Thursday, September 2, 2010

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info

Updated Actions Taken at the HOB Meeting Today in the Purported Deposition of Bishop Duncan

Thursday, September 18, 2008 • 6:18 pm

I spoke with Bishop Adams of Western Kansas and he provided a few details about today's meeting.

-- Bishop Love, of Albany, presented a request for a roll call vote signed by nine bishops, including Bishop Adams
-- Bishop Peter Lee, of Virginia, presented a second request for a roll call vote signed by another group of bishops

I spoke with Bishop Adams of Western Kansas and he provided a few details about today's meeting.

-- Bishop Love, of Albany, presented a request for a roll call vote signed by nine bishops, including Bishop Adams
-- Bishop Peter Lee, of Virginia, presented a second request for a roll call vote signed by another group of bishops

That roll call vote therefore occurred [only six requests were needed under the rules of the house].

-- There was a formal -- as well as numerous informal -- challenges to the relevant canonical violations/rulings of the chair, including the attempt to depose a not-previously inhibited bishop -- required by the canons -- and the fact that deposing requires a majority of all bishops entitled to vote
-- A voice vote was taken and the challenge failed clearly to achieve the necessary 2/3 votes to overturn the ruling

Other sources revealed further details:

-- All three bishops of the diocese of Virginia, apparently, voted against the deposition of Bishop Duncan [obviously, hearsay will be subject to confirmation later]
-- Bishop Duncan Gray of Mississippi apparently voted against the deposition [obviously, hearsay will be subject to confirmation later]
-- Bishop Lawrence spoke very eloquently challenging the misuse of canon 4.9
-- There were numerous other protests voiced

Speaking as Sarah Hey, personally -- I am very proud of the 35 bishops who voted for lawful use of the canons. I am even more proud of the traditional bishops who did almost every single thing they could do within the Rules of the House to vigorously and publicly protest this action. It was well-planned, it was coordinated, and it required communication, and courage.

StandFirm commenters and friends -- it is not easy to do what these bishops did.

I've been the first to write lengthy articles decrying our own bishops for their lack of strategy, coordination, communication, and courage in these meetings. It has bothered me intensely that the three meetings prior to this meeting there has been such passivity and weakness.

But that has not been the case this time. And acknowledging that, let me say that it is far easier to be quiet, not show up, not speak up, not plan, and "wish that it would all go away" and escape back home to one's diocese. Doing the opposite of those things is very very very hard, especially when you are in a losing battle.

But they did it. They showed up for the fight, they took their lumps, and they did their duty. And they lost -- but they won too. History will not be kind to the actions of the "progressive" Episcopal bishops today.

In this instance, our traditional bishops serve as an example to traditional lay Episcopalians. We should be challenged to live up to this standard in our own contexts.

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

I do hope later confirmation holds true for +Lee. He has not always been the most honorable under 815 pressure, but if these reports are true, it’ll paint a more complex picture and in this instance I too respect of my former bishop for this brave stance against 815 actions.

[1] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 09-18-2008 at 05:51 PM • top

Sarah Hey, speaking as an historian, I can tell you that history is mostly written by liberals.  Within decades Schori will have her own feast day in the TEC BCP, and the secularlists and liberals that dominate academic religious history will consider this a great moment of triumpth in the Struggle For Inclusion.  I don’t think they have to worry about their place in the history book.

On the other hand, as I’ve already said…

May God have mercy on their souls.

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

Thank You Sarah for the Update!!!  Hallelujah, this is an answer to prayer.  I’m thrilled re: +Lawrence and +Love and +Adams.  And I’m surprised and grateful re: +Lee if that proves true.  I hope and pray it is, as I believe such action on +Lee’s part would help heal some of the wounds that still fester among those of us once in the Dio. of VA.  And I include myself as one with such wounds that have been slow to heal….

[3] Posted by Karen B. on 09-18-2008 at 06:00 PM • top

AndrewA, we’ll see.  ; > ) 

Remember I’m not normally an optimist.

But about history’s read on what happened today—there I am confident.

