovice on 03-12-2008 at 03:41 PM • top

Well said, jedinovice!

[62] Posted by BillS on 03-12-2008 at 03:46 PM • top

From my own point of view, it is more like 90 bishops were deposed and 2 stayed in the Church.

Does anyone know who voted against this nonsense?

Will TEC now get on about the business of deposing those bishops (30-40 at least) who are in open violation of the canons by encouraging or permitting the sacrilege and heresy of open communion?  They are obligated by canon to inhibit every priest who engages in it.  I guess openly profaning the Sacraments is OK, so long as you pay your dues to 815.

I guess we will know the ABoC’s reaction shortly….or not.  Would be good if +Rowan could let us know before Easter if he will be recinding +John David’s invitation, as it would be nice to know by then whether I am a Roman Catholic or still Anglican.

[63] Posted by tjmcmahon on 03-12-2008 at 03:48 PM • top

Caligula lives on at Camp Allen.
Intercessor

[64] Posted by Intercessor on 03-12-2008 at 04:02 PM • top

Connecticutian,
You have a very fertile imagination! If only there was any chance that would happen.

Regretfully, Schori is not an embarassment to the ABC. He is solidly on her side.

[65] Posted by Going Home on 03-12-2008 at 04:09 PM • top

Each bishop that voted in favor of these depositions was simply admitting and saying that the Episcopal Church is not in communion with the Anglican Communion.  Otherwise, the votes would be absurd.

[66] Posted by David+ on 03-12-2008 at 04:11 PM • top

Jedinovice and Intercessor, you’re drowning the good along with the bad with your invective. We need more well-placed boats with
good helmsmen willing to stay in the ocean.  We need people who
will stay and evangelize where they are.

[67] Posted by celindascott on 03-12-2008 at 04:14 PM • top

Celinda, our parish thought that we should stay and evangelize, too, that the “Episcopal Church” was our mission field.  We stayed almost 4 years after we knew it was time to go.  It backfired on us, big time!  It’s hard to follow leaders you cannot believe and don’t respect, too.

[68] Posted by Goughdonna on 03-12-2008 at 04:19 PM • top

Goughdonna, I can sympathize with that.  BUT that’s not the case in my parish and my diocese.  Our rector is orthodox, and we have a group of outspoken conservative priests in the diocese who support the creedal faith. However,  they are under attack by some because they have said publicly that although they are conservative, they will not leave TEC.

[69] Posted by celindascott on 03-12-2008 at 04:27 PM • top

If ++Rowan decides he cannot recognize the validity of that transfer, he could on the face of things “disinvite” +Schofield without being obliged to recognize the CANA and AMiA ordinations.

May this happen soon.  Very, very soon.

But as I say, he will then lose the Global South,

Akinola & Co. is not his or our problem.

and I daresay civil war will erupt between TEC and the Southern Cone.

You mean unlike now?

[70] Posted by Vintner on 03-12-2008 at 04:27 PM • top

Smuggs #70 - Apostolic Christianity doesn’t seem to be your problem, either.

[71] Posted by Phil on 03-12-2008 at 04:29 PM • top

Many of us here in the Diocese of Maryland remember Bishop Cox well and fondly from his time with us, and send him our prayers and best wishes.  I find this a despicable deposition.
  Seen-too-Much, you asked (#28 above) about the upcoming election for bishop of Maryland.  The conservative/ reasserter group in the diocese is attentive, and I think it fair to say that none of the nominees (five today) is a reasserter.  We did the walkabouts this past week, and “Full Inclusion” was the order and promise of the day.  If you want to discuss anyone in particular, contact me via a private message (unless SFIF choses to open a thread on the election).

[72] Posted by Dick Mitchell on 03-12-2008 at 04:32 PM • top

Hasn’t ++Venables already said he and his bishops aren’t going to Lambeth? So, therefore, +Schofield would not be planning to going to Lambeth? So, maybe no decision or action from Canterbury is required?

[73] Posted by Deja Vu on 03-12-2008 at 04:33 PM • top

A disgusting display of ungodliness

[74] Posted by Fr Ian on 03-12-2008 at 04:41 PM • top

#23

Good luck Mr. Athanasius on your new venture.

[75] Posted by William Witt on 03-12-2008 at 04:44 PM • top

Deja Vu (#73), you are correct—-but +Schofield’s letter of resignation to TEC’s HoB did not stop them from going through with a meaningless act, either.  The question is whether ++Rowan will engage in a similar vanity.
Smuggs (#70), wait until after +Lamb is elected on March 29—-then TEC will have a ready-made plaintiff at hand, and then you may quote WS: “Cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war . . .”.

