Total visitors right now: 87

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

HOB purports to Depose Bishop Duncan;  Fails To Obtain Canonically Required Number Of Votes

Thursday, September 18, 2008 • 5:30 pm


The House of Bishops brushed aside procedural challenges and deposed Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh from the ordained ministry of The Episcopal Church Sept. 18.

The final tally was 88 yes, 35 no, with four abstentions, according to one bishop. Those results are not official, however.

Present were 128 bishops. Not present were 15 who could not attend for a variety of reasons, including the bishops of Texas who are dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Ike. Nine did not respond and were not present, according to Episcopal News Service.

Immediately after his deposition from the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church, Bishop Duncan was welcomed into the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone, according to Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables.

Read it all here.


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

May God have mercy on their souls.

[1] Posted by AndrewA on 09-18-2008 at 05:36 PM • top

Will we get to find out how each bishop voted?  We need to know whether any more besides Love will earn any “Sarah points.”

[2] Posted by Ann Castro on 09-18-2008 at 05:36 PM • top

The death warrant of the Episcopal Church has just been signed.

[3] Posted by David+ on 09-18-2008 at 05:38 PM • top

88/128 = 68.75%
Just barely the 2/3rds majority that KJS purported to need under HER reading of the canons.

If three bishops had voted differently, the purported deposition would have failed, even by KJS’s standard.

[4] Posted by Karen B. on 09-18-2008 at 05:40 PM • top

At least someone counted this time, and there was not another voice vote.  There are no longer canons of the Episcopal Church, rendering the church itself meaningless as an institution.  It is now a club of teenagers who make up rules, let in their friends and kick out people they don’t like.

It is good to see that there are still 35 living bishops willing to stand up to this obscene display.

Our prayers for good Bishop Robert, and all in Pittsburgh tonight.  Prayers also for the fools who have destroyed the Church, and as Andrew says, may God have mercy on them.

[5] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-18-2008 at 05:41 PM • top

Seriously, is anyone surprised by this action?  Schofield and Duncan down with two more to get done with Fort Worth and Quincy.  Thank God for a faithful Primate in the form of Gregory Venables at this time in our sad and shameful history.

[6] Posted by Dallas Priest on 09-18-2008 at 05:42 PM • top

Dallas Priest:  No one is suprised.  Sad, perhaps, though more for the House of Bishops than for Bishop Duncan.

[7] Posted by AndrewA on 09-18-2008 at 05:47 PM • top

At least someone counted this time, and there was not another voice vote.

That’s something - I hope we get a list of who voted how. And I echo your prayers, tjmcmahon.

[8] Posted by oscewicee on 09-18-2008 at 05:48 PM • top

Is there any information on which Bishops voted for/against/were absent for Bishop Duncan’s deposition?  I would love to know how Duncan Gray voted or if he managed to find a way to straddle the fence…although he appears to me to leaning more and more to the open support of TEC and its ways.

[9] Posted by cassie on 09-18-2008 at 05:49 PM • top

There has always been something inevitable about what has happened today.  Ever since Bishop Duncan stepped forward to oppose actively the election and consecration of V. Gene Robinson, his deposition was already assured.  It is both a sad, but hopeful day.  The words of Hugh Latimer come to mind:  “Be of good comfort, Mr. Ridley, and play the man! We shall this day light such a candle by God’s grace, in England, as I trust never shall be put out.”  May such a candle by God’s grace be lit for faithful Anglicans in the U.S.

[10] Posted by John A. Macdonald on 09-18-2008 at 05:50 PM • top

Cassie, I certainly hope it was a roll call vote and the votes will be publicized.  But you can also ask… swamp your bishops with e-mails asking them how they voted, (and even better, stating that you will give not a single cent to the diocese ever again if they voted YES!)

We need to know!

[11] Posted by Karen B. on 09-18-2008 at 05:51 PM • top
[12] Posted by AnglicanTV on 09-18-2008 at 05:51 PM • top

It is time for those 35 bishops to bring presentment charges against Katharine Jefferts Schori for blatant disregard for the canons, disregard for +Duncan’s right to a fair and impartial trial, his right to an inhibition, and the required notices for such.  Included in these charges should be Misuse of Office and Malfeasance in Office….not to mention disgracing the Church!

If those 35 bishops have the common decency to do what is right, they will get off their backsides and defy Schori; telling her in no uncertain terms that she is a dictator who should unceremoniously be KICKED OUT OF OFFICE for what she has put Bishop Duncan and others through since she assumed office in 2006. 