[4] Posted by Sarah on 09-18-2008 at 06:09 PM • top

I pray that this brave minority will organize in other contstructive ways for what is left of Christianity in TEC.  I pray that the 35 at Salt Lake City do not immediately wind up like the 300 at Thermopylae or the 600 at Balaclava.
And so sorry for the 80 or 90 who ran down to the lake by Gardara.

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

#2. When PB Schori is made a saint, all of the then active Episcopalians, all four of them, will celebrate it as a major feast.

What Spirit leads you?

[6] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 09-18-2008 at 06:12 PM • top

Great news!

[7] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 09-18-2008 at 06:14 PM • top

LOL #6 - I guess those regional TEC centers (L.A., Omaha, Atlanta & of course 815 2nd Ave. NYC) will each have a Bishop in residence!

[8] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 09-18-2008 at 06:14 PM • top

Sarah, those 35 bishops hopefully made it clear to KJS that what she did is simply not right!  The problem is, will she, or can she be held canonically responsible for her actions?  And if she can, will those bishops, or any of their number, take action against her?  If so, what would that action be?  In MY view, she is liable for presentment for misuse of her office and clear violation of the canons.

[9] Posted by Cennydd on 09-18-2008 at 06:20 PM • top

Why Omaha and not DC?

I just hope that a worthy church can buy the National Cathedral when it finally goes on the auction block.  I’m really quite fond of the building.

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

For the good of the Church, Schori must be deposed….and the sooner the better!

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

#2 and #8-
They will look back on the good old days, when dioceses had ASAs of 400….

To all the Bishops who stood up for Christ and His Church today, you have our thanks and our prayers.  Peace be with you in these coming days, and may the Lord continue to show you the pathway.

[12] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-18-2008 at 06:33 PM • top

I think we saw the approximate numerical division of the house today.  There are not likely to be enough votes to depose Schori.

[13] Posted by Ann Castro on 09-18-2008 at 06:34 PM • top

I commend these faithful bishops for their courageous actions.

The die is cast: remain a faithful, orthodox bishop and the canons cannot save you.  My prayer is that these faithful bishops will realize that they cannot win in TEC and join the growing movement towards a truly Christian Anglican province in North America.

-Jim+

[14] Posted by FrJim on 09-18-2008 at 06:37 PM • top

#10 - DC is too close to NYC and besides there can be no boundary crossings into the Province of Chane, except by LGBT couples or Iranian Imams.

[15] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 09-18-2008 at 06:38 PM • top

Cherie Wetzel has some additional details
http://www.anglicansunited.com/2008/09/duncan_deposition.html

excerpt:
More details are now available about the House of Bishops’ vote this afternoon to depose the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh.

Of 127 bishops present, 88 voted to depose; 35 voted no and 4 abstained. After the votes were announced, the Rt. Dorsey Henserson, Upper South Carolina, changed his vote to no. That means the final vote was 87 yes; 36 no; and 4 abstained. Henderson is the chairman of the Title IV committee, Disciplinary Canons that cover Bishops. The Presiding Bishop needed a simple majority of votes to depose Duncan and she received a super majority. This is a definitive vote.

Early this morning, Bishop Mark Lawrence, South Carolina, challenged the ruling of the chair , refuting that: 1) there was no need for inhibition prior to deposition; 2) there was no need for three senior bishops to agree on inhibition and deposition; 3) there was no need for the entire list of living bishops to vote on the deposition - only those present. The challenge was substantive and “superb, ” according to a bishop present.

After Bp. Lawrence’s presentation, there was no address of the charges or vote to accept or reject the challenge.
Bishop Stacey Sauls and the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor David Booth Beers assurred the House that the Presiding Bishop was correct in pursing deposition at this time and in this manner.

—-
Cherie states there was a roll call vote, so we WILL have names!

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

She surely deserves severe censure.  I’m sure that can be arranged by writing directly to her at 815 2nd Street in New York.  Just make sure you use snail mail, register it, and with a Return Receipt Request….to make sure that Schori herself signs for it, and not some mere staffer….or should I say hireling?

Just put this on the envelope:

“Personal for Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori:  EYES ONLY!”

