Total visitors right now: 88

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

OPEN THREAD: 35 Bishops Voted to Uphold the Canons of The Episcopal Church—Who Are They?

Thursday, September 18, 2008 • 6:58 pm

It’s been a whole couple of hours since the vote to attempt to depose Bishop Duncan.

If you have emailed your bishop asking how he or she voted, would you please comment in this thread, and also update your comments when he or she replies to you?

Each and every bishop needs to receive emails asking how he voted.

And remember—it’s reported that the three bishops of Virginia voted not to depose, so there will be some surprises out there.

135 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook

Who is to say that those 30-some-odd may not face the same things in less than 10 years?

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

Bishop Robertson of South Dakota was a non-attender, if this Sept. 12th post at the Diocesan website is true:

Tomorrow, I will Celebrate the wedding of the Reverend Canon Ed Harnsberger and his fiance, Margaret,  at St. Michael and All Angels Episcopal Church in Tuscon, AZ…Please offer prayers for Ed and Margaret tomorrow, September 13…I will return late Sunday evening.  I will be in the office all of next week, preparing for the Diocesan Convention…

[2] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 09-18-2008 at 07:27 PM • top

When will the list be available of the ones who voted against deposition and the ones who voted for it?

[3] Posted by BishopOfSaintJames on 09-18-2008 at 07:38 PM • top

The Bishop of Bethlehem, ++Paul Marshall, refers to items he had not known about that influenced his and others’ votes today—they had been prepared not to vote for the deposition until they learned them.  Does anyone know what they were?  The article in Episcopal Cafe has more details than others I have read.—Doing some Googling this morning,  I learned that Bp A. Donald Davies and the Bishop of Ecuador (whose name I forget) had been deposed in 1993 and 2004 respectively for “abandonment of communion” using the same canons, and for encouraging people to leave TEC, if I understood correctly.  What I did not understand was why the shelter diocese Bishop Davies had been allowed by PECUSA to form at the time was not a long-term answer.

[4] Posted by celindascott on 09-18-2008 at 07:48 PM • top

As requested, I e-mailed Eugene Sutton, Diocese of MD, asking how he voted.  Will keep you posted on his response.

[5] Posted by NANA on 09-18-2008 at 08:05 PM • top


At some point the roll call results will come out—but I think it’s very important that our bishops know that we are all Most Interested in how they voted.

[6] Posted by Sarah on 09-18-2008 at 08:08 PM • top

Here are statements etc. re: some bishops quoted over at Episcope.  +Lillibridge seems to have waffled?

Bishop Dorsey Henderson of Upper South Carolina is available for phone interviews.  “This is one of the most somber, sober experiences I’ve had in the House of Bishops.  It is a time for all of us to be praying for each other—especially for Bishop Duncan and the Episcopalians of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.”

Bishop Peter Lee of Virginia is available for phone interviews.

Bishop Gary Lillibridge of West Texas
“As difficult as this decision is for me and many others in our Church, it is important to realize that the decision in the House today was not based on the theological convictions of Bishop Duncan, but rather on the evidence presented regarding statements and actions concerning moves to take the Diocese of Pittsburgh out of the Episcopal Church.”.

Bishop James Mathes of San Diego
“Today’s decision was difficult and emotional but a necessary action to care for the order of the Church, the people of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, and the collegiality of the House of Bishops.”

Bishop Porter Taylor of Western North Carolina
“Our decisions today were very difficult and came out of our deep love for our Church, a commitment to honor our ordination vows, and a desire to strengthen the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.”

[7] Posted by The_Elves on 09-18-2008 at 08:15 PM • top

During the post-vote press conference held by the American Anglican Council, Bishop Peter Beckwith said he recalled the following “no” votes…the list is unofficial and he does not recall whether some other likely “no’s” voted no——such as Louisiana.  It is a preliminary count.

Dallas suffragan
Western Kansas
Central Florida
South Carolina
Upper South Carolina
SW Florida
New Jersey
Northern Indiana
Virginia coadjutor
Virginia suffragan
Rhode Island
NW Texas
Eastern Tennessee
Western Louisiana
West Texas
Rio Grande (Bill Frey acting bishop)

[8] Posted by George Conger on 09-18-2008 at 08:22 PM • top

I am so proud and thankful for these honorable bishops.

[9] Posted by oscewicee on 09-18-2008 at 08:23 PM • top

Thank you George Conger!!

[10] Posted by The_Elves on 09-18-2008 at 08:26 PM • top

Wow, good on Easton - that’s a pretty revisionist diocese by and large.  Bishop might pay a price for this vote… pray!

[11] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 09-18-2008 at 08:28 PM • top

I am assuming that Bps. Iker and Ackerman were not in attendance, since their sees do not appear on the “No” list.  Can anyone enlighten us?

[12] Posted by rwightman+ on 09-18-2008 at 08:29 PM • top

Perhaps the Diocese of Fort Worth should move its convention up to say .... this Saturday….

This has reached the point where it is almost funny ....I said almost ....

[13] Posted by Rich on 09-18-2008 at 08:30 PM • top

Sarah, thanks for your response to my question on the other thread about the roll call vote.  Can you—or anyone else—answer my question about what ++Paul Marshall was referring to in my #3 above?  Would also like to know about the use of the same canons to depose bishops Davies and Larrea in 1993 and 2004 respectively (they had encouraged their flocks to leave TEC at that time).  The PB says they were; is that correct?  Also—there’s an article about those bishops and ECUSA on the St. Peter’s Anglican Church website saying that the National Church approved “the formation of a province within a province, the Diocese of the Missionary District of the Americas, as an institutional shelter for members who felt dispossessed.”  I can’t tell from the article what didn’t work about that.  And I can’t figure out how it led to a petition to Bp Benitez to organize a mission for the disinherited in 1991 (since ECUSA had already allowed the province within a province) and why Bp Benitez refused.

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

#12, Suzanne Gill, the Communications Director of Fort Worth posted a comment here yesterday confirming +Iker was not attending the HoB

[15] Posted by The_Elves on 09-18-2008 at 08:34 PM • top

13- Rich, one is left to wonder how long it will be before the depositions of +Iker and +Ackerman are announced.
Here is the TEC version of the Bp. Larrea story written at the time.  He was inhibited, and on his way to deposition, in 2004 (for financial misdeeds in the late 90s and early 2000s) when he tried to declare his diocese (in Ecuador) independent of TEC- this sounds more like the rogue bishop in Zimbabwe than anything remotely related to +Bob Duncan.

[16] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-18-2008 at 08:40 PM • top

Presumably Bishop Beckwith (who gave the press conference) was also on the list of those voting No!

[17] Posted by The_Elves on 09-18-2008 at 08:40 PM • top

Glad to see all three of my bishops (Virginia) were amongst the nos.

[18] Posted by Josh Oxley on 09-18-2008 at 08:44 PM • top

Obviously we don’t have the full list yet, but from George Conger’s partial & preliminary list, if you compare it with Sarah’s “Windsorish Bishops” list, it appears that we have close to 100% of the Windsorish Bishops taking a stand.  Quite miraculous, I’d say.