What she and her sycophant followers have done is a tragic miscarriage of justice, and any lawyers and clergy who support what she’s done should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves….IF they have any sense of honor and respect for their profession and its code of conduct!

[13] Posted by Cennydd on 09-18-2008 at 05:52 PM • top

Hello from Pgh!
Sad for about 2 seconds but we knew this was an inevitability.  There’s something smelly around here and I can’t wait to join my +Bishop Bob in the southern cone.

+Bob and Nara…peace to you both and feel our love and prayers.  We knew we had to take this step and 10/4 is just around the corner.
815 can try to put puppets in place for the convention (ie. Lewis/Simons perhaps) but they don’t get it…one way or another we’re “outta here”!

alison
aka dog-ma

[14] Posted by dog-ma on 09-18-2008 at 05:54 PM • top

It is time to rise up.  For those 35 bishops that voted no, they need to be pressed to renounce the actions of this brood of vipers.  They need to call for the removal of KJS and all who voted for this.  Such gross violation of the Canons is clearly worthy of inhibition and deposition.  Short of that they may as well have voted for the deposition of Bp. Duncan.

If they fail to act it is time for the parish clergy and laity to demand these bishops move away from the death that is TEC inc.

[15] Posted by frreed on 09-18-2008 at 05:55 PM • top

I wonder if Katie is knitting the 35 bishops’ coats of arms at this time.  She will just drop a stitch when the ax fall on each of them.  I still wonder why any believer sends one cent to 815 to support the heretics who are under judgment.  Bishop J.C. Ryle relates that in France on a dungeon wall was found scratched the words, “They can excommunicate me from their church, but they can never remove me from Christ and His Church.”

[16] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 09-18-2008 at 05:55 PM • top

I am wondering why +Duncan maintained that he was a Bishop in TEC if he has been a Southern Cone Bishop since 11/07?  If +Duncan believes with ++Venables that “effective immediately. Neither the Presiding Bishop nor the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church has any further jurisdiction over his ministry.,” why does thiseven matter.  He can’t be a member of both Houses can he?

And this ‘article’ says “Immediately after his deposition from the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church, Bishop Duncan was welcomed into the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone, according to Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables.”

So did ++Venables make him a member in 11/2007 or today?

[17] Posted by Brian from T19 on 09-18-2008 at 05:55 PM • top

How do we know if our bishops even attended the meeting? We have a lame duck bishop, but I’m sure he asked how high when KJS said Jump!

[18] Posted by oscewicee on 09-18-2008 at 05:56 PM • top

Also, the title says “Fails To Obtain Canonically Required Number Of Votes” but reports 88 for deposition.  Are there more than 175 bishops eligible to vote?  I thought it was in the 160s.

[19] Posted by Brian from T19 on 09-18-2008 at 05:58 PM • top

Y’all, later tonight or tomorrow a.m. I will probably post some prayers & Scripture for Pittsburghers at Lent & Beyond.  But seriously, we need to be in prayer for our brothers & sisters there, especially the seven on the P’burgh Standing Committee who support Duncan.  They are next in KJS’s sights, surely.  And surely 815 will try to wrest control of the diocese in the next 2 weeks before the convention.

May the Lord give our brethren in Pittsburgh MUCH wisdom—The will truly need to be wise as serpents, innocent as doves.  May it be so!

Here’s the statement by the P’burgh Standing Committee (note the 7 names, and make sure you’re praying for each of these!)
http://www.pitanglican.org/news/local/standingcommitteepastoral

[20] Posted by Karen B. on 09-18-2008 at 05:59 PM • top

Brian- are you really dense, is English your second language, or did you not bother to actually read what ++Venables wrote.
In 2007, the Synod of the Southern Cone authorized accepting TEC dioceses for pastoral care on a temporary basis, and authorized the acceptance of TEC bishops and clergy directly into their HoB and clergy.
Today, in response to the deposition, Archbishop Venables accepted +Bob Duncan as a bishop of the Southern Cone, in keeping with the authorization of the Synod.
+Bob Duncan came under the jurisdiction of ++Venables immediately AFTER being deposed as a bishop by TEC.

[21] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-18-2008 at 06:04 PM • top

All, I’m realizing my #4 may be incorrect.  There’s been a lot of talk about a two-thirds majority needed for various actions in recent days and recent blog entries.  But perhaps the “depostition” vote is merely a majority of all the eligible bishops?  (not two-thirds?)  I forget.

In any case, with the retired bishops, KJS got nowhere near a majority.  Hopefully someone in the know as to the TOTAL number of eligible bishops, and the real canonical rules will chime in.