[17] Posted by Cennydd on 09-18-2008 at 06:40 PM • top

tjmcmahon, the writers of academic history will be thrilled at the shrinking of any Church.  As for TEC, I’ve basically heard it said in a sermon at the NatCathedral that it doesn’t matter if people leave, as long as those that remain are True Believers (which, given the context, could only mean True Revisionists).  That is about the time I decided they didn’t need me around.

[18] Posted by AndrewA on 09-18-2008 at 06:41 PM • top

Better yet:  Make sure she gets it by Special Messenger.  There are Messenger services available in New York City.

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

Cennydd, all the ones I would want to use are outside my price range.

[20] Posted by AndrewA on 09-18-2008 at 06:44 PM • top

When allegiance to the order of the institution is a higher priority than due process and fairness, then the institution becomes an end in itself and has lost its moral vision and becomes desperately warped.  Bishop Duncan dared to challenge the TEC party line and paid the price.  As the Episcopal Church continues its steep numerical slide, the need for scapegoats will only increase.  The “anti-gay” bishops are to blame for the empty pews is the spin I hear often.  I wonder how some dioceses can continue to exist much longer given the loss of people.  May the 35 with courage and conviction continue to work for the proclamation of the Gospel first of all.  We haven’t hit bottom yet in terms of TEC - more ecclesiastical blood will flow, but we take heart because we know the end of the bigger story, don’t we?

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

What happened, exactly,  to the request for a roll-call vote referred to  
in italics above?

[22] Posted by celindascott on 09-18-2008 at 06:55 PM • top

A prayer suggestion tonight.

It occurs to me that the brave bishops who took a stand, including those who voted no still have many challenges ahead.  They will have to speak to reporters, and to their dioceses.  Let us continue to uphold them in prayer, that the Lord will continue to fan into flame their courage and strength, and will give them grace to endure scorn and ridicule and opposition.  May He grant them a peaceful sleep tonight, filled with joy at hearing His “well done” in their hearts.

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

Celinda—it happened!

I should make that clear in my post—but since only six bishops needed to ask before it was automatic . . . and more than 10 trampled up to ask . . .

; > )

We will know who voted how.

For sure.

[24] Posted by Sarah on 09-18-2008 at 06:59 PM • top

For the record, I’m clarifying that in the post now.

[25] Posted by Sarah on 09-18-2008 at 06:59 PM • top

Let us continue to uphold them in prayer, that the Lord will continue to fan into flame their courage and strength, and will give them grace to endure scorn and ridicule and opposition.  May He grant them a peaceful sleep tonight, filled with joy at hearing His “well done” in their hearts.

Amen, Elves. Prayers for all who showed the courage of their convictions, who upheld Christian behaviour and the rule of law, prayers for them tonight and into the future. May God bless them all.

[26] Posted by oscewicee on 09-18-2008 at 07:03 PM • top

There were a couple of other things that I neglected to put in the post.

Bishop Adams said that his observation was that there was some surprise that there were as many as 35 nay votes.

From another source, it was Stacy Sauls and David Booth Beers who argued “forcefully” for the vote to depose.

[27] Posted by Sarah on 09-18-2008 at 07:03 PM • top

I don’t doubt that there was surprise that 35 voted No.  Certainly I don’t think even the most optimistic of us here at SF expected so many.  I was expecting around 12-15 at most.  This is a JOYFUL surprise.

On another point, Sarah, if what Cherie Wetzel is reporting, your own bishop may unfortunately be one of the ones deserving negative points.  What think you of his changing his vote AFTER the total was announced?!?!?  It seems just about the most cowardly thing I can think of!

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

it was Stacy Sauls

TEC’s puppet ministry is very active.

[29] Posted by oscewicee on 09-18-2008 at 07:16 PM • top

Sarah—

What we are starting to see here (and the reported position of +Lee is most indicative) is blowback against the Terror of 2007 (plus, of course, the continuing fidelity of such as +Love, +Howe, and +Lawrence).  Some of these bishops have finally realized that they have actual power, even under the Stalinist philosophy of 815.