[19] Posted by The_Elves on 09-18-2008 at 08:51 PM • top

Yes, The_Elves, #17, I KNOW that my bishop, +P.H. Beckwith, voted no.

[20] Posted by KevinBabb on 09-18-2008 at 08:52 PM • top

the report from the HoB meeting in 1993.  Actually, it is worth a read for historical content and some amusing similarities to the present.
What it has to say about Davies is:

The bishops adopted a resolution giving consent to the deposition of retired Bishop Donald Davies, formerly of Dallas. In 1992, Davies voluntarily abandoned the Episcopal Church in order to form a new denomination, the Episcopal Missionary Church.

Which makes it evident he was involved in forming a late model Continuing Church, not some province within a province.
Apparently Bp. Larrea was held in higher esteem in 1993- TEC was planning to give him his own province-

Province 9 moves toward autonomy

In addition to celebrating the anniversary of Anglicanism in Panama, bishops concentrated on the movement of dioceses in Central and South America toward forming autonomous provinces within the Anglican Communion. Mexico, for example, is in the final steps of the process and will become a province by next year.

Bishop Neptali Larrea of Ecuador, president of Province 9, reported that the autonomy process was “necessary for us so that we will be able to speak with our own voice. Sometimes [the Episcopal Church in the United States] deals with issues and realities that are not really our issues and realities,” he said.

Correct me if I am wrong, but TEC still has a province 9.  You don’t think for a minute, do you, that the financial mismanagement charges and bishop Larrea’s deposition and then desire to move out of TEC in 2004 had anything to do with Province IX NOT becoming an independent province (as, apparently, promised in 1993)in 1994?
  And, just for the sake of history….
    Before Ubuntu
    Before Indaba
    There was Kanuga….does this sound familiar? 

In moving the house towards its agenda, Presiding Bishop Edmond L. Browning reminded the bishops that since the 1991 General Convention in Phoenix had exposed some deep rifts in the house, the bishops had “made a covenant to be in relationship in a different way.” He quoted from a statement at the 1992 special session of the house at the Kanuga Conference Center in North Carolina when the bishops said, “We resolve to define ourselves primarily as a community of prayer, worship and biblical and theological reflection in which to give and receive one another’s gifts, and to seek God’s will for our lives and our work as the servants of the church.”

In keeping with the style they developed at Kanuga, the bishops met around 15 small tables for prayer, Bible study and discussion.

[21] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-18-2008 at 08:56 PM • top

Thanks, Tjmcmahon.  What about Bp. Davies in 1993 and the use of that canon?  was his inhibition more like that of Bishop Duncan’s?  I don’t have access to TEC’s account of that whole story, just the account I mentioned above on the St. Peter’s website.  I’d also like very much to know what happened to the idea of the “province within a province,”
which ECUSA had approved.

[22] Posted by celindascott on 09-18-2008 at 08:56 PM • top

What happened in 1991 that was so dramatic?

[23] Posted by AndrewA on 09-18-2008 at 09:00 PM • top

Let me shed some light on the Davies deposition.  Bishop Davies went to be the Bishop of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe under then PB Ed Browning with the stipulation that Bp. Davies would not accept any women priests under his authority and when the first priestess arrived,he, Davies would resign.  Browning sent the first priestess and Davies was gone.  Out of spite, Browning brought charges of abandonment against Bp. Davies and the rest is history.

[24] Posted by Dallas Priest on 09-18-2008 at 09:07 PM • top

So Schori, Griswald, and Browning were all no good…

When is the last “orthodox” Presiding Bishop of [P]ECUSA?

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

A special acknowledgement for Bishop Gerry Wolfe. Thank you

[26] Posted by garyec on 09-18-2008 at 09:11 PM • top

Thanks again, Tjm.  Province 9 certainly does still exist:  the dioceses include Colombia,
Dominican Republic, Central Ecuador, Litoral Ecuador, Honduras, Puerto Rico, and Venezuela.  Are you saying the financial mismanagement charges against Bishop Larrea were trumped up because he wanted an autonomous province?  Please forgive me if I’ve misread you.—About Bishop Davies: certainly does sound like indaba groups at Kanuga discussing the Bp Davies challenge at Kanuga in 1991.  Sounds to me as though the result was the permission given by ECUSA to form the “province within a province”—the “Diocese of the Missionary District of the Americas”—with the appointment of Bp Davies as bishop.  What’s wrong with that?  Sounds like a workable solution to me, a good result of indaba.  What the St. Peter’s article goes on to say was that “remaining within the system would not bring hope, change, nor solution.”  There’s more to the story on the site, but I can’t figure out what happened exactly.  Was Bishop Davies not satisfied with being in a “safe place,” a “shelter” as bishop of the Missionary District of the Americas?”  Doesn’t sound as though I’ll find the link you mention above to what happened in 1993 at the HOB amusing at all.  Why would the HOB reverse what ECUSA had decided in 1991?

[27] Posted by celindascott on 09-18-2008 at 09:13 PM • top

was +Johnson from West Tennessee there?

[28] Posted by john1 on 09-18-2008 at 09:14 PM • top

Celinda, whatever else is the case, the report I quote and link above makes it clear that Bp. Davies was deposed after he had left TEC and helped to form “The Episcopal Missionary Church” which, the article made clear, is (or was) no part of TEC.  It sounds like Dallas Priest has more details than I do- I was not paying much attention to TEC politics in those days. 
  In any case, from TEC’s own publications, it appears that neither the deposition of Bp. Larrea or the deposition of Bp. Davies is in any way, shape or form related to the circumstances surrounding Bishop Duncan’s case. 
  Enough about this, I think.  Web research on this is simple enough- just type in their names and “episcopal church” and you get plenty of hits in addition to the ones I cited in 16 and 21.
  By the way, does anyone know if there is a Common Cause presence yet in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan?

[29] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-18-2008 at 09:24 PM • top

Thanks, Dallas Priest.  Although I’m glad I know from the St. Peter’s website that “soon after a large international meeting in Fort Worth in May 1989”  (the Episcopal Synod of America) ECUSA approved the formation of a “province within a province,” the Diocese of the Missionary District of the Americas, to be “an institutional shelter for members who felt dispossessed” and with Bishop Davies as its bishop, and that (for reasons unknown to me) that “province within a province” solution did not last, the charges of abandonment of communion against Bp Davies had nothing to do with that:  it was because he quit his post as Bishop of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe when a woman priest was put under his jurisdiction, if I understand you correctly.  Not sure whether you meant “out of spite” to refer to Bishop Browning’s sending of the woman priest in 1993 to be under Davies’ jurisdiction, or whether you meant the spite to refer to Bp Browning’s bringing charges of abandonment when Davies’ quit ( citing the same canon used today to depose Bishop Duncan, giving the PB and those bringing charges against Bishop Duncan a precedent to follow).