[22] Posted by Karen B. on 09-18-2008 at 06:07 PM • top

Thanks tjmcmahon.  You are exactly right.

[23] Posted by Peter Frank on 09-18-2008 at 06:09 PM • top

It is time for those 35 bishops to bring presentment charges against Katharine Jefferts Schori for blatant disregard for the canons, disregard for +Duncan’s right to a fair and impartial trial, his right to an inhibition,

Oh, that certainly would be 1000 points each!

[24] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 09-18-2008 at 06:12 PM • top

Since English is my primary language, I guess I am dense.

Before you post, please remember Matthew 5:43-45:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”

[25] Posted by Brian from T19 on 09-18-2008 at 06:13 PM • top

Welcome to the Southern Cone Bishop Duncan!  We are the richer for your presence among us.

[26] Posted by JAC+ on 09-18-2008 at 06:15 PM • top

Virtue gives the following as having voted against deposition…

The following is a list of those who voted against the motion to depose Bishop Duncan: They are Albany, Dallas, Western Kansas, Central Florida, SC, Suffragan Bishop of Alabama, Tennessee, Southwest Florida, Easton, MD, Montana, NJ, Milwaukee, Nthn. Indiana, OK, VA, RI, NW Texas, Eastern TN, Mississippi. Louisiana and Western LA.

[27] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 09-18-2008 at 06:15 PM • top

Brian from T19, here is a quote from George Conger’s article on the failed deposition of Bp Schofield:

Eligible voters are defined as both active and retired bishops.  Of the 294 bishops eligible to vote, less than a third were present for the trial.  To lawfully depose Bishop Schofield, 148 votes would have to have been cast in favor of deposition.

There weren’t even 148 bishops at this meeting.

David Virtue reports that Dorsey Henderson changed his yes to a no after the count was in. What “courage” is shown by Sarah’s bishop! David Virtue also reports some of those who voted against. This includes +John Howe.

Bp Beckwith definitely scored some points in Sarah’s game. Don’t know whether he hit 50. Again, see David Virtue’s.

[28] Posted by robroy on 09-18-2008 at 06:15 PM • top

Brian, perhaps you aren’t actually reading. You seem to have missed the prayers above.

[29] Posted by oscewicee on 09-18-2008 at 06:15 PM • top

Actually a very sad day for TEC.  They have cut loose from observing their own canons.  They are now lawless.

[30] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 09-18-2008 at 06:15 PM • top

Tjmcmahon, in case anyone has any doubts as to the veracity of what you stated, Archbishop Venables has a computer, and you can be very sure that he has been in touch with Bishop Duncan, as he was and is, with us and our bishop, +John-David Schofield.  I wouldn’t be surprised if he emailed Bishop Duncan or he called him….they DO have telephones in Buenos Aires….to give him the message of his acceptance into our province.

[31] Posted by Cennydd on 09-18-2008 at 06:16 PM • top

Thanks robroy!

[32] Posted by Brian from T19 on 09-18-2008 at 06:17 PM • top

Follow up to my #4 and #22.

I’ve popped over to Curmodgeon’s blog and checked out the exact language of Canon IV:9

“If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the Ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.”

So, there was not a need for a two-thirds majority.
Under KJS law, a mere 65 would have done the trick (i.e. a majority of PRESENT bishops).  But we will need someone to tell us what the true CANONICAL majority should have been, i.e. the total # of eligible bishops in the HoB (i.e. including retired bishops).

[33] Posted by Karen B. on 09-18-2008 at 06:17 PM • top

#33 Karen B - the canon requires inhibition with the consent of the 3 senior bishops from what I understand.  The deposition failed in law before the vote.

[34] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 09-18-2008 at 06:20 PM • top

“a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.”
That’s different than simply a majority of those present, except that is indeed what the PB is saying (was that your point, Karen?), a majority of those present, and so clearly (despite what she says along with her parliamentary allies) not canonical.
That’s the rub.

[35] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 09-18-2008 at 06:24 PM • top

TEC as a Christian institution is finished.

[36] Posted by physician without health on 09-18-2008 at 06:27 PM • top

Actually a very sad day for TEC.  They have cut loose from observing their own canons.  They are now lawless.

Tragically, Pageantmaster, PECUSA has been lawless for thirty some years now, WO was completely done against the cannons, but nothing was done except change the cannons a few years later, there still is a cannon prohibiting homosexuals in ministry, but it begins with “We recommend” thus seen as a mere suggestion, my mind is fuzzy, but there is something with the Dennis cannon being half cooked as I remember and there was not a second vote (not enough that I’ll defend), then there were the deposition +Schofield.