They have all allowed targets to be painted on their copes for GC09.  Pray for them—and let them know you support them.

<hr width=30%><font size=-2>“May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.”
—G. Washington, Letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, August 1790</font>

[30] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-18-2008 at 07:25 PM • top

The Network has its official response out:

http://www.acn-us.org/archive/2008/09/supportbishopduncan.html

[31] Posted by AndrewA on 09-18-2008 at 07:26 PM • top

Note that Lee took both his suboridinate bishops with him to vote against the action.

[32] Posted by AndrewA on 09-18-2008 at 07:28 PM • top

Regardless of who said what or voted which way, like it or not, this IS God’s will!  I don’t believe He’d sacrifice a single one of His shepherds for an unworthy cause, so obviously He has a purpose for all this which isn’t evident to our human minds!  Hopefully it is to bring the heretics that are currently leading His flock through the gates of Hell into accountability - HIS Justice is something they really should fear!

[33] Posted by prodigal2 on 09-18-2008 at 07:34 PM • top

The UNCHURCH shames itself again. To remove a brother bishop without due process is typical of their justice.

[34] Posted by bradhutt on 09-18-2008 at 07:39 PM • top

I suspect Bishop Iker may have something to say about this at the Common Cause Partners-North Texas gathering on Sunday evening.

[35] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 09-18-2008 at 07:39 PM • top

They can’t depose him because his baptismal covenant entitles him to do whatever he wants.
Live into it, baby.
Ubuntu.

[36] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 09-18-2008 at 07:41 PM • top

“In spite of the sham deposition of Bishop Robert Duncan by the House of Bishops, he remains the formidable leader of traditional Episcopalians and loyal Anglicans in North America. Bishop Duncan continues to have the respect of a majority of the primates and bishops of the entire Anglican Communion, including the Archbishop of Canterbury. In an effort to silence him, the House of Bishops has only given him greater credibility as the leader of the realignment movement,” said Bishop Jack Leo Iker of the Anglican Communion Network diocese of Fort Worth.

Good Ol’ +Jack.  He can say it so plainly,  are we really sure he’s an Anglican?
<hr width=30%><font size=-2>“May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.”—G. Washington, Letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, August 1790</font>

[37] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-18-2008 at 07:45 PM • top

Sarah,
“Remember I’m not normally an optimist. ” 
LOL!!!!  Tis true indeed! Thanks for this.  It made my day!

I doubt the orthodox witness accomplished much, but it matters not.  Our job is to be witnesses; His job is to bring the harvest.

[38] Posted by Spencer on 09-18-2008 at 08:04 PM • top

So, what’s next, that is before all attention goes south to Texas? Who is in the queue for appointed bishop of Pittsburg?

[39] Posted by southernvirginia1 on 09-18-2008 at 08:11 PM • top

Praise God that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit has restored courage to these 36 bishops in a time of great need.  If anybody needed further evidence, here it is, that the Episcopal Church is a lawless post-Christian body, run by autocrats who have made a god in their own image.  God have mercy on them.

And continued prayers for the remnant faithful in the HoB to press on, to fight the good fight in the Name of Jesus.

[40] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 09-18-2008 at 08:28 PM • top

I thank all of the bishops who voted to uphold canon law today.  I deeply respect your courage.

[41] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 09-18-2008 at 08:52 PM • top

I am grateful for the 35 bishops who voted against deposition.  It is a dreadful tragedy, however, that we are praising the 35 for daring to brave the tactics of intimidation, lies, distortion and abuse of TEC’s own laws. That alone speaks volumes for the lack of integrity of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A.  Beers, Schori, Sauls and other hardline revisionists are shown, as we increasingly see them, as individuals in whom there is no honour, integrity, or the slightest demonstration of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in their lives.

[42] Posted by Bill C on 09-18-2008 at 09:52 PM • top

Any idea of who the four abstentions were?

[43] Posted by AnglicanXn on 09-19-2008 at 12:06 AM • top

Sarah’s good bishop changed his vote from yes to no. He has great backbone does he not?