[30] Posted by celindascott on 09-18-2008 at 09:29 PM • top

I am not sure about upper MI…one resource that many forget about is  It’s a hodge-podge of jurisdictions, including Common Cause, but has helped many.

[31] Posted by TXThurifer on 09-18-2008 at 09:32 PM • top

AndrewA (#25),
The last conservative/traditional/orthodox PB was the Rt. Rev. John M. Allin, serving from 1973 to 1985; he had previously served as bishop of Mississippi.  His time saw the ordination of women (which he did not personally accept) and also the 1979 Prayer Book. 
  His successor was Edmund Browning.

[32] Posted by Dick Mitchell on 09-18-2008 at 09:33 PM • top

I’ll be interested to see how +Howard of Florida voted.

[33] Posted by scribbler on 09-18-2008 at 09:37 PM • top

The Lead has this from +Paul Marshall of Bethlehem:

And this from Bishop Paul Marshall, Bethlehem

A statement from Paul Marshall, Bishop of Bethlehem, correcting some misinformation in the blogosphere:

There is already a huge amount of misinformation and, sadly, disinformation on the web, so I will make a few points about today and leave you in peace as I go to dinner with my colleagues at the new church center in SLC.

Bishop Duncan’s deposition was not approved because of what he _might_ do in October, but on account of what he has done heretofore. That was the only basis on which the PB, the Review Committee, or the House had any business proceeding.

The House of Bishops did not have the choice to say, oh, well, he should have a full-blown trial (which is actually more damaging to the defendant). Priests and lay people in Pittsburgh filed the complaint that his actions came under the meaning of the canon by abandoning the discipline of the church. We could act only on what the complainants in Pittsburgh laid before us.

Bishop Duncan was invited to come, with any witnesses and other evidence he might wish to produce, to the hearing last night and the sessions today. He could have easily purged himself of his abandonment of communion, but chose not to. I believe this attests to his basic integrity, by the way.

The House upheld the rulings of the Chancellor, Parliamentarian, and the PB, that the canons were being appropriately applied. It was deeply uncomfortable for me to observe people who have over the last decade or so personally behaved with a somewhat remarkable flexibility about the rules of the church’s life suddenly emerge as strict constructionists of certain canons. I wanted to rise to the mic and discuss the Commerce Clause with them, but did not feel it would add anything to an essentially ecclesial matter. That day may come, however.

As to the canon in question (IV-9), it describes several sets of ways one may be judged to have abandoned “the doctrine, discipline OR worship of this church.” None of those ways require joining another church (which Robert Duncan claims to have done as of this morning). In a later section of the canon, we learn Abandonment can consist of as small an act as performing episcopal acts for churches not in communion with TEC. Had the complainants addressed that issue, of course, the case would have been even stronger.

The House, I think, has eight lawyer-bishops in it, and certainly contains many very sharp people in terms of our history and theology, so it would be very unfair to allege, as one colleague has publicly done this evening, that the proceedings of the last 24 hours were shallow or misinformed. While I heard things I disagreed with or thought ill-founded, I find that the bishops here are all people of considerable depth, and many of them have great breadth of learning as well.

The PB’s leadership was, consistent with her entire public ministry since her election, flawless. She allowed no space for anything vindictive or self-pitying, and kept us focussed on our task. I was deeply impressed by how she handled herself at Lambeth, and am even more grateful for how she conducted herself during these days.

I really will stop now. I will see many of you next week and we can discuss things further in a more dialogical way.


[34] Posted by The_Elves on 09-18-2008 at 09:47 PM • top

Oops, this was the update from +Marshall I meant to post, all 4 PA bishops voted YES:

Paul Marshall, Bishop of Bethlehem, writes, in a preliminary letter to the Dioceses:

  The House of Bishops voted at about 3:15 today to authorize the Presiding Bishop to carry out the deposition.

  I will have a good deal more to say about this at our clergy retreat and diocesan convention. Like many bishops, I came here willing to have the matter postponed, but information revealed last night, along with other factors discussed in this morning’s session, led to all four Pennsylvania bishops voting yes at the roll-call vote, which I am sure someone will publish.

  It is a matter for some rejoicing that a house that described itself as “dysfunctional” in 1991 carried itself through this deeply-felt matter w/o any acrimony or even raised voices. Strong positions were taken on both sides, but with respect, charity, and restraint.

  The four PA bishops also met this morning to determine ways we can support the remaining Episcopalians in Pittsburgh, and I will keep you posted on those developments as well.


[35] Posted by The_Elves on 09-18-2008 at 09:49 PM • top

AndrewA #25 and Dick Mitchell # 32—I once saw a membership graph of TEC.  Although PB Allin saw his share of controversy, with women’s ordination and BCP revision, the membership held pretty steady.  The membership decline started with PB Browning and has continued ever since.

[36] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 09-18-2008 at 09:49 PM • top

Other Bishops’ quoted at the Lead include Dean Wolfe of Kansas:

A statement from Dean Wolfe, Bishop of Kansas:

  The House of Bishops made a decisive determination today that Bishop Robert Duncan has abandoned the Communion of The Episcopal Church. The evidence presented to the House of Bishops was meticulously assembled and irrefutable to me and to a wide majority of the House. It is never a happy task to render such a judgment, but as bishops it is our solemn responsibility to protect the Unity, Doctrine and Discipline of our church, and we have done so. I ask that you keep the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and the Duncan family in your prayers.

[37] Posted by The_Elves on 09-18-2008 at 09:50 PM • top

#33, I can almost assure you he(lawyer Howard) voted as the PB would want him…..and that would be a yes…...
I am so thankful 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..

[38] Posted by AnglicanRon on 09-18-2008 at 09:53 PM • top

Wow. #34’s quote of +Marshall is quite interesting.

The PB’s leadership was, consistent with her entire public ministry since her election, flawless.

Looks like the movement to canonize KJS has started early.  She’s now claimed to be flawless—perfect.  I thought only Christ was perfect.  Me, I need to repent daily if not hourly.


[39] Posted by Karen B. on 09-18-2008 at 09:58 PM • top

Bishop Howard of Florida has deposed so many priests that this should be a slam dunk for him.
How many Bishops have been deposed? Is this the first sitting Bishop to be deposed? How many votes were required to depose +Duncan legally?
I think I will wear black on Sunday ...

[40] Posted by martin5 on 09-18-2008 at 10:00 PM • top

What is this “Commerce Clause” that is spoken of?  \

[41] Posted by AndrewA on 09-18-2008 at 10:03 PM • top

Was that a sarcastic reference to the US Consitution or to something in the TEC Consitution and Canons?

And what rules does would-be bishop Paul think that the likes of Lawrence and Love have broken?

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

Apologies for misrepresenting what the PB said in her Sept. 12 letter about reasons for bringing up the deposition of Bishop Duncan yesterday.  Her citation of the cases of Bishop Donald Davies in 1993 and Bishop Larrea in 2004 did not have to do with the use of Canon IV.9.  It had to do with finding a precedent for not requiring a majority of all those entitled to vote.  Those depositions “were cast at interim meetings of the House at which no account was taken of the absent members and, indeed, less than a majority of all the voting members of the House appear to have been present.”