In one sense more of the same, though the sloppier she is with the cannons, the better it is when she tries to drag this before the civil magistrate, for she does not hold the same charm as she does with Beers, Esq, and an impartial judge is really can not rule on anything in the “religious thicket,” but a civil judge can rule on denial of procedural justice!

[37] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 09-18-2008 at 06:28 PM • top

Ἀνερρίφθω κύβος

[38] Posted by els on 09-18-2008 at 06:29 PM • top

As I’ve been thinking and praying about tonight’s events, the words from 2 Tim 3 came to mind.  It was stunning to reread this passage and realize we’re seeing it fulfilled before our very eyes:


2 Tim 3:1-13
1   But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days.
2   People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,
3   without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good,
4   treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—
5   having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.
6   They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires,
7   always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.
8   Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.
9   But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.
10   You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance,
11   persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them.
12   In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,
13   while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
(NIV)

[39] Posted by Karen B. on 09-18-2008 at 06:29 PM • top

#34, Hi Pageantmaster.  Of course you are right.  The “deposition” failed on many levels.  (The fact that +Duncan was not inhibited; the fact that the agenda of the meeting was not properly announced; and the failure to get a majority of the “whole number of bishops entitled to vote (would have required about 148 or so to vote yes, I believe).

I was just trying to see how the votes stacked up according to KJS’s version of Canon Law.  Just for the sake of it.

The fact that 35 bishops opposed is a good thing.  I am eager to hear from them all.

[40] Posted by Karen B. on 09-18-2008 at 06:32 PM • top

Taking a leaf from what happened in San Joaquin…The next step will be to remove all of the current Standing Committee members and declaring any action on October 4 invalid and null.

KJS is NOT about to let Pittsburgh go through with their second vote. I dearly hope I’m wrong… but I don’t think so.

Thank God for Archbishop Venables and the Southern Cone!

Blessings to all.
John Riebe+

[41] Posted by John Riebe+ on 09-18-2008 at 06:33 PM • top

Why don’t they just admit that they have violated so many canons they don’t actually *have* any anymore?

[42] Posted by oscewicee on 09-18-2008 at 06:36 PM • top

To Bishop Duncan I am pleased to say Welcome to the Province of the Southern Cone.

To 88 members of the HoB and Schori I offer:

“Depart from me, all you workers of iniquity;
“For the Lord has heard the voice of my weeping.

“The Lord has heard my supplication;
“The Lord will receive my prayer.

“Let all my enemies be ashamed and greatly troubled;
“Let them turn back and be ashamed suddenly.”

Psalm 6:8-10

[43] Posted by Fisherman on 09-18-2008 at 06:38 PM • top

for other Greek-challenged SF readers, Google informs me #39 is “the die is cast”

[44] Posted by Karen B. on 09-18-2008 at 06:38 PM • top

#40 Hi Karen B
Indeed there is failure on a number of levels but they are taken in order.  Consider it like a steeplechase with hedges to jump.  If you fall at the first one, the remainder do not come into play, whether or not you could have jumped them.  The PB fell at the first jump by not getting the agreement of the 3 bishops, she did not bother with the second jump inhibiting Bishop Duncan but headed for the third jump.  It is the equivalent of a rider falling at the first jump, the horse making a refusal at the second and attempting to jump the third.  Could you say a riderless horse had completed the race?

[45] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 09-18-2008 at 06:40 PM • top

In this case, Pageantmaster, I think it is becoming a rider without a horse, or only an undersized one .... but thanks for a wonderfully clear analogy.

[46] Posted by oscewicee on 09-18-2008 at 06:42 PM • top

The other thing is the third jump is clearly defined in the canons.  The PB did not take it but went round it telling everybody that that was her way of jumping.

[47] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 09-18-2008 at 06:45 PM • top

I hope or wish that Abp Venables made a provisional invitation to Bp Duncan.  The vote should be challenged on procedural grounds.  If the invitation was absolute and not provisional, then (it seems to me) that Bp Duncan has indeed left the communion of the Episcopal Church.

On the hand, the canon on abandonment speaks of acting in a “Church not in communion with this Church”—and ECUSA would say that it is in communion with the Southern Cone.

If the 15 bishops had attended, a 2/3 majority would have been 95.  I am not sure how those 15 bishops would have voted; most likely the “hurricane bishops” would have opposed the deposition.  That might have made a difference.