[76] Posted by Chancellor on 03-12-2008 at 04:53 PM • top

Jedinovice and Intercessor, you’re drowning the good along with the bad with your invective. We need more well-placed boats with
good helmsmen willing to stay in the ocean.  We need people who
will stay and evangelize where they are.

Right you are. I will apologize to the two good bishops(as expressed in the secret and cowardly vote count leaked to the world). As for defending the vast majority of good episcopal bishops in the room I suggest you take that up with the Cox family. Sounds like your boat in the ocean is merely a dingy.
Intercessor

[77] Posted by Intercessor on 03-12-2008 at 04:57 PM • top

Re #69:

Celinda,
Sounds more like a fence sitter for a rector, not a leader.  One that is afraid of what a split would do to a church rather than fight for Christs’ Church.
And as for the 12…are they more worried about the secular as well…ie. buildings, pensions, etc.
How sad that you have forsaken the real leadership of your Bishop Duncan…like Cox, one of the most Godly men I know.
I’ve long lost hope for change “back to the Bible” for TEC.  It’s been several decades my dear…putting up with Spong, sanctioning abortion, etc. and wise that you seem why are you so resolute to remain with a sinking ship that is leading “my sheep astray!?”

signed,
g’s wife

[78] Posted by Gordy on 03-12-2008 at 05:07 PM • top

The Seven Last Words of Christ are particularly poignant this upcoming Holy Week, especially “My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me (us)” ?!

I know You haven’t, Lord, but I sure feel like crying it out…

[79] Posted by ehnoland on 03-12-2008 at 05:09 PM • top

This sounds like me being fired from my first law firm when they found out I had opened a competing office three blocks away. Who gives a rat’s ass what the house of bishops do?

[80] Posted by dedaze on 03-12-2008 at 05:39 PM • top

You know, my husband once said to me when I was going on and on about the latest ‘slander’ coming from my step-mother, “Do you respect this woman?”  I said, “No, she has been capricious and duplicitious from the get go.” 

He said, “Then why should the opinion of who who has no credibility bother you?  If they have no credibility, their opinion is worthless.”

It’s great advice - especially when it comes to thinking about men who believe MORE in their miters than the cross of Christ, who believe more in THEIR dioceses, than reaching people for Christ, who trust more in their assessments, than Christ’s provision.


Their credibility is null - so don’t wast your time with their opinion.

Brian from T 1:9 & Smuggs:  Good luck with such men - just remember “What they do to the least of these, they will not have a problem doing to you.”

[81] Posted by Eclipse on 03-12-2008 at 05:48 PM • top

I am waiting eagerly for the minority report from the stalwart and courageous Communion Partner bishops.

[82] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-12-2008 at 06:01 PM • top

Dear G’s Wife,
  Please don’t slander my rector; you haven’t heard his sermons for the past few years, and you don’t know the good people in our small town parish, and you don’t know what’s going on in the hearts and minds of the priests in our diocese, many of whom came here when the previous bishop began preaching the Gospel in earnest.  Our present bishop is a good man and I respect his conscience, but I don’t agree with the decision to leave TEC.  Please don’t call people who may disagree with him but who are acting in equally good conscience for Christ’s Church “fence sitters.”

[83] Posted by celindascott on 03-12-2008 at 07:47 PM • top

celinadascott:  Please don’t take what I’m about to write as being facetious because I certainly don’t intende it as such.  My question is do you agree with all that’s happening within the Episcopal church and the direction it’s going?  And if not,  why do you want to stay affiliated with it.

[84] Posted by The Templar on 03-12-2008 at 08:13 PM • top

To DJ: because TEC isn’t just the PB and bishops who don’t believe in the creeds.  (By the way, there’s an excellent article by the Rev. Al Zadig about a recent attempt to discuss Christology with the PB recently in South Carolina and her dodging of the issues.) It’s also bishops and priests who do believe in the creeds, and are articulate and forceful in their exposition of the Gospel—and laity who take their confirmation vows seriously.

[85] Posted by celindascott on 03-12-2008 at 08:21 PM • top

24 and 44, celinda, you point to something very important when you raise the issue of selective enforcement and a lack of clear guidance as to what infractions result in ecclesiastical punishment.  But the answer to your original polity / doctrine question about the basis for these actions is that in the current environment, it’s all about the word “discipline” in “doctrine, discipline, and worship.”  Discipline = following the Constitution and Canons.  Doctrine and worship apparently lack meaning.

This is not to suggest my agreement with the actions taken; it’s just to explain why they’re being taken.

[86] Posted by DavidH on 03-12-2008 at 08:55 PM • top

I served in Maryland with Bishop Cox and think he is a godly man. A church that purports to depose him has lost its way.

