Bishop Howe Writes an Open Letter to the Presiding Bishop Regarding her Threats of ‘Reconciliation’

As I just posted to Rick Lobs blog:  bravo for Bs Howe.  He has taken a lot of arrows in the back recently by those who think he stands a little too close to the PB.  But this man was fighting for the faith back when a lot of current bloggers were still in diapers and the fight was a very very lonely one indeed.

Thank you, Capt. Warren.  Well said.

I wrote recently at T19 that Bishop Howe was more likely to send a love letter to Mrs. Schori than receive one of the type sent to Bishop Duncan.  Clearly, I was wrong.  I apologize to Bishop Howe and congratulate him for this letter.

Though I disagree with Bishop Howe’s commitment to stay at the party, he has made it clear that he is not drinking the punch.

Good for him.

I applaud him for his courage in speaking out, but his hope to

.. work “within the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.”

and thereby return TEC to the “faith once delivered” is sadly misplaced.  There are no circumstances under which TEC will change course.  Even if they are removed from all of the “Instruments of Union” they will still claim to be part of the Anglican Communion. For TEC, their words mean exactly what they want them to mean, reality is whatever they say it is, facts are irrelevant, and absolute truth nonexistent.

Good for +Howe and well done.  Would others (bishops, priests…primates!) be this brave.  Stand up! Stand up! For Jesus, ye servants of the Lord.

On the other had, perhaps her behavior will have it’s affect on those that have until now considered it worth while to stay.  Perhaps the mask has come off, KJS and co are showing their true colors in much brighter display, and people like +Howe are rapidly losing their capacity to pretend that “All is well”.  One can only hope.  In the meantime, more prayers for the Common Cause Partnership, and learning to follow where Jesus leads.

Well done, Bishop Howe.  I think the Presiding Bishop is acting like a fool, throwing weight around that neither she nor her office really has.

A good reminder that Jesus prohibited us from wielding personal judgment (admittedly hard to distinguish from discernment at times.)  While we may disagree about the “most faithful” course of action, or the “best strategy” to follow, there may be more than one way to remain faithful in these difficult times, and it is a special burden on bishops.  I have at times been perplexed by Bp Howe’s statements and actions, but this excellent letter demonstrates that we ought to disagree with him as a brother (and father) rather than as an enemy.

Hmmmmm.  So IMHO, it’s really a letter to Lambeth Palace.  It just happens to be addressed to 815.

Peace.

It is no thinly veiled threat according to this from here

Jefferts Schori, who spoke Friday at a forum at the University of Vermont’s Ira Allen Chapel, said she had written a letter warning Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan she would discipline him if he continues to support measures that would lead to Pittsburgh’s departure from the church.

“It is an unfortunate thing to have to do, but it is a necessary thing to do,” she said.

This will aggravate the more conservative end of the Communion and all the signs are that the ‘Terror’ will resume the moment TEC gets the green light from the ABC and they are preparing to use what they think will be his actions to establish TEC’s rights in court with Duncan and the Virginia and other litigation.

It remains to be seen whether the ABC will be used in this way and split the rest of the Communion.

Credit where credit is due - bravo to +Howe.

I should add:

I’ve written before that Bishop Howe is compromised, and almost certainly under extreme pressure of a very serious nature from Schori, Beers, and the rest of the goons at 815, who are exploiting his vulnerabilities. This is not like +Iker writing +KJS, who deals from a position of extreme strength and can say pretty much anything he wants, with impunity. This took a lot of guts on +Howe’s part.

I may be wrong, but I’m guessing that ++Rowan William’s recent letter to him gave +Howe the encouragement he needed in order to feel that he could push back?  (sorry I don’t remember the “+ or ++“thing, no disrespect meant.)

I part company with him in his decision to abandon the commitment we made when we formed the Network, to work “within the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.”

At one time, this may well have been possible. That time is now long past. The chances of any meaningful change in TECusaCorp’s course are exactly slim and none. I think, maybe, +Howe may have started to realise that. Having said that, I congratulate him for having the cojones to publically take ++KJS and TECusaCorp to task.

Wake up and smell the coffee +++Rowan!!!!! If you don’t get up off your gluteus maximus soon and take some action, things are going to get real messy. The ball is in your court.

ol’ snarky

Threats of ‘Reconciliation’

Bwhahahaha!  Thanks for that, Matt.  But I’m glad I’d finished drinking my tea when I read it!