I keep hoping ECUSA will do the right thing.  Like Charlie Brown, I might as well flap my arms and fly to the moon…

[48] Posted by AnglicanXn on 09-18-2008 at 06:48 PM • top

Sorry Karen B: just trying to impress my wonderful Greek teacher, Ann Castro!

Can’t believe how deeply sad I am tonight but at the same time just that more resolute.  It is a rubicon moment for us.

[49] Posted by els on 09-18-2008 at 06:49 PM • top

Watching the interview of still Bishop Duncan at Anglican TV. Kevin asked about the “unconverted” in our church with Bp Duncan’s response:

We all share the blame for that. We have done a terrible job of spiritual formation since the second World War. But it is also true that we have a tremendous number of leaders in the Episcopal church that came from other traditions that came because they had the sense that the Episcopal Church was the great liberal force.

There is much more. My heart is all pitter-patter.

[50] Posted by robroy on 09-18-2008 at 06:49 PM • top

Welcome to the Southern Cone Bishop Duncan!  We are the richer for your presence among us.

A big AMEN there, new brother!

[51] Posted by dog-ma on 09-18-2008 at 06:51 PM • top

AnglicanXn, all the possible challenges to the vote were issued during the meeting, were ruled against by the Queen of Hearts, and were backed by at least 2/3rd of the vote.  There is no more appeal.

Bishop Duncan is on record as saying that he will permit the Standing Committee to function as the leadership of the diocese.

[52] Posted by AndrewA on 09-18-2008 at 06:51 PM • top

How can members of the Standing Committee be removed?

[53] Posted by Adam 12 on 09-18-2008 at 06:52 PM • top

#48, ignore my prior calculations about two-thirds of the bishops.  I was utterly incorrect.

The canon calls for a majority of the total number of bishops entitled to vote.

By KJS utterly uncanonical reckoning, that required 65 yes votes.

According to the actual language of canon IV:9, and the total I have been told (as of the Cox deposition) of 294 eligble voting bishops, the total of yes votes needed would have been 148.  More than the number of bishops attending the meeting.

[54] Posted by Karen B. on 09-18-2008 at 06:53 PM • top

#53, I’d say about as easily as a non-inhibited bishop can be “deposed” with an uncanonical non-majority of eligible bishops!

[55] Posted by Karen B. on 09-18-2008 at 06:55 PM • top

#53-The same way an orthodox bishop can be deposed.

[56] Posted by frreed on 09-18-2008 at 06:56 PM • top

Seriously, could someone give me a scenario on how a Standing Committee would be declared null by TEC - particularly before the October vote - would it have to be at this meeting from Salt Lake?

[57] Posted by Adam 12 on 09-18-2008 at 06:58 PM • top

Andrew and others-
The procedural challenges required a 2/3 majority to overturn the PB- she only needed 1/3 to uphold her rulings.
Granted, that is academic.  However, you never know, within a few months, some of you may be called upon to write the canons of a new province, and we need to get the details right.

[58] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-18-2008 at 07:00 PM • top

In response to Adam 12, the only possible way is Autocratic Fiat by the Queen of Hearts.  The real question is:  When she does it, can it be challenged in a court of law?

Waiting for the other shoe to drop…

[59] Posted by AndrewA on 09-18-2008 at 07:01 PM • top

Adam 12, she can write her own scenario.  She did it in San Joaquin.

[60] Posted by Karen B. on 09-18-2008 at 07:02 PM • top

TEC HOB Heretics and Cowards = Excommunicate and Anathema

They bring judgment on themselves!!!

[61] Posted by TXThurifer on 09-18-2008 at 07:06 PM • top

Adam-
KJS did it in San Jaoquin by proclaiming that she did not recognize the Standing Committee of the diocese.  She then called a convention (in violation of the diocese’s canons on the calling of conventions.  Not to mention, of course, that the PB has no authority to call a diocesan convention anywhere).  Said convention, to which orthodox parishes remaining in TEC were given no representation, “elected” a standing committee and accepted the person KJS appointed as acting bishop.
Beyond that, I really don’t want to go, because I don’t want to give KJS any ideas she doesn’t already have.  But in any case, canon law and church tradition are meaningless.  These people sent repo men out to seize churches in Connecticut, sued lay people for pledges in Massachusetts (that one settled out of court), and have changed locks on parishes and missions while people were sleeping.  There is no reason to expect them NOT to be in court tomorrow morning, or sending in armed thugs over the weekend, to close down the diocese of Pittsburgh.
May the Lord have mercy upon them.