[87] Posted by TomRightmyer on 03-12-2008 at 09:13 PM • top

Dear DavidH,
  The thing is, the Constitution has a clear definition of doctrine.  Whether that means anything to the PB and some others—or whether it is part of the “current environment” or not—is beside the point: the definition is there. By logic,  “discipline” would mean following the part of the Constitution that defines doctrine as well as the parts which define polity.  It makes no legal sense to follow one part of the Constitution and not another.

[88] Posted by celindascott on 03-12-2008 at 09:41 PM • top

I think that I’ve said this before, but IMHO, if you are in TEC now, as much as you see yourself as the “loyal opposition,”  TEC counts you as loyal members to their platform.  You are their numbers that justify their actions.  “See, we are diverse and welcoming, just look at how we tolerate X, (of course we don’t want X to teach, or be a diocesan delegate) but we find X kind of cute, in a throw back sort of way.”  You have to leave or your presence will be construed as accepting of THIS.  It’s kind of like voting Libertarian in your local election, you get the satisfaction of having pulled the lever, but no one cares, and they know that in the end, you’ll vote their way in the general election.  VOTE WITH YOUR FEET, or just feed the 815 numbers.

[89] Posted by trooper on 03-12-2008 at 11:37 PM • top

Hello All,
The best place to hear the *discussion* with the PB is at the diocese of SC website.  http://southcarolina.anglican.org/
Even the diocesean website really proclaims who we are. The questions were pre-selected and NONE were allowed from the audience. Yes, I have heard from clergy that the PB did a lot of artful dodging in her answers. There were four set of questions on various topics. The first set was asked by our Bishop Mark Lawrence. He was followed by three other clergy including Kendall Harmon, Canon Theologian for the diocese.  Best hear in its entirety before rumor mongering starts.

SC Blu Cat Lady

[90] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 03-13-2008 at 12:32 PM • top

Trooper—if numbers are important to you, the more theological conservatives who leave TEC, the fewer conservatives there will be to be counted. Blu Cat Lady—thanks for joining us, and thanks very much to the Diocese of SC for inviting the PB to speak. Does the Rev. Zadig’s report of the PB’s responses to direct questions at the “Charity and Clarity” session jibe with the listening opportunity you told us about? (I’d prefer to see the whole thing written out rather than hear it, if that’s possible).  The sticking point seems to be the PB’s attitude to doctrine, which is clearly defined in Canon IV.15 of the our constitution as of 2006, but which she seems to avoid (and the HOB has a history of avoiding).

[91] Posted by celindascott on 03-13-2008 at 01:31 PM • top

I have known Bishop Cox for about 27 years, when he moved to my part of the country, and in fact was confirmed by him. One of most Godly men I have ever met!! He is now an assisting Bishop of the Southern Cone, under ArchBishop Venables, and had resigned from TEc several years ago, as Bishop Schofield did recently. So, I think Squid girl’s action are a moot point anyhow. But, I pray, daily, for my conservative friends who have not left TEc, and am content to let the remainder go their way, with the likes of her squidness, and the fellatrix of New Hampshire.

[92] Posted by Ponchodon on 03-13-2008 at 05:21 PM • top

#93- ” The sticking point seems to be the PB’s attitude to doctrine, which is clearly defined in Canon IV.15 of the our constitution as of 2006, but which she seems to avoid (and the HOB has a history of avoiding).”
  But yet they continue to ignore it and you continue to ignore them ignoring it…. simply facinating.  Now what say you now that the move is on to dipose your bishop? Be sure to give him a hug on the 27th.

[93] Posted by Gordy on 03-13-2008 at 08:06 PM • top

How can you say I ignore them ignoring it, Gordy?  I’ve been talking about it for years.  You don’t have to leave TEC to show you don’t ignore it.  You just have to be as persistent as those who have tried to tailor TEC to what they falsely perceive as “the needs of this age.”

[94] Posted by celindascott on 03-13-2008 at 10:07 PM • top

#96 Celinda,
  You are correct and I apologize… you do indeed expouse the orthodox viewpoint. And you are without a doubt persistent. Do you view what the national leadership (I use that term in the loosest of contexts) is doing as heretical?  Here is a link from your own diocesan website toolbox that contains some enlightening quotes from said leadership - http://parishtoolbox.org./media/StatementsTECFINAL.pdf
  If you do indeed want to change things from within are you making fellow parishoners aware of such things as the above links? Is your rector? The un-informed are much easier to manipulate both from within and without. Ideally it would be wonderful if we could all keep our little parish families together… but in reality, the times they are a changin’ and I firmly believe we no longer have that option. PB and 815 are moving ahead with their agenda and it appears not to include we orthodox.  We both as individuals and as parishes need to take a stand and to let everyone else know what our stand is. Look on the back of your cross you received on your Cursillo weekend… “Jesus is counting on you”. God’s peace to you.

[95] Posted by Gordy on 03-15-2008 at 11:01 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.