[44] Posted by Sir Highmoor on 09-19-2008 at 03:28 AM • top

Wow, Bill C., you make an EXCELLENT POINT.  Sad but true.

I am grateful for the 35 bishops who voted against deposition.  It is a dreadful tragedy, however, that we are praising the 35 for daring to brave the tactics of intimidation, lies, distortion and abuse of TEC’s own laws. That alone speaks volumes for the lack of integrity of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A.

You have nailed it.

[45] Posted by The_Elves on 09-19-2008 at 04:03 AM • top

Does any of this remind those old enough to remember it of a famous TV news clip during the Vietnam War of an Army Captain telling a reporter, “We had to burn the village in order to save it?”

[46] Posted by Fallen on 09-19-2008 at 04:15 AM • top

Before we prepare the entry in Lesser Feasts for the “Salt Lake 35” it is important for us to remember these are the same bishops who allowed us to get to this crisis point.  Years of inaction and hand wringing have been the mark of most of these same bishops.  There have been a few who have made strong statements, but not much else.

Their courage yesterday must be the beginning of action.  If they simply walk away and feel justified in voting “no” nothing has been achieved.  They must actively separate themselves from TEC and the apostatic mess it has become. They need to support these bishops who are leading the way to a new, faithful, province and lead their diocese to safety.

[47] Posted by frreed on 09-19-2008 at 04:54 AM • top

FrReed, a better plan would be for them to stay in TEC and make an active witness.
Too many conservative bishops have “witnessed” by not participating in regular HOB meetings and discussions since 2003; that does little for their flocks or for the church as a whole.

[48] Posted by celindascott on 09-19-2008 at 05:28 AM • top

#47 frreed is correct; this was just one vote at one HOB meeting.  As I type this, the obsessively vindictive scheming is underway at 815, in their true spirit of exclusion, to find ways to harass and destroy the 35.  The 815 spies in their dioceses have been tasked to get a quote of just one statement of slight intention that is anti-815, because, as we saw in Salt Lake City, an allegation that you have anti-815 intention will get you purportedly disposed.  These 35 bishops have targets painted on the backs of their copes.  They will be replaced by 815 house shills as soon as 815 can scheme it.

The leg irons go on in 2009.

Get out.  Now.

[49] Posted by Long Gone Anglo Catholic on 09-19-2008 at 05:47 AM • top

Celinda-
I must agree with Fr. Reed here.  There can be no long term witness within TEC.  A few of the bishops (judging by some of the names) who voted against did so, in all likelihood, on procedural grounds- that is, they were not voting against deposing +Duncan, they were voting against abusing the canons.  Any who, from this day forth, provide an orthodox witness in TEC will either be deposed (I’m sure you can find 16 people in every diocese with an axe to grind, willing to file a complaint), or, upon retirement, will be replaced with someone more compliant with TEC leadership on theological and procedural issues.  If, say, there are 20 orthodox diocesan bishops willing to make a witness within TEC today, in 5 years there will be 15, in 10 years- 6, in 20 years, I think +Mark Lawrence will stand alone.
  How far are we from Lambeth?  Didn’t +Rowan give himself 2 months to get together his plan for a Pastoral Council?  Not that I see that having any real impact here anyway.  But the need for it should be all the more evident this morning.
  So, today or Monday, the war against the diocese of Pittsburgh begins in earnest, with TEC’s leadership doing all it can to destroy the diocese in the weeks before October 4th.  All in the diocese must be in our prayers.  KJS knows as well as the rest of us that if her whole plan is not successful- seizing control of diocesan structure before October 4th, that by October 5th, there will be a New Anglican Province in North America- and one that has a Cathedral, and shortly thereafter, an Archbishop.

[50] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-19-2008 at 05:58 AM • top

#50 tjmcmahon, agree with you.

[51] Posted by southernvirginia1 on 09-19-2008 at 06:03 AM • top

Celinda,
That has been the plan for the last 30+ years.  The ECM, ESA, FiF, AAC, ACN CP and any other of the alphabet soup that has been used to mark the conservative movement de jour has tried to bear witness within TEC.  Sometimes that witness has been heroically borne.  But the witness has fallen on deaf ears and hard hearts.