[43] Posted by celindascott on 09-18-2008 at 10:14 PM • top

Dallas Priest (#24), as I recall after Bishop Davies inished his stint as Bishop of the Convocation in Europe, he returned to Fort Worth, where he served for a couple of years as the first executive director of the Episcopal Synod of America.  During that time, he was still a bishop in good standing. It wasn’t until later that left ECUSA and joined (and I believe helped form) the Episcopal Missionary Church, one of the “continuing” Anglican churches, after which he was deposed by the House of Bishop.

I also think that in Bishop Davies’ case, the deposition canon was used correctly and as intended. He had in fact left ECUSA, and he had joined a denomination that was not part of the Anglican Communion.  The deposition merely confirmed what nobody—least of all Bishop Davies—denied: that he was no longer acting as a Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States.

There may have been an issue as to whether they had a sufficient majority to depose him, but since the time for Bishop Davies to object (and why would he have wanted to?) has long since passed, that issue is now moot as far as his deposition is concerned.

The use of the deposition procedure in Bishop Duncan’s case is more problematic since he hadn’t already left TEC, and since it involves the deposition of a sitting diocesan bishop, not a retired bishop like Davies (or Cox).

[44] Posted by Paul Powers on 09-18-2008 at 10:15 PM • top

#32 - So, since 1985, the PB seat has been, in the Roman phraseology “sede vacante”

[45] Posted by mike458 on 09-18-2008 at 10:25 PM • top

Here’s this from the vaunted Gary Lillibridge:

Bishop Gary Lillibridge of West Texas said “As difficult as this decision is for me and many others in our Church, it is important to realize that the decision ... was not based on the theological convictions of Bishop Duncan, but rather on the evidence presented regarding statements and actions concerning moves to take the Diocese of Pittsburgh out of the Episcopal Church.”

Tell me another, Gar’. Looks like the foremost Camp Allen bishop caved.

[46] Posted by robroy on 09-18-2008 at 10:29 PM • top

Who are the 4 bishops in PA who voted yes?  Since I assume Bennison of PA wasn’t voting, who are the 4 yes votes? just curious

[47] Posted by RealityCheck on 09-18-2008 at 10:33 PM • top

Bp. Beckwith told me that +Quincy wss not present.

[48] Posted by KevinBabb on 09-18-2008 at 10:36 PM • top

The Very Coolest Thing about Bishop Marshall’s statement is that he’s been avidly and furiously reading the blogs for the past three or four hours with his eyes, apparently, bugging out with rage.

Good times.  ; > )

[49] Posted by Sarah on 09-18-2008 at 10:37 PM • top

VOL has an excellent early account, naming those who voted against the deposition of ++Duncan:

“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.”

That article also says that ++Henderson changed his vote to NO at the very last minute.

[50] Posted by Paula on 09-18-2008 at 10:40 PM • top

Andrew A (#41) Bp. Marshall’s reference to discussing the Commerce Clause had to do with the enjoyment of polite but scholarly discussions of how parts of the US Constitution (like the Commerce Clause) have been interpreted since 1789.  Incidentally, 1789 marks the beginning of the Episcopal Church in America in the sense of its formal organization.  Bp. Marshall was a well-known professor of liturgy before his election as bishop of Bethlehem.  He’s written an excellent book, in my opinion, about the orthodoxy of the first American bishop, Samuel Seabury, his lively faith, and his insistence that the first American Book of Common Prayer reflect the orthodox faith (the Nicene Creed, certain references to soteriology, etc) in the face of opposition from the liberals of his day who wanted the Prayer Book to appeal to deists like Benjamin Franklin and John Jay.  (Title of the book: One, Catholic, and Apostolic_).

[51] Posted by celindascott on 09-18-2008 at 10:46 PM • top

Here is a thought for everyone who has been through the ordination process and what a very long journey it is with good reason: so that the Church can raise up those called to ordain ministry.  One starts with their own Rector/Vicar, vestry, Bishop, COM, Standing Comm., seminary, etc, etc, etc.  Years of work, blood, sweat and gnashing of teeth with many, many folks weighing in on what they discern. 

Now all it takes to strip one of Holy Orders is one quick vote by a group of folks who, for the most part have to rely on others for information about you.  Seems to be some inequity in it all.

[52] Posted by Dallas Priest on 09-18-2008 at 11:07 PM • top

I am glad to see ++Howe stood firm in the faith.

He has become one of my favourite ‘still in the dungeon’ Bishops over the last year or so.

[53] Posted by Bo on 09-18-2008 at 11:16 PM • top

+Lillibridge caved…I wonder if Christ Church San Antonio is concerned???  They’re one of the very few holdouts.

[54] Posted by TXThurifer on 09-18-2008 at 11:37 PM • top

You guys should go read the “opposition” blogs.  The joy that they feel is palpable.  Don’t mind the statements to the contrary.  This is a good time to be a reappraiserKJS is having a good day.  I pray for Bishop Duncan, but more for Bishop Iker, it’s like standing in line for the guillotine.  Once your Bishop’s head has been disconnected from his body, then you’ve got to know that yours will be, as well.  This is all playing out as it should, though.  Y’all need to know that there’s no place left for you in TEC.  Write your Bishop and get out.

[55] Posted by trooper on 09-19-2008 at 12:46 AM • top

Regarding the canons and the failure to follow them - I remember talking with several different lawyers on a number of separate occasions about contracts, and they each said something along the lines of, “If you can’t trust the other person’s handshake, it doesn’t matter what the contract says.”

For many decades now, the Episcopal Church has been treating the Bible and its own canons with a very loose hand, as the zeitgeist took hold of the leadership.  Compromises were made.  Certain points of doctrine were by common consent (often silently given) ignored.  Various leaders fudged the canons - not by much, but still not a strict observance.  The greatest sin among Episcopal clergy has been “a lack of collegiality.” 

The “progressives” know what they want.  They have learned how to twist Scripture into saying what they want it to say, so it is not surprising that they can twist the canons just as adroitly.

Someday they (and indeed all of us) will face a judge who is truly impartial and whose knowledge of the truth is beyond question.  We who trust Jesus will have an Advocate; it is likely all they will have is an Accuser.

[56] Posted by AnglicanXn on 09-19-2008 at 01:50 AM • top

This is a sad day in the Episcopal church.  I do a podcast every week, but this week will be hard indeed.  to see such a Godly man go down like he was the worst heretic in the church is a travesty. We need to pray and to unite.  to show old man Duncan that his sacrifice was not in vain!

[57] Posted by anglicangazette on 09-19-2008 at 01:51 AM • top

Bishop Iker released the following statement on the vote:

<a href=“”>Bishop Iker comments on action against Bishop Robert Duncan<a>

Thanks to my Bishop. God bless him!