I like many applaud Bishop Howe’s stance in the letter to the Grand PooBaal of TEC. But again I am somewhat confused as to his thinking. I know he feels that it is better to stay in TEC to fight the good fightand he sees himself as a part of the David(faithful who stay) to the Goliath (TEC) but eventually David did lose his strength when he gave into the adultry and the adultress woman cut off his hair. PooBaal Schori will eventually cut off Bishop’s Howe’s hair and he will be drained of his strength to fight the good fight if he continues to stay yoked to an apostate church that needs to die a spiritual death and repent of her sinfulness in order to be reborn.

I applaud +Howe for his risky letter to KJS/DBB.  What we are seeing is an evil power play.  815 Princess Saurman get’s the power from two sources: money in the control of 815 and intangible power from ABC/AC.  Power is always used and if in evil hands then for evil purposes.  The first part of strategy is to cut off the power and logistics chain.  Faithful members can see that Saurman gets no future feedings from the believers.  Cost of litigation and maintainance of emty shell churches will also drain power.  Cutting support from ABC/AC will depend on help across the seas.  Beleagered troops on this side can only send out messages for those incontroll of AC to send help and starve the enemy.  IMHO

A man of courage and conviction, tired of seeing his sheep scattered,
speaks truth to power!

Where are the rest? You whey faced bishops, speak up!

Thank you, and God Bless you, Bishop John Howe. Please lead us out of TEC sooner rather than later.

ODC, helpful expression, but while David certainly was an adulterer, it was Samson who married a Philistine woman who nagged him into revealing that his long hair, part of the vow of a Nazarite, was a token of his obedience that God graced with superhuman strength, and that he would become as weak as any man if his hair was cut.

But to the post, a forthright and courageous letter from +Howe to ++KJS, and one that raises the stakes noticeably in this already high-stakes game of ecclesiastical poker.

oops! Thanks Milton….I always get those two names & stories confused ...but none the less it will be interesting to even see if Schori repies. She might and we may never know, as all things are not made public.

Now I’m off to brush up on my Sunday School stories and names….I obviouly need a refresher course.

How dare you give the PB a history lesson.  These people don’t care about history.  Only herstory matters.

Cathy_Lou,

You wrote:

(sorry I don’t remember the “+ or ++“thing, no disrespect meant.)

According to both my present and previous rectors, in Anglican usage, all priests may (and generally do) sign their church correspondence with a single cross (actually a plus sign in typed correspondence) following their name. All bishops sign their name with the same cross, but preceding their name. In the case of priests this may follow their given name, surname or “nickname”, depending on how they prefer to be known. In the case of bishops it precedes their given name, surname or the name of their See (not necessarily in the current local language). I suppose they may also choose to use a “nickname”, as with priests.

Note that these two priese have between them more years as Episcopal priests (the shorter-tenured being about to celebrate the 34th or 35th anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood, and he is also a former Dean of Cathedral) than I do this earth, and I am 62 years old. Thus, as I am given to understand, the use of multiple crosses in front of the names of primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury, is not correct. It is a bit like the problem of confusing military rank with military authority. An officer may outrank an enlisted Shore Patrolman (SP), but if the officer is inebriated and disorderly (or worse) on-, or off-, base, the enlisted SP has authority to take the officer into custody, irrespective of the fact that he is junior in rank, and to conduct him to the appropriate location in accordance with standing orders and regulations.

You may be wondering about my parenthetical remark about the current local language. This is a reference to the fact that you will see the Archbishop of Canterbury sign correspondence as “+Cantuar,” which you may find confusing. Cantuar is the Latin name for what the English currently call Canterbury. Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, on the other hand, often signs correspondence as +Abuja, because that is the current name of the Nigerian city where is cathedral (i.e., his See) is located.

If the person is a bishop in an Anglican church, put the (single) cross in front of his name, if a priest, behind it. Hope that helps.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Bp Howe has certainly been in the struggle to reform TEC for a long time. For example, as a parish priest at Truro, he supported Episcopal Renewal Ministries (ERM) remotely when it was located at St. Lukes in Ohio, then later invited ERM to move into Truro facilities. This was an era when many of us thought that TEC could be reformed and renewed by a faithful portrayal of the unchanging Gospel. Many of us tried that for many years. The effort failed for TEC as a whole because of the Machiavellian manipulation of those who were proponents of heresy (sin does not really matter, baptism as a magic admission ticket to everything, reinvention of the historical incarnation, