A Pastoral Letter to the People of St. Clement’s, El Paso

Why do the bishops words above sound so much like some Nazi’s and dramatized below:

“Those of you who know me are well aware that I personally agree with the leadership of this organiazation that the mass murder of Jews and cripples is dreadful and morally undefensable. But as a SS officer under the authority of this Fuher there are certain obligations and responsibilities to be observed, and so I need to bring before you the perspective of the Third Reich:...”

Every man’s conscience is his own, bishop.  Do not try to pawn your acts off on the nameless and faceless structure of 815 and TEC canons.  If you believe the church is wrong then act.  You cannot act in the name of the apostate without being an apostate yourself.

Yes i know these are harsh words, but are they not true?  The time for honeyed words and strained smiles is over.  The Rubicon has been reached and men must now decide on which side they will stand.  Some, like +Howe will try to place one food in each camp, some like +Steenson will cloak their actions in duty to the institution, and yet some brave souls will lay down the earthly honors of TEC and fight for our Lord and Savior.  Win or lose I want to stand with the later rather than cower with those who do 815’s bidding.

RSB

We are willing to try to find a negotiated settlement that may allow St. Clement’s to become an independent congregation with its existing facilities. But we also have a fiduciary duty to the Episcopal Church, and so any solution we might propose requires that we in good faith have considered the mission of the Diocese and consulted with the Presiding Bishop’s office to represent the Episcopal Church’s interests. I am very concerned that civil litigation might follow St. Clement’s actions, because we have a clear word from God about this, in I Corinthians 6. The work of the Gospel is absolutely not served by lawsuits of this type. St. Paul’s counsel is that all the parties work patiently and diligently within the Church for resolution.

I prefer negotiation over litigation, but perhaps this statement might have more credibility had Bishop Lee of Virginia not, after appointing a settlement committee which included his diocesan chancellor and a member of the executive committee of the national church to work with the now-CANA churches, entering into an agreement for the departure of those churches which included an agreement to negotiate a property settlement, and encouraging them to proceed on that basis, then reneged and commenced litigation. 

Actions speak louder than words, so it will be very difficult for any orthodox parish to be trusting again after the breach of trust by the Bishop of Virginia.  Bishop Steenson will have some work to do if he wishes to rebuild that trust.

I applaud Bishop Steenson. He has responsibilities to God, to the Church, to the denomination, to his diocese and to the people of that particular parish. It certainly sounds as though he is acting as he ought. I truly wish more bishops would behave in such an honourable and upright fashion.

I’m sorry, R S Bunker, but your invocation of Godwin’s Law appears to be premature.

Definitely a different tone than Howe’s letter, but, again, there is this:

“... any solution we might propose requires that we in good faith have considered the mission of the Diocese and consulted with the Presiding Bishop’s office to represent the Episcopal Church’s interests ...”

Aren’t the Episcopal Church’s interests to bring people to Christ - not take “market share?”  I mean, if it could be hypothetically determined that ECUSA’s shutting down would increase the total number of people brought to the Lord, then we should shut down, shouldn’t we?

mousetalker,

I am afraid we disagree.  Act as the agent for that which you know to be against God’s purpose and no matter how nicely you dress it up you are not doing the right thing. 

I am sure that Quisling thought that he was jsut fulfilling his governmental duties, the same as Marshall Petain and all the Vichy officials who handed the Jews over to the SS. 

Now I am not calling 815 facist or anti-semitic, but then again I am not calling what they are doing christian either.

RSB

Once again, please remember that 815 around the beginning of the year quietly advised the HoB that they would depose any bishop negotiating the peaceful withdrawal of a parish, and they would then sue the parish (and possibly its leadership) into bankruptcy.  This is the Beers/Bruno regime’s idea of pastoral stewardship of the Body of Christ.