[58] Posted by BillB on 09-19-2008 at 02:07 AM • top

So the HoB et al. voted to support the PB to depose Bishop Duncan. So What! He now gets off the sinking ship of TEC and climbs aboard a properly captained ship. Rejoice!

[59] Posted by iceworm on 09-19-2008 at 03:53 AM • top

Y’all be careful in what you write about +Lillibridge.  His words are certainly waffle-y and shameful.

But Conger reports that he voted NO.
I can’t figure it out…

[60] Posted by Karen B. on 09-19-2008 at 04:37 AM • top

Judging from the “uncomfortable” feeling Bishop Marshall experienced during the meeting- it must have been <i> divisive. <i>

[61] Posted by Nevin on 09-19-2008 at 05:05 AM • top

Good luck, y’all.

Is this a Battle of Lepanto situation, or an “I sent you a jeep, a boat, and a helicopter - what do you expect?” situation?  It does not look to me that there is any course of action that can reasonably be expected to halt the progress of your top leadership in purging committed opponents of non-Nicene Christianity in general and sodomy in particular.  Where is the ledge on this slope?

[62] Posted by Ed the Roman on 09-19-2008 at 06:27 AM • top

[51]: Does one tumultuous year as a professor at Yale Divinity School make Paul Marshall a “well-known professor of liturgy?” I’m not so sure.

[63] Posted by Anglicat on 09-19-2008 at 06:38 AM • top

In light of these despicable actions, I can take a very small amount of comfort in learning that my bishop, +Dabney Smith (SW FL) was among the no votes.  I will be very interested to hear his comments when we meet for diocesan convention in a few weeks.

[64] Posted by MikeSWFL on 09-19-2008 at 06:55 AM • top

Would somebody please tell me who are the four bishops in PA that Marshall refers to?

[65] Posted by RealityCheck on 09-19-2008 at 06:55 AM • top

It is very telling that the House of Bishops has let +Spong and others off the hook for matters concerning faith, but responded with such vengence in a matter of less importance, church discipline.

This was a case where many had decided a long time ago that +Bob Duncan had to go. The PB and chancellor engineered the way to make it happen even if it broke the rules of the house, the canons and Roberts Rules of Order. It would appear that no one is safe because laws of due process, protection of the accused are violated in order to get to the result desired by the leadership.

A very sad day for the Episcopal Church and a sadder comment about the TEC House of Bishops. Their actions speak volumes to the rest of us.

On the brighter side is the respect that I (and probably many others) have for the 36 bishops who stood up against this action and voted “NO.”

[66] Posted by garyec on 09-19-2008 at 07:18 AM • top

So - it’s been done by recorded vote.  We can now see who stands where.
Instead of the list of NO votes, let’s list the YES votes and discover exactly WHO (and what dioceses) are the 88 (now former-bishops) who have been counted (consistently in GC, etc.) as against Scriptural Christianity and for unscriptureal sexual license and disorientation whose sees are now vacant and have become (dark and empty) MISSION TERRITORIES and need to be evangelized by the new reformed Anglican Province of North America?

[67] Posted by Theodora on 09-19-2008 at 07:35 AM • top

As BISHOP (their petty attempts to depose him are in vain) Duncan wrote in his statement after the faux deposition by the faux church body, the reformation of THE CHURCH in the West (that includes all denominations and the RC - that also needs some serious house-cleaning) is unstoppable.  The gates of hell shall not prevail against the TRUE CHURCH!

[68] Posted by Theodora on 09-19-2008 at 07:41 AM • top

Anglicat, I’ve not heard anyone dispute Marshall’s reputation as a liturgical scholar; there is a 2-3 volume set of his history of the liturgy available from the Church Publishing Company.  The book I referred to above, however, got a bad review from a liberal scholar who was not interested in his defense of Seabury’s orthodoxy.

[69] Posted by celindascott on 09-19-2008 at 07:47 AM • top

Where is the ledge on this slope?

I don’t think there is one, Ed the Roman - thanks for the good wishes.  I am so grateful for the bishops who said no, and I think it took a great deal of courage to do so in the church as it is “led” today. But I think TEC is now in a full-tilt slide into ... irrelevancy. And I am reading the Catholic catechism given to me by a friend and the books I have on Orthodoxy and wondering where to turn.

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

I wonder how Her Squidness will punish the 35 that voted “No”?  So after she’s done with Iker, who will she go after next?

[71] Posted by Gayle on 09-19-2008 at 08:24 AM • top

What a huge disappointment +Lillebridge is. I had thought better of him.

[72] Posted by oscewicee on 09-19-2008 at 08:24 AM • top

celindascott, there is a post here by the Curmudgeon which has a history of many of the earlier depositions for “abandonment”, including +Davies, together with a lot of links that you might find useful.

RealityCheck (#47): The four bishops from Pennsylvania voting to depose would be:

+Paul Marshall, Bethlehem
+John Croneberger (Assistant), Bethlehem
+Nathan Baxter, Central Pennsylvania
+Sean Rowe, Northwestern Pennsylvania

As someone else noted, +Bennison of Pennsylvania is inhibited, and so could not vote.

[73] Posted by Chancellor on 09-19-2008 at 08:42 AM • top

Bishop MacPherson did vote no and supported South Carolina’s motion.  His statement is up at my blog

[74] Posted by Brad Drell on 09-19-2008 at 09:20 AM • top

Celinda: [69] No biggie, but I’d be willing to wager that if you polled Anglican priests about “well-known liturgical scholars,” you’d likely hear them mention Gregory Dix, Aidan Kavanaugh, Dennis Michno, and Alexander Schmemann, but not Paul Marshall.

[75] Posted by Anglicat on 09-19-2008 at 09:24 AM • top

Congratulations to the Anglican Communion Institute and Mark McCall for arming these bishops with solid reasoning with respect to the constitutional issues at stake in 815’s actions here.  No doubt their efforts to document the theological and canonical issues gave confidence that opposition was not merely private judgment but well grounded in transcendent values, and contributed to the backbone manifested here.

Thanks, Mark, and thanks to the ACI.

[76] Posted by Craig Uffman on 09-19-2008 at 09:27 AM • top

Timothy Fountain, no surprise on the Easton vote.  +Shand and +Duncan were friends that go way back, albeit their relationship, like Duncan’s with +Lee, has probably been strained by current events.  At least Shand did the right thing here. When Duncan was consecrated, Shand was still a priest, but I would imagine Duncan was one of Shand’s co-consecrators, or at least was present at the service. 

Satire, but Marshall should really lay off smoking the crack.  I’d certainly refer to Madame Squid’s “leadership” as “aggressive”, but I sure as hell wouldn’t call it “flawless”.

[77] Posted by Passing By on 09-19-2008 at 09:32 AM • top

No argument, Anglicat.  But Marshall has a special interest in liturgical history in the American church, and Dix was British, and writing in the 1940s.  Not everyone agrees with Dix’s take on things—there were changes he wanted to make in the service of Holy Communion to eliminate much of Cranmer’s influence and to make it much more like the earlier Roman Catholic liturgy. —In any event, I’m not pitting one scholar against another:  I’m saying Marshall is one of them, and I haven’t heard anyone criticize his knowledge of or presentation of liturgical history.