[62] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-18-2008 at 07:08 PM • top

Schori’s attitude is “to HELL with the canons!  I’m going to do things MY way!  I AM the Presiding Bishop, and I can do as I damn well please!  You are my vassals, and you’ll do as you’re told!”

[63] Posted by Cennydd on 09-18-2008 at 07:13 PM • top

Thanks TJ - I guess I can understand such actions after a Diocese has seceded but to do so beforehand seems to interfere with the diocese’ internal polity. After all, the diocese is a legal corporation entitled to due process, and if they are still in TEC it seems a civil case might be made for malicious interference against the duly elected. Anyway she is making a martyr out of Duncan in a way that surely will make folk in all denominations fearful of centralized authority, and making the so-called personal-growth experience of the last Lambeth confab into even more of a laughingstock, if there is any room for humor here.

[64] Posted by Adam 12 on 09-18-2008 at 07:20 PM • top

63-
I understand she has become jealous of her vassals because they have prettier rings than she does.  So, tomorrow after lunch, 88 of the bishops are getting together for a jewelry class to make her a new ring.  She has distributed a song for them to sing while they make it.  It goes like this:
Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
(“One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.”)

[65] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-18-2008 at 07:21 PM • top

I was duly impressed, Eddie (#38), and I’m sad too.

[66] Posted by Ann Castro on 09-18-2008 at 07:24 PM • top

I saw above that the Bishop of Louisiana, Charles Jenkins, voted against deposition.  I want to make sure he knows how much I honor and appreciate him for that, as he has been there for me many times in the last 20 years. 

I’m sorry that all the 35 had to witness the destruction of their futures today as it was burned on the pyre of “unity”.  BeerKat et al have granted us all a great gift today, one that I’m sure they never intended for us to receive:

Clarity. 

Don’t hesitate, don’t go back for your cloak, your money, nothing, run away from this gathering evil while you still can.  There is no redemption at this point within TEC.  Screwtape is driving the bus, and she’s not that picky who she runs over.

God Bless Bishop Duncan, the good people of Pittsburgh, Archbishop G. Venables and the Southern Cone, and to the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pittsburgh:

Stand to.  You’re adversary is prowling, close by, roaring and looking to devour you.  Fear not, stand firm in your faith, and keep your keys close.

Keep the Faith….mrb

[67] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 09-18-2008 at 07:27 PM • top

The 35 bishops who voted against the deposition will now be subject to pressure from 815 that will make the 2007 Great Terror look like an elementary-school nun’s rap on the knuckles.

Pray for them, bretheren.

[68] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-18-2008 at 07:39 PM • top

The 35 bishops who voted against the deposition will now be subject to pressure from 815 that will make the 2007 Great Terror look like an elementary-school nun’s rap on the knuckles.

  I’ll take Sr. Gertrude and give you 5 points.
I wouldn’t count on it anyway. I suspect that as long as +Lee plays his part in the multi-million dollar lawsuits, KJS will forgive him his minor indiscretion.  Unless, of course, they lose the lawsuits, I am sure she will see that as unforgivable.  The real terror will come after GC 2009, when they will declare open season on these guys.
  Actually, a while back, somebody on the HoBD listserve suggested slimming down TEC and saving expenses by merging some dioceses into neighbors (I mean, even the liberals can see that a diocese with an ASA of 600 can’t be self sustaining).  I think the recommendation was to get down to about 70 domestically, which means losing 30 (10 of the 110 are outside the country, if I remember correctly).  Guess which 30 dioceses will be selected for the slimming process…

[69] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-18-2008 at 08:01 PM • top

Bishop Duncan has now been pushed out of the Episcopal club. He did not abandon the Episcopal club.  The Episcopal club abandoned him. In spite of the fact that the good and godly bishop bent backwards and did much MORE than was necessary for him to stay and help his fellow bishops in the spiritually dead club (aka TEC) to see the light, BUT yet, they pushed him out.

Out, they pushed him. But into the arms of a loving and welcoming Province and Providence he landed. Thanks be to God.
Safe landing, dear godly bishop.

Obviously, all is set for Bishop Iker as the next target.
Katherine and company are laughing now, but this is not the end of the matter. He who laughs last laughs best.

NO FEAR. The Lord is with you dear godly bishops.

Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington, Diocese of Fort Worth

[70] Posted by Spiro on 09-18-2008 at 08:01 PM • top

Good for Duncan Gray.  I’ve been very disappointed with my former bishop, but I’m grateful he did the right thing this time.