The result of that semi-secret warning was immediately apparent in the sudden and uncharacteristic behavior of some of our bishops in “problem” dioceses:<ul>
<li> Lee instantly did a turnabout on the Virginia Protocol, which had up to that time been one of his pet projects, and immediately [url=“http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2633/”>inhibited the offending priests</a>—which seemed utterly unnecessary at the time;

<li> The quiet and moderate Loutit (Georgia) [iIrc] sent a completely gratuitous threatening letter to one of his flagship churches, which was firmly orthodox but had made no formal moves whatever in the direction of secession [note to admins: I can’t find the T19 archives for this period to document the event.  Pointer?];
<li> Jelinek (Minnesota) <a >forbade</a> ++Nzimbi of Kenya from visiting any parishes during a visit to the area—when hitherto the bishop and the Primate had been on cordial terms.

<li> At its March meeting, the HoB overwhelmingly passed Bruno’s bombastic, poorly-written, and transparently mendacious resolution completely rejecting the _Dar communique.  Dr+ Radner, who made a presentation on the proposed Covenant at the meeting, <a ]commented[/url] afterwards, “I was struck, at the recent House of Bishops’ meeting, with the open abuse, often personally directed, thrown at the Primates by many of our bishops.”  Dr. Radner himself was rudely treated by several bishops.

As I commented at the time:  The personal vituperation against the Primates that so shocked Dr. Radner+ is not what one would expect in a semi-public place from our bishops, who are for the most part bureaucrats and administrators accustomed to putting on a public persona of God-talk and Niceness.  This sort of reaction is what a psychologist would expect of someone being force into doing something he disliked, as a rationalization which also relieves some of the underlying resentment at the duress.
</ul>

Now, as the crunch approaches, we see +Howe and +Steenson—both Windsor bishops, moderate men known for their pastoral sympathy towards their orthodox congregations—issuing warnings in surprisingly strong terms.

Mention is made above of Godwin’s Law.  Having just read a <a >couple</a> of <a >biographies</a>, the comparison of the internal state of the two great European dictatorships in the ‘30s to the current situation in the General Convention (Grim Consolidation?) Church seems to me apt in at least one respect:  the mid-level bureaucracy in both cases was terrified into near-paralysis by the totally unconstrained and utterly ruthless power at the top, which threatened reprisals not only against any insufficiently enthusiastic official but also against his family and friends. 

Note that even if a completely orthodox bishop were willing to sacrifice his see for the sake of Truth, by doing so he would be tossing any orthodox congregations in his diocese to the dogs.  (Or to Beers and Bruno.  But I repeat myself…)  For me, at least, this is not a decision I would like to be forced to make.

So please, at least until the situation clarifies after September 30, let’s try to be charitable in our judgments of our (few) friends in the HoB.  They are under terrific pressure in a near-impossible situation, and more in need of our prayers than of our advice.

Folks,
I think it behooves all of us to “keep our powder dry” until September 30.  The rules may then change.  The parishes, or the bishops, will not accomplish anything by acting prematurely.  Let us pray for everyone at St. Clements, and also for Bishop Steenson, in hopes that a resolution can be found that accommodates the pastoral needs of the parish and maintains the integrity of the diocese.  And let us pray that soon the greater Communion sees to the pastoral needs of the diocese (and all our dioceses) so that there is no need for the secession of orthodox parishes from orthodox dioceses based on actions of the national General Convention Church.

Craig, I can’t point you to the T19 link re: Bishop Louttit, but I can confirm that my illustrious bishop did as you say.

the mid-level bureaucracy in both cases was terrified into near-paralysis by the totally unconstrained and utterly ruthless power at the top, which threatened reprisals not only against any insufficiently enthusiastic official but also against his family and friends. 

Sadly, I think you’re onto something here, Craig. But I’m not sure what the best response for the bishops is. Your historical analogies would seem to indicate that they can’t afford to travel too far with the folks at the top.

Compare bishop Steenson’s attitude toward St. Clement’s with that of Bishop Howe

Different in a way but very similar, almost too similar, as if following a memo or script. Craig Goodrich is onto something I think. In which case I don’t think they can truly be said to represent the minds of the Bishops involved.