[78] Posted by celindascott on 09-19-2008 at 09:33 AM • top

I’m sure for her encore, KJS would love to oust Bishop Love, because of his objection to this, his attendance at GAFCON, and his refusal to ordain gays. 

Episcopal slaves, pony up…


[79] Posted by Passing By on 09-19-2008 at 09:35 AM • top

I wonder how those who have voted ‘No’ against the deposition of Bishop Duncan on the charge of ‘abandonment of communion,’ would reconcile their canonical actions of deposition and/or inhibition of clergy with the same charge of ‘abandoment’ in their own dioceses? Clergy who align and subscribe to the same theological and ecclesial foundations and principles of catholic faith and order as those held by Bishop Duncan [and other bishops], and who likewise took disassociative and disaffiliated actions with respect to TEC.

[80] Posted by WillyBill+ on 09-19-2008 at 09:37 AM • top

#46, #53 and #72- before rushing to judgment of +Lillibridge based upon the snippet quoted, you might want to consider the possibility that it was taken completely out of context. It is reported (accurately I believe) that he voted “No”. In doing so, the outcome would certainly be “difficult” for him as for the rest of us. I think most of us would also agree that his analysis that the decision of those voting yes was due to +Duncan’s actions encouraging his diocese to leave TEC rather then his theology, however misplaced, unfair, unwarranted, etc., etc., etc. is probably accurate. Think about it.

[81] Posted by Doubting Thomas on 09-19-2008 at 09:38 AM • top

Chancellor, I discovered Curmudgeon’s blog yesterday and spent some time on the part you mention.  Today I went through it looking for a commentary he had on the church’s defending itself against “erroneous and strange doctrine” now worded as defending itself against “doctrine contrary to the teaching of the Episcopal Church” and I couldn’t find it.  That coupled with a clause in a constitution proposal I read a month ago (lay persons could be dismissed without cause) and the statement that the church should be treated like a corporation with a product to sell was frightening:  an outspoken lay person who although polite, honest, accurate, filling his/her appointed or elected duties, etc. could on those grounds be dismissed for disagreeing with the rector or bishop on some doctrinal change:  “s/he makes us look bad,” or “s/he is off message,” 

[82] Posted by celindascott on 09-19-2008 at 09:39 AM • top

The Anglican Communion Institute has posted a response to the Deposition Vote here.   Chris Seitz tells me that Mark McCall will post today a response to the Progressives of Pittsburgh to his earlier work on hierarchy.

[83] Posted by Craig Uffman on 09-19-2008 at 09:51 AM • top

It was deeply uncomfortable for me to observe people who have over the last decade or so personally behaved with a somewhat remarkable flexibility about the rules of the church’s life suddenly emerge as strict constructionists of certain canons.

The pot is calling the kettle black! grin

[84] Posted by Piedmont on 09-19-2008 at 09:54 AM • top

celindascott (#82), I believe the post you describe you looked for, but couldn’t find, is the first part of the one I linked to earlier. He describes the quandary that current clergy are placed in with the changes to the ordination vows made by the 1979 revision of the BCP. And I agree with you that those changes become positively disturbing when coupled with the changes to the Canons proposed for GC 2009.

Craig Uffman (#83), I understand that Mr. McCall has sent his response to ACI and that they should have it up any moment now.

[85] Posted by Chancellor on 09-19-2008 at 10:04 AM • top

Glad to see all three of my bishops (Virginia) were amongst the nos.

Lee, Jones, and the illegitimate bishop Shannon Johnston have to be careful not to undermine their vindictive lawsuits against biblical Anglican Christians.

A vote to depose Bishop Duncan for abandoning the communion of the corrupt Episcopalians means there is some kind of division.  Can’t have that.  Nope.  No division here.  No abandonment.  No deposition.  All one big happy.

[86] Posted by Chazaq on 09-19-2008 at 10:34 AM • top

On rereading, I think I owe an apology to +Lillebridge.

[87] Posted by oscewicee on 09-19-2008 at 10:51 AM • top

#87- +Lillibridge is my bishop whom I’ve known since he was a deacon. He has been supportive of the orthodox and certainly no fan of the PB and her minions’ tactics. Your reconsideration is welcomed. I believe he would echo +McPherson’s analysis and comments.

[88] Posted by Doubting Thomas on 09-19-2008 at 11:02 AM • top

I believe that one of these days, that division among TEC’s bishops will come to the fore, and we will see a further splintering of Schori’s domain.

[89] Posted by Cennydd on 09-19-2008 at 11:08 AM • top

I am still waiting to hear from Paul Marshall in the Diocese of Bethlehem asking him if the Episcopal Church still Welcomes You?

[90] Posted by Chauncey III on 09-19-2008 at 01:23 PM • top

Uphold thy Church, O God of truth, as thou didst uphold thy Servant Athanasius, to maintain and proclaim boldly the catholic faith against all opposition, trusting solely in the grace of thine eternal Word, who took upon himself our humanity that we might share his divinity; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.
Duncan Contra Mundum!

[91] Posted by Chauncey III on 09-19-2008 at 01:45 PM • top

Be very careful TEC in your glee….you may have won a battle but you are losing the war.

[92] Posted by fsbill on 09-19-2008 at 02:53 PM • top

I just received an email from the Diocese of West Texas a
“Message from Bp Lillibridge re House of Bishops” that both bishops Lillibridge and Reed voted against deposing Bishop Duncan. 

I continue to be blessed by the ministry of our faithful and faith filled bishops.

The Rev. Eric Fenton
Christ Church Hill Country
Bulverde TX

[93] Posted by Eric Fenton on 09-19-2008 at 02:58 PM • top

Does anyone know how Bishop Benfield of Arkansas voted?

[94] Posted by FrVan on 09-19-2008 at 03:01 PM • top

Did any one notice inhibited Bishop Charles Bennison of Pennsylvania was granted a trial.  Bishop Duncan was not? Was Bishop Duncan worse than an accomplice to sexual assult?  Wondering how the PB decides?

[95] Posted by Josip on 09-19-2008 at 03:31 PM • top

If I were Bp Marshall, I’d feel “under attack” by someone working through  If you remember the exact title of the book I’ve referred to a couple of times, you can find it on  _One, Catholic, and Apostolic: Samuel Seabury and the Early Episcopal Church_, by Paul Victor Marshall, Church Publishing Company, Copyright 2004 .  It does an excellent job of helping to provide a window on what’s going on the present day TEC with doctrinal changes “informed” by recent distortions of the historical record (to which Marshall is opposed).  It comes with a CD Rom index.  I’ve bought three copies so far—one for me, and two which I’ve given away.  However, if you look it up under “Paul Marshall” you find a reference to a book by that title published by Marshall in 1980 with CD-Rom.  There were no CD-Roms in 1980 as far as I know, and Marshall did not write the book then.  And the book is listed as unavailable.  In actual fact, there are many copies of real book still available.  If you write out his whole name, Paul Victor Marshall (or the correct title) you can find it.  I just spent 15 minutes with a person on,  who is now checking into the incorrect listing and will try to get it changed.  I don’t think this concern is trivial at all.  I don’t like to see good, helpful scholarship of great relevance to an important on-going discussion in the church going unused.