[71] Posted by Miss Sippi on 09-18-2008 at 08:04 PM • top

I’m sorry, but the 35 bishops will not bring presentment against Schori. They SHOULD have already brought charges against her for her illegal intervention (read border crossing) in the Diocese of San Joaquin, dismissal of Standing Committee members there, calling of a “Special (read rump) convention there, the appointment of a vagrans biship there and the deposing of Bishops Cox and Schofield. In all of these cases she violated her ordination oaths to conform to the discipline of the Episcopal Church and its canons.

At some point the requisite faithful bishops must bring forth the formal charges—even though it will obviously go no where, given the stranglehold of the reigning elite of The General Convention Church.

[72] Posted by Ken Peck on 09-18-2008 at 08:13 PM • top

I wonder how the outcome would have been if more bishops had bothered to attend?

[73] Posted by oscewicee on 09-18-2008 at 08:14 PM • top

It occurs to me that more effective than bringing charges against the PB (although she deserves them, but for the sake of practicality…) would be to bring charges against one of the bishops openly promoting Communion by non-baptized persons.  That is a clear breach of canon on its own, as well as a violation of the “doctrine and discipline”, not to mention the rubrics of the BCP, of this church. Let the 88 bishops stick together if they want to, but they will look like idiot’s and liars before the world if they vote against such a deposition in light of having voted for this one.

[74] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-18-2008 at 08:31 PM • top

This is all in Gods plan.  Bishop Duncan, now unemcumbered by association with the Episcopal Church can now focus his energies on helping create the TRUE Anglican province in the United States.  TEC is dead, long live the AAP.

[75] Posted by The Templar on 09-18-2008 at 09:16 PM • top

God bless Bishop Duncan.

Matthew 5:11   Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

[76] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 09-18-2008 at 09:16 PM • top

I am so Blessed we moved to a Jacksonville, FL AMIA parish 8 months ago…Glory Be to God!!
Our prayers are with Bishop Duncan and all Pitt Brothers and Sisters in Christ as they embark on their new Journey with Southern Cone…..they certainly are in good Godly hands….May the Holy Spirit enlighten your new path..

[77] Posted by AnglicanRon on 09-18-2008 at 09:56 PM • top

This morning I fantasized that there be a bishop who was also an expert parliamentarian and jurist, a godly man with a powerful bellowing voice and no fear in using it. Point after point he made, raised as points of personal privilege, points of order, and other such wonderful interruptions. In my fantasy, the whole craven lot of the allies of KJB were shamed into acting decently and her whole house of cards came tumbling down visibly. Comes of reading and seeing too much Shakespeare. Alas, it was not to be. This time.

[78] Posted by ears2hear on 09-18-2008 at 10:02 PM • top

Today is a sad day for all “orthodox” Christians - whether Anglican, RC, Orthodox (of all varieties), mainline “Protestant”, Evangelical. Many of the supposed “successors of the Apostles” have turned against one of their own - all I can think is that each of those who voted against Bp. Duncan are one and the same with Judas. And while Christ told us to pray for our persecutors, I cannot do so. I will not do so. They are nothing but thugs and goons to me, pursuing their Stalinist purge, starting at the top with KJS. They have made their choice, they now have to stand before God for judgment. I and my family have made our choice as well, on the outcome of their vote. They have forced me and my family out of a church that I grew up in and loved, that has been a part of my family’s tradition since +John Henry Hobart ordained my great-great-great grandfather a priest at Trinity, Wall Street. I’m sure that, as they went off to dinner tonight, the HOb were well-pleased with what they did. But, many are not. The souls of my family, and many other orthodox Anglicans are now on THEIR immortal souls.

I pray for Bp. Duncan and his family, and hope that he will be the new ANGLICAN ARCHBISHOP OF NORTH AMERICA.

[79] Posted by mike458 on 09-18-2008 at 10:02 PM • top

Many have spoken for me on this thread, especially # 70 Spiro #75 The Templar and # 76 Connie Sandlin.  Bishop Duncan is free at last.  I welcome him to the other side with open arms.  He gave me hope 5 years ago back in Dallas (“Plano”) when I was in deep shock and grief about what had happened in Minneapolis and knew I could not make peace with what had been done (after years of forgiving a church which had been leaving the faith, this was a line that I could not cross).  I began to thank God for him at that time and since then have never stopped praying for him and Nara, his wonderful wife (think of how important her support has been with what he has faced) and praised God for his courageous heart—(Bob Duncan,the lion hearted,”  David+ Handy has so perfectly named him).  So once again, Lord thank You for your beloved servant, Bishop Duncan and thank You for all the encouragement and hope You have given to me (and thousands of others) through his example of Christian leadership.  Thank You for the safe harbor you have given to him through Archbishop Venables.  Lead On O King Eternal!

P.S. Fabulous interview, Kevin and Anglicantv—thank you so very much for your important ministry.

[80] Posted by BettyLee Payne on 09-18-2008 at 10:34 PM • top

Karen B. (ref: 39)
Here’s the hymn I am using on Sunday after the reading from Philippians, and sung to the Sibelius tune, Finlandia:

Pray for the Church, afflicted and oppressed,
for all who suffer for the gospel’s sake,
that Christ may show us how to serve them best
in that one kingdom Satan cannot shake.
But how much more than us they have to give,
who by their dying show us how to live.

Pray for Christ’s dissidents, who daily wait,
as Jesus waited in the olive grove,
the unjust trial, the pre-determined fate,
the world’s contempt for reconciling love.
Shall all they won for us, at such a cost,
be by our negligence or weakness lost?

Pray that if times of testing should lay bare
what sort we are, who call ourselves his own,
we may be counted worthy then to wear,
with quiet fortitude, Christ’s only crown:
The crown that in his saints he wears again
the crown of thorns that signifies his reign.

[81] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 09-19-2008 at 12:35 AM • top

Adam 12,
Go over to “Surrounded” and find the letter posted that the PB issued to all of us on the San Joaquin Standing Committee.  TJ is right that she stated she did not “recognize” us (so?), but she justified that as an action of dismissal based on what she understands to be her job description, and in conjunction with the canonical understanding that Standing Committee members (any elected “officers” of the diocese) have fiduciary responsibilities which she claims we failed to uphold.  There’s plenty of room for a lawsuit in response to her unsubstantiated allegations.  The Pitt Standing Committee should keep that in mind.
Anyway, THAT’s how she justified our alleged dismissal.

On a pickier note, diocese’s in general are not legal corporations, but un-incorporated associations.  There might be a Corporation Sole, with the bishop as the sole officer, to hold assets such as real property, but that’s not the same thing.

[82] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 09-19-2008 at 12:55 AM • top

Agreed. Duncan is the George Washington of the orthodox Anglican movement in the United States.  All of us owe him greatly.  It would be fitting for him to be the leader of a new Anglican province. He has earned it.

[83] Posted by Going Home on 09-19-2008 at 01:29 AM • top

While I appreciate Bp. Duncan’s valiant witness to the faith, he is not the only one who has been a true apostle in this fight.  If I recall Bp. Schofield was deposed earlier.  Bps. Iker and Ackerman have been at least as steadfast.  Remember, orthodox means something and Bp. Duncan is not orthodox.  He may very well be the primate of the new province, but others are at least as worthy if not moreso.

[84] Posted by frreed on 09-19-2008 at 08:02 AM • top

Umm… if Bishop Duncan is innocent of the charges, as he claims, why didn’t he offer any defense? 
Is it that he doesn’t think the HoB has jurisdiction?  If not, why does he care whether he is kicked out or not (since by all accounts, he doesn’t go to meetings anymore anyway?)

[85] Posted by Ruach on 09-19-2008 at 12:54 PM • top

Ruach,
Defense in what format or proceeding?

[86] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 09-19-2008 at 01:28 PM • top

Ruach, the canon under which the supposed deposition of Cox, Schofield and Duncan occurred (as well as the parallel canon being used by bishops to depose priests) does not provide for a defense. It was written for the case of clergy who actually did leave the Anglican Communion for Rome, Geneva, or whatever body outside of the Anglican Communion without having formally renounced their Anglican orders.

There is a provision in the canon for the person inhibited under the canon to respond, denying that the clergy had abandoned the Communion. “On March 14, 2008, Bishop Duncan responded in a letter in which he stated that he considered himself fully subject to the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of this Church, and described certain actions that he believed supported that view. I concluded then, and I remain of the view now, that that response was not a sufficient ‘declaration ... that the facts alleged in the certificate are false,’ and that therefore Bishop Duncan remains ‘liable to Deposition’ under Canon IV.9(2).” In other words, in this proceding the bishop enforcing the canon is both prosecutor, judge and sometime jury. There is no provision in the canon for a “trial” of a bishop for abandonment of communion.

It was probably the advice of Bishop Duncan’s chancellor that it was best not to add legitimacy to the kangaroo court by his presence.

[87] Posted by Ken Peck on 09-19-2008 at 03:56 PM • top

I’m wondering if this really came as a surprise to anyone…and if the answer is yes then therein lies the problem…

[88] Posted by ewart-touzot on 09-22-2008 at 09:17 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.