I’d appreciate some legal eagle’s analysis of the legal agreement being voted on by the congregation (actually, I’d like it simplified so I can understand it…)

Oh and key difference:

Those of you who know me are well aware that I personally agree with the leadership of St. Clement’s  about where the Episcopal Church seems to be heading.  But as a bishop under the authority of this Church  there are certain obligations and responsibilities to be observed, and so I need to bring before you the perspective of the Episcopal Church :

  1. The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of the Rio Grande both have canons asserting that all real and personal property of a congregation is owned not by the local congregation but by the Diocese and Episcopal Church.
  2. The Episcopal Church does not permit a parish to withdraw from it solely on the basis of a congregational vote; this dissolution is accomplished by action of the Diocese .

Craig:

Once again, please remember that 815 around the beginning of the year quietly advised the HoB that they would depose any bishop negotiating the peaceful withdrawal of a parish, and they would then sue the parish (and possibly its leadership) into bankruptcy.

Did this happen on the record, or is this a rumor?

Rocks—... and key similarities:

The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of the Rio Grande both have canons asserting that all real and personal property of a congregation is owned not by the local congregation but by the Diocese and Episcopal Church.

... any solution we might propose requires that we in good faith have considered the mission of the Diocese and consulted with the Presiding Bishop’s office to represent the Episcopal Church’s interests.  I am very concerned that civil litigation might follow St. Clement’s actions, because we have a clear word from God about this, in I Corinthians 6.

+Howe:

  [Seceding parishes] would hope to take as many of their parishioners with them as possible, and they would try to retain the property belonging to those congregations.

If they decide to do this it will be extremely messy, difficult, and costly in every way imaginable…

Both the canons of The Episcopal Church and the state law of Florida stipulate that congregational properties are held “in trust” for the Diocese and the national Episcopal Church.  This means that even if every single person in a given congregation wanted to leave they could not simply “take the property with them.” 

Translation:  Beers and Bruno have enough cash on hand to sue out of existence any parish that tries to leave, no matter what I personally may believe or wish, and they have been quite clear that they fully intend to do so.
<hr width=50%>
Phil—As a rumor it’s unconfirmed by any “official” source; as a conclusion from the evidence it’s unassailable, unless we wish to believe that Screwtape put on his well-worn Holy Spirit disguise and paid simultaneous New Years visits to every diocesan in the General Convention Church.

Craig - fair enough.  You make an impressive case for it, and it certainly fits the character of the principals.

Phil—thanks for the kind words.

Another bullet point I left out of the post is:
<ul> <li>O’Neill (Colorado) <a > inhibited</a> Don Armstrong+ on January 4.  O’Neill had been aware for years of the fragility of his diocese and had previously tried very hard to keep the waters calm and avoid precipitating any crisis.  Yet he picked that moment to announce the inhibition—and on very harsh terms, at that.  But the investigation, such as it may have been, had already been going on, by later reports, for upwards of four months; there would seem to have been no particular urgency to the announcement.  Odd timing.
</ul>

This is the question—what else could possibly explain the behavior of so many of our standard average go-along-to-get-along nebbish bishops at almost exactly the same time—the first two weeks of January 2007?

One week to Sept. 19—counting…

An excellently marshaled argument, Craig, and helps me make sense of my own bishop’s really shocking behavior.

Bp. Steenson is my bishop, and I cannot allow RS Bunker to get away with his ‘dramatized’ comparison to the Nazis without censure.  This is an extremely difficult and complex situation, and for Bp. Steenson then to be compared to Nazis, who truly did murder innocent people, is reprehensible.  It’s a debasing of language and history as well (not to mention inventing this little ‘drama’ for us to read!)—to compare Bp. Steenson’s letter to the Nazis.  He, and other orthodox bishops, need our prayers and our care not our derision, in the almost completely untenable positions they now hold.  I know that Bp. Steenson is doing his best to inform the people of St. Clement’s, El Paso, of the crucial nature of their decision.  R S Bunker would do better to hold his position in silence than to condemn a God-fearing bishop with such inflammatory language in public.  But better yet, to apologize for his presumption.

I agree that Craig probably has it right.  I think also that we are beginning to see some long-in-development very deep finessing going on as Pittsburgh, Quincy, FTW, (and who knows who else) are beginning to go about legally following (the operative phrase) their respective Canons, etc to get themselves out of the quicksand that is rapidly enveloping TEC.  Let us pray that those bishops still riding the fence will have their minds changed and quickly. 

We are truly in historic times.