[96] Posted by celindascott on 09-19-2008 at 04:40 PM • top

#97, I don’t think its personal with Bishop Marshall. I’ve noticed that a fair number of books that are published by Church Publishing are either not listed at Amazon or are shown with incorrect, out of date or erroneous information.

Given how accurate they are generally, my speculation is that the problem lies with Church Publishing, rather than with Amazon.

Y Ddraig Goch ddyry gychwyn

[97] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 09-19-2008 at 04:51 PM • top

Caveat emptor when it comes to Church Publishing, I guess—thank you, mousestalker. Will call them too.  Must be a Welsh quotation in your #98 above, or some other celtic language, but when I clicked on the line did not see a translation.

[98] Posted by celindascott on 09-19-2008 at 04:57 PM • top

It’s welsh for ‘the red dragon will show the way’.That is the ancient battle cry of Wales.

Y Ddraig Goch ddyry gychwyn

[99] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 09-19-2008 at 05:00 PM • top

Will look up the history back of that.  Taught French and history 18 years at a rural public high school where the Red Dragon was the emblem.  Anyway:  if it’s good to be a Red Dragon, and the way it shows is the right way. Bp Marshall has put on that emblem in the book I keep talking about.

[100] Posted by celindascott on 09-19-2008 at 05:04 PM • top

The list of the roll call of bishops is out - and David Jones, suffragan of Va, is listed as a “yes” vote.  Disgusting.  I was a seminarian under him in days gone by; he was a very good leader, but his theology was a bit touchy-feely.  He supported Cursillo and Marriage Encounter and seemed pretty renewal-oriented at the time.

But he also struck me as being susceptible to shifts in the prevailing sentiments, and ready to trim his sails accordingly.  Sad, but ever-so-politically correct.

[101] Posted by AnglicanXn on 09-19-2008 at 06:34 PM • top

If only there were a lot of N.T. Wright types in TEC willing to counteract the teachings of Marcus Borg in particular, the most popular right now of the Jesus Seminar scholars.  I have several formerly orthodox friends who have been taken in by Borg’s way of speaking and writing, so “sweetly reasonable” on the surface, but so wrong in substance.  If we had more orthodox scholars willing to correct his errors in a public format, politely as N.T. Wright does, fewer people would be taken in.  Those “shifts in the prevailing sentiments” are like winds that need to be dealt with by good captains who know how to work the sails.

[102] Posted by celindascott on 09-19-2008 at 06:45 PM • top

Be very careful TEC in your glee….you may have won a battle but you are losing the war.

The stone table was broken sometime during the day when ++Gomez and ++Anis and others sent their words.

[103] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-19-2008 at 06:53 PM • top

I am thankful that these bishops recognized what was happening: i.e. the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church were being misuse and abuse and therefore made a conscious decision not to support this abuse of power by the Presiding Bishop of the EC and those who support her.  This is not the way of Christ.  I hope and pray that the Bishops and other Primates of the Anglican Communion will no longer be deceived by the leadership of TEC and will see what is happening.

I hope that everyone on this list who remains in the EC will write their Bishop(s) and tell them how they feel about their vote honestly and write the Standing Committee. 

I pray the laity will not let this rest and may the clergy who remain raise up the standards of Christ.

[104] Posted by Creighton+ on 09-20-2008 at 07:48 AM • top

To those who wrote disparaging remarks about Gary Lillibridge before the evidence was fully presented:  Where are you today with regrets for rushing to judgment?

[105] Posted by Brien on 09-20-2008 at 09:08 AM • top

Brien, I’m not sure what you are talking about but I’ll take a stab. These bishops including +WTexas did a good thing yesterday. It does not mean their past silence and complicity was not worthy of criticism. What happened, or more rightly, what did NOT happen in NO and since that time may be forgotten and forgiven, but no one needs to regret pointing out the obvious weakness of the “Windsor Bishops” prior to today.

[106] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 09-20-2008 at 09:15 AM • top

Bishops Iker, Ackerman and Schofield were not in attendance.

Bp Iker was in New York City for the SSC meeting (I ran into him on the street)  It is likely that Bp Ackerman was also in NY

[107] Posted by citykid on 09-20-2008 at 10:10 AM • top

Bp Iker (and probably +Ackerman) was in NYC for the SSC meeting and retreat.  I ran into him on the street.

[108] Posted by citykid on 09-20-2008 at 10:15 AM • top

Isn’t Marshall of Bethlehem the one who went on the HOB/D listserve and accused Brad Drell of “magical thinking” and all kinds of other pathetic psychobabble?  Ah, but he’s a liturgical scholar now, too.  So much talent for such puny output.
And Steven Charleston!  The guy who helped run EDS into the ground, and that after bailing as Bp. of Alaska?
Such luminaries among the “yes” votes. 
TEC is a death cult.  Failure and decay are erotic.

[109] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 09-20-2008 at 10:28 AM • top

According to the news releases out of Salt Lake City the HOB went on to have a collegial meeting AFTER the vote.  While I understand the need to act in a christian fashion I do not understand how bishop with any integrity could sit and converse with bishops who care so little for the church or for justice as do those who voted with +Kate.

The time is now to let +Kate and her minions know that they have no power over God’s people.  Faithful diocese must make plans to leave TEC now!

RS Bunker

[110] Posted by RS Bunker on 09-20-2008 at 10:45 AM • top

RE: “Brien, I’m not sure what you are talking about but I’ll take a stab.”

Matt, I think Brien is speaking of yesterday’s blog comments about how Lillibridge voted yes, based on the selected quote from him that Episcope chose to run from him.

Those commenters were mistaken in many ways.  First for trusting a brief quote from Lillibridge pointing out that the issue was the canons and not theology as evidence that Lillibridge voted to depose, and second for not waiting on the roll call vote release.

Brien—I’ve seen *numerous* blog comment apologies for those who misread/misinterpreted his comments.  No excuse, of course, for pouring anathemas on the man based on his quote . . . . but on the other hand . . . I think you’d agree that Episcopalians have learned for good reason to lose faith in their orthodox/traditional bishops.

[111] Posted by Sarah on 09-20-2008 at 10:48 AM • top

[110], Yes, one and the same.

[112] Posted by Anglicat on 09-20-2008 at 10:52 AM • top

Brien, I posted my apology yesterday, just as soon as I made my mistake. If it helps, I apologize again. I honor the bishop for what he did at this meeting.