It is now time to shake the dust of our shoes.  It will be more tolerable for Sodom than for TEC.

[52] Posted by frreed on 09-19-2008 at 06:41 AM • top

#50.  Absolutely agree with you.

[53] Posted by Bill C on 09-19-2008 at 06:41 AM • top

In the TEC HoB
* Sock puppets will cower in perceived safety
* Rebels (and their dioceses) will be annihilated
* Fence sitters will be spewed out of the Lord’s mouth at the end of all things.
Wow.  There’s an evangelism strategy.

[54] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 09-19-2008 at 06:59 AM • top

FrReed, the groups you mention disassociated from TEC.  I’m talking about the beginnings of Stand Firm, when disassociation wasn’t contemplated as far as I know.  I’m also talking about the renewal movement starting the in the 1970s, when PewsAction groups reinforced the orthodox faith (Cursillo, DOK, Order of St. Luke, Brotherhood of St. Andrew) and made a place where those of us with that faith could feel we were not alone.  I don’t think we felt as though we were failing because we didn’t change the whole church.  But we did witness to what we believed, and those
organizations are growing within TEC.  What doesn’t work is name-calling and fact distortion on either side.

[55] Posted by celindascott on 09-19-2008 at 07:01 AM • top

Celinda,

NONE of those groups disassociated from TEC. All of them were committed to working within TEC.  The Episcopal church is no longer hearing the witness of the saints.  If it were, yesterday’s petition by Bishop Love would have been enough to stop the deposition of +Duncan.

[56] Posted by frreed on 09-19-2008 at 07:07 AM • top

I agree with Celinda’s #55. 

PS
I wouldn’t have thought it possible, but my contempt for +Sauls, my former bishop, increases by the day.  What a vile lackey of KJS and a betrayer of his flock!  Sorry, Elves, if that’s an unacceptable ad hominum attack

[57] Posted by evan miller on 09-19-2008 at 08:08 AM • top

Good for these bishops; of course, as others have noted, many of them are responsible for getting us to this point in the first place.

As for Schori, she’s proven once again to be a disgrace.  What we see is the rage, hate and dripping jealousy of one who isn’t now and never will be a bishop, let alone a calm, strong and faithful one like Robert Duncan.

[58] Posted by Phil on 09-19-2008 at 08:16 AM • top

All of the “canonical law interpretations” proffered by KJS and DBB are worthless. However, all this really does is give the 87 “bishops” who voted to depose some lame reasons to excuse their conduct.

[59] Posted by Piedmont on 09-19-2008 at 08:22 AM • top

BTW, it’s pretty sad that the simple act of voting “no” to a nakedly uncanonical motion brings these bishops in for praise as though they were George Patton rolling through France.  The bar for courage in ECUSA is, apparently, embarrassingly low.

[60] Posted by Phil on 09-19-2008 at 08:37 AM • top

Sarah,
I’ve been waiting all day for the scorecard to come out.  Have you assigned numerical points yet, and if so, how are the Bishops tallying up in the overall “studmuffin, Beowulf, Ulysses, Aragorn” race?
My money is on +Lawrence as overall winner although +Lee has surprised me.

[61] Posted by trimom on 09-19-2008 at 08:40 AM • top

Since the TEC can’t keep the pews from emptying, and can’t compromise on their “ideals”, they will do everything they can to retain what they can in the properties and real estate to shore up the sagging budgets. TEC probably has enough money to run on for another 20 years or so, by consolidating dioceses, by allowing the ranks of priests and bishops to dwindle through retirement attrition and of course by suing the dearly departing. Look for the next decade or so to result in diocesean mergers, reduction in staff, programs - except those that maintain the PR profile of TEC and other opportunities like selling/closing seminaries. Also look for TEC to extend more vigorously into the Global South areas to try and compromise the structures and influence there.

[62] Posted by masternav on 09-19-2008 at 08:46 AM • top

What might history say?  What might become of these “brave 35”? 