Craig said,

Beers and Bruno have enough cash on hand to sue out of existence any parish that tries to leave

I suggest you ask Mr. Beers and +Bruno just how well that’s been going for them in California lately.

from the Briar Patch,

Agreed, Br_er R, but in fact 815 in most cases doesn’t have to win to make the threat very real.  Litigation is typically hideously expensive compared to the financial resources of an average parish, and if Beers can string out and delay the case, with all the attorneys’ clocks running, the cost can rapidly get out of control.

It would be interesting to know how much the wardens and vestry of The Falls Church (or was it Truro?) had to pay lawyers out-of-pocket before they were removed as defendants in the case (after about six months).  Possibly nothing, possibly thousands of dollars.  Again, it’s the threat that matters.

And of course, California is a special case, where precedent favors the parishes.  Florida—according to +Howe—is the opposite, where the law would appear to favor 815.  Virginia has its unusual “church split” law, and I have no idea what might happen in Texas.

So having seen the St. Clement’s article and vote, I wish them well; but the bishop’s concern that 815 will intervene regardless of any agreement is very real and probably well-founded.

What if the parish transfers to the Diocese of Pittsburgh? Hmmm…

Highly relevant to all this are some optimistic comments by Mark McCall <a >here</a> and <a >here</a> in the Supreme Court to hear ... thread.  I certainly hope he’s right that 815 has chosen a bad legal strategy; things could sort themselves out even sooner than we think.

In any case, keep praying…

Just for my own information has anyone considered a test case to the US Supreme Court to see if the Dennis Canon is a valid canon.  Remember it came into being in 1979 and any parish built before that should be able to keep their property.  Just a thought

St. Clement’s votes to leave Episcopal Church
By Michael D. Hernandez / El Paso Times
Article Launched: 09/16/2007 02:48:27 PM MDT

LEDE:

Congregants at Pro-Cathedral of St. Clement’s Episcopal Church, one of the city’s oldest places of worship with hundreds of members and more than a dozen ministries, is leaving the Episcopal Church to carry on with doctrines members said no longer fit those of its former denomination.

Full story at:

http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_6912221

From the article:

The church recorded a 460-41 vote from its congregation on Sunday to dissolve its relationship with Episcopal Church USA and remain part of the Anglican Communion Network.

The church is buying their property from the Diocese for $2M.

from the Briar Patch,

I prefer negotiation over litigation, but perhaps this statement might have more credibility had Bishop Lee of Virginia not, after appointing a settlement committee which included his diocesan chancellor and a member of the executive committee of the national church to work with the now-CANA churches, entering into an agreement for the departure of those churches which included an agreement to negotiate a property settlement, and encouraging them to proceed on that basis, then reneged and commenced litigation.

Actions speak louder than words, so it will be very difficult for any orthodox parish to be trusting again after the breach of trust by the Bishop of Virginia.

You can easily argue that the trajectory changed in VA—things seemed to be heading toward settlements (e.g. All Saints Dale City) but then moved instead to litigation.  But the rest of what you say is simply untrue.  There was no “agreement to negotiate a property settlement.”  Disappointed expectations do not equal a breach of trust.

Sorry, DavidH, the Protocol, in paragraph g, provides for a negotiation between the parties to transfer the property to the departing congregation.  The protocol was signed by all of the appointed representatives of the bishop.  The bishop informed the parishes it was the way to proceed.  The standing committee and executive committee both voted unanimously to accept the report.  They were all aware of this and the parishes commenced to follow the protocol to the letter in reliance on this.  If you have other facts, give them.

I think this is like what Schori did at DES - agree and then argue over what the meaning of “agree” is.

pendennis,
  1. 3 of the 6 members of the special committee belonged to Truro or the Falls Church.  Not exactly the people you’d look to in order to represent or bind the Diocese of Virginia or the Episcopal Church, eh?
  2. paragraph h says that any agreement will require the further consent of the bishop, standing committee, and exec bd.  No such consent has ever been given.  The most that can be said is that Bp Lee said it was a potentially useful way forward and that the Standing Committee said this.  If anyone is playing with words, it is you, who translate receiving a report into “accept"ing it.