[113] Posted by oscewicee on 09-20-2008 at 11:02 AM • top

Anglicat, before you summarily disparage Bishop Marshall again, have you had time to look at references to his 2004 book (_One, Catholic, and Apostolic: Samuel Seabury and the Early Episcopal Church_on  Whatever mistakes he may have made, that book is something that needs to be read now by those in the American church who care about keeping orthodox teachings alive and want some background tools to do so.—Another good book (we’re reading it in our DOK chapter) is Jane Williams’ _Who Jesus Is_.  Jane’s the wife of the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Our rector’s wife picked it up when she and her husband were in Canterbury this summer.

[114] Posted by celindascott on 09-20-2008 at 11:22 AM • top

[115] “Summarily disparage?” Did you read {75} above?

[115] Posted by Anglicat on 09-20-2008 at 11:31 AM • top

116:  you’d know I had if you’d read my response (#78).

[116] Posted by celindascott on 09-20-2008 at 12:05 PM • top

Jane Williams’ book is _Who Do You Say That I Am? Exploring
our Images of Jesus_ (not what I mentioned above).  Among
other things, there’s an account of the Arian heresy which
is very accessible to the average reader.  There are so many
variations of that heresy today;  people I know don’t
understand that what’s happening now is a recycling
of that old battle.

[117] Posted by celindascott on 09-20-2008 at 12:44 PM • top
[118] Posted by Dhimmi on 09-20-2008 at 02:11 PM • top

[118], I did read your [78], and the only thing I wrote after that is “one and the same.” That hardly qualifies as “summarily disparage again.”  Perhaps you have me confused with other writers. Puzzling.

[119] Posted by Anglicat on 09-20-2008 at 02:52 PM • top

Anglicat—I did read your “one and the same” post, but thought you were referring to another person and another topic, although I now see that when you responded (as you said) to #110, you mentioned Marshall’s name.  I see no connection in your #113 with what I said in #78, or what I said about Marshall’s book in #114.

[120] Posted by celindascott on 09-20-2008 at 03:43 PM • top

Celindascott, I submit that this is wasting everyone’s time. As I mentioned before, this is no biggie: if you think this guy is wonderful—that’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it. I still don’t think he’s on anybody’s list of top five liturgists, and he has been quite nasty online, as someone else upstream reminded us, although you took no note of that. I haven’t summarily disparaged anyone, although I might consider it if this continues. wink

[121] Posted by Anglicat on 09-20-2008 at 04:53 PM • top

Didn’t say he was wonderful, or on anyone’s top list of liturgists; I said that a particular book he wrote (see above) was a helpful way to help people “stand firm in the faith,” 
and that those who care about doctrine as it’s been implied or directly stated in the Books of Common Prayer in the U.S. could use what’s in it it as a tool in guarding the faith. I thought “standing firm in the faith” was what this blog was created to help people do.

[122] Posted by celindascott on 09-20-2008 at 05:09 PM • top

Sure, Celinda. Standfirm serves a variety of good purposes, and we’re at our best when we are friendly in the midst of disagreements, be they mild, vehement, or in this case, apparently non-existent!

[123] Posted by Anglicat on 09-20-2008 at 07:24 PM • top

Add to that list “opaque.”  I understood that you were in
complete disagreement.

[124] Posted by celindascott on 09-20-2008 at 07:34 PM • top

Does anyone know anything about those that abstained?

[125] Posted by Seen-Too-Much on 09-21-2008 at 06:32 AM • top

They were ++Julio Holguin, Dominican Republic; ++Russell Jacobus, Fond du Lac;
++Mark MacDonald, Navajoland; and ++Pierre Whalon, American Churches in Europe.
Bishop Whalon was a priest in the Diocese of Pittsburgh at one point.  I read something he wrote in the last few years about his distress that Bishop Duncan was not talking to other bishops, had isolated himself.  If I can find that article, which I may have not relayed very well, I’ll send information on how to get it.  He also has a good article about the bishops’ never having dealt adequately with Bishop Pike’s challenges.

[126] Posted by celindascott on 09-21-2008 at 07:21 AM • top

I just wonder why they abstained.  In some cases, you might imagine because they are directly dependant on TEC’s money, but I’m guessing from little information.  I believe one or more may also report directly to the PB, but just wonder..

[127] Posted by Seen-Too-Much on 09-21-2008 at 08:04 AM • top

From ENS

Certified minutes of the meeting, which include the roll-call vote on the deposition question, are available here .

[128] Posted by Lars on 09-21-2008 at 08:10 AM • top

Does anyone know why apparently no one from the Diocese of Texas was there to vote?

[129] Posted by jdcskc312 on 09-21-2008 at 11:32 AM • top

Gosh, Marshall made a contribution on Sam’s orthodoxy. Wrote a book or two that relate to TEC history.  That’s nice. His appreciation of Schori’s “flawless” performance says it all.  That sucking sound is the “fear-based” leadership of Schori.  Perhaps this sham proceeding needed to happen but playing Judas won’t make the resume glow brighter.

[130] Posted by monologistos on 09-22-2008 at 09:38 AM • top

You don’t understand.  Do you care at all about the anti-Trinitarian drive in the church today?  The particular book I mentioned is a very good tool for working against it.

[131] Posted by celindascott on 09-22-2008 at 09:44 AM • top

I understand all too well.  You are defending a friend and that is admirable.  Because I do care about theology, I chose years ago to not stay in communion with bishops who deny that Jesus is Lord of all.  They came out from us but they are not of us.  If your friend is at least nominally Christian in his beliefs, more power to him.

[132] Posted by monologistos on 09-22-2008 at 10:42 AM • top

You don’t read my posts.  He is not a friend.  I don’t know him.  I happened on his book,  _One, Catholic, and Apostolic_ (2004) in looking for ways to rebut some of the things Dr. Joan Gundersen (on the progressive side of the controversial issues) says about church history, especially schism.  I found out later that Joan actually gave the book a bad review in an academic journal to which she contributes—he didn’t treat some of her favorites fairly, she thought.  She completely ignored the gist of the book, which was how Bishop Seabury prevented the liberals of the day from removing the creeds from the draft for the American prayer book, and mention of the atonement, etc.  in order to make it more palatable to deists like Benjamin Franklin and John Jay.  The book is full of excellent scholarship based on letters, journals, minutes, etc. Schism was averted because the liberal bishops cared more about preventing schism than they did about forcing their views.  A prejudice against Seabury in scholarly writings in the last 10-15 years was that he didn’t really have deep theological convictions; he was only parroting the Scottish bishops who consecrated him (they were orthodox in their views) so he could be consecrated.  Marshall disposes of that prejudice through quotations from the sources I mentioned.

[133] Posted by celindascott on 09-22-2008 at 10:54 AM • top

Does anyone know why apparently no one from the Diocese of Texas was there to vote?

It was a little wet and breezy in Texas a few days before the HoB meetings

[134] Posted by AnglicanXn on 09-22-2008 at 10:59 AM • top

To anyone in DioTexas - I hope things are getting better. You’ve been in my prayers since before Ike hit.

[135] Posted by oscewicee on 09-22-2008 at 11:13 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.