How about this?  Following the purported depositions of numerous TEC bishops for “abandoning communion”, TEC’s leadership attempted to claim the diocesan properties for TEC.  However, TEC’s leadership was spectacularly unsuccessful in the secular courts, after the courts found that KJS and the HoB had not followed proper canonical procedure and hence the bishops in question were not deposed, and that even if TEC had a legal claim to the diocesan properties, the courts declined to consider it due to the fact that TEC’s egregious misuse of its own canons disqualified them from asking the courts to enforce TEC canons on others.

This led to an increasing number of bishops questioning why millions of TEC dollars were spent on litigation when several dioceses had been forced into bankruptcy and folded into neighboring dioceses. Further an increasing number of bishops were questioning the wisdom of KJS’s policy of keeping TEC engaged in disasterous and expensive litigation at a time when TEC’s membership rolls were plummeting due to older member’s dying off and increasing numbers of conservative members leaving.

Eventually, the original group of thirty-five bishops who had earlier stood up to KJS’s policies at the purported deposition of Bob Duncan, were turned to for leadership.  TEC was so badly divided at this point between KJS’s supporters who desired to continue appealing their court losses and were willing to turn their backs on the new Anglican Covenant; and the followers of the “brave 35” who stated their committment to the Anglican Communion and the new Covenant, and who now publically called for TEC to split into two organizations - one committed to going on its own, the other committed to to remaining in the Anglican Communion.

[63] Posted by jamesw on 09-19-2008 at 09:43 AM • top

Virginia’s mendacious failed bishop Peter James Lee acted as he did in order to support his vicious lawsuits against Christians.  He must at all costs uphold the lie that there is no division and that he complies with the canons.  Otherwise, he undermines the upcoming trial he has brought, and the appeals his lawyers have planned.  Lee’s cynical actions are being directed by his lawyers.  (IMHO)

[64] Posted by Chazaq on 09-19-2008 at 10:00 AM • top

Chazaq, under the protection of the PB, I think +Lee could have voted yes with no fear. If there was worry that canon violations might jeopardize the cases in Va., the pb wouldn’t have performed this stunt. Give the man his due - he did the right thing yesterday.

[65] Posted by oscewicee on 09-19-2008 at 10:03 AM • top

I think Bishop Lee was helping a friend. I also think he was acting according to his lights. He is an institutionalist, but he is an honest one.

Of the two bishops that I went to college with, Bishop Johnston voted ‘no’ and Bishop Mathes voted ‘yes’. I am, of course, very disappointed in Jim, but I’d love to know Shannon’s reasoning. Did he do it out of support for Bishop Lee, or was he acting independently?

Your bishop may be a fun guy, but I can’t spore a moment for him. We’re not cut from the same mold.

[66] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 09-19-2008 at 10:06 AM • top

HE REMAINS
(TO BISHOP Robert Duncan, the day after,
With apologies to G &S;)

He is an Anglican!
For he himself has said it,
And it’s greatly to his credit,
That he is an Anglican,
That he is an Anglican!

For he might’ve been Presbyterian,
Methodist or even Luth’ran
(Just forget the TEC,
Just forget the TEC!)

But in spite of depositions
And the threat of inhibitions,
He’s the bishop of our clan,
He’s the bi————shop, he’s the man!

For in spite of depositions,
And the threat of inhibitions,
He remains an Anglican!
He remains a Scottish, Southern Cone, American Anglican!

[67] Posted by Edith on 09-19-2008 at 10:14 AM • top

Edith, FABULOUS!  Brightened my day, thanks!

[68] Posted by The_Elves on 09-19-2008 at 01:22 PM • top

More news on Studly bishops.  We already knew about +Lawrence.  Good to see +Michael Smith of North Dakota added to the list!  From the Lead:

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/bishops/the_postdeposition_news_confer.html

Bishop Michael Smith of North Dakota explained that he had challenged the Presiding Bishop’s ruling that it was permissible to proceed with the deposition of Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh even though Duncan had not previously been inhibited. Inhibition requires the consent of the three most senior bishops in the House, and two of the three (Bishop Peter Lee of Virginia and Bishop Don Wimberly of Texas) had not consented. Some observers have argued that inhibition must precede deposition. Others say the authors of the canons never intended to give three senior bishops veto power of the will of the larger House. The House turned aside Smith’s objection.

The House similarly turned aside an objection by Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina who contended that the vote to depose a bishop requires a majority of all bishops eligible to cast ballots—a potentially insurmountable challenge to those who favored deposing Duncan, as many retired bishops no longer attend meetings. The House backed a competing interpretation—that a vote to depose requires a majority of those present.

[69] Posted by The_Elves on 09-19-2008 at 01:25 PM • top

Yes, please pray for the Dio. of Pittsburgh. In San Joaquin KJS swooped in, kicked out our Standing Committee and replaced it with her own. Luckily, this was after our Dio Conv. vote to leave. Can she do that to Pittsburgh between now and their vote? We in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin pray verbally in the pews every Sunday for KJS and TEC. I fear she is handling things so badly, and setting the example of women in the Church back so far, that we will never be trusted in a position of authority again. May God shine his Love and Light in her heart, causing her eyes to open and her heart to soften, in the miracle we so fervently pray for in Jesus’ Holy Name. Amen.

[70] Posted by jogthru on 09-19-2008 at 07:45 PM • top

I agree with jamesw [#63].  Those who are abandoning the Anglican Communion in violation of TEC’s constitution, and who are trying to stuff their pockets full with the family silverware as they slink out the back door, will find it harder to use our civil courts as they’ve used TEC’s own canons and constitution, as arbitrary means to pre-determined ends, because of the Salt Lake 35 (like the salt).  I suppose this craven mimicry follows their absconding idol of a god.

So I wonder about the stated fact that Beers and Sauls (an attorney?) argued most forcefully in favor of deposition.  Of these, Sauls seems far worse to be so woefully errant as a bishop than Beers, a lay person.  But it makes you wonder what the client-attorney dynamic is really like.  Granted that a good deal of the research by Beers’ team is by relatively inexperienced attorneys (young associates with time on their hands in his former firm), you still have to wonder just how often he tried to warn the PB away from her disastrous course of action.  At what point should an attorney simply resign rather than pursue the highly implausible and losing arguments that a client may be determined to press ahead with?  With so many millions of the church’s money funding such weak argumentation and tactics, you have to wonder when Beers would just say to his client that, as a member of the church, he just doesn’t want to spend down the treasury any more? 

You also have to pity the poor associates who will have the career-enhancing experience of numerous, multi-jurisdictional losses for several years running, the longer the early part of their practices remains captive to the PB’s whims. (All Hail, Martha Stewart!)

By the way, does anyone know if there is an official transcript of the proceedings of this unfortunate House?

[71] Posted by Seen-Too-Much on 09-20-2008 at 07:07 AM • top

I have been told that Bishop Stacey Sauls was an attorney before ordination to the diaconate.

[72] Posted by garyec on 09-21-2008 at 06:40 PM • top

Too bad he changed professions!

[73] Posted by Cennydd on 09-21-2008 at 06:50 PM • top
[74] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 09-21-2008 at 07:39 PM • top

“Plaider” does not mean “sue” all by itself (if that’s what mousestalker means in the translation to French above).  You have to give the direction of the “pleading.” 
“Plaider contre” (to plead against) would be clearer if you want to say “sue.”  “Poursuivre” (to pursue) also works:  “poursuivre une église en justice pour obtenir des dommages et intérêts.”  Or “intenter un procès à une église.”

[75] Posted by celindascott on 09-21-2008 at 08:48 PM • top

#72
True, and the Diocese of Lexington still pays for his licensure in GA.  He hasn’t changed professions!

[76] Posted by evan miller on 09-22-2008 at 05:48 AM • top

#76, thank you. my french is rather rusty

I serve the God of Truth. Who do you serve?

[77] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 09-22-2008 at 06:57 AM • top

It took me two years to have my address corrected on the Church Publishing Clergy Finder Directory. In less than one week, Bp. Duncan’s name is gone. https://www.ecdplus.org/

[78] Posted by Tina Lockett on 09-27-2008 at 02:24 PM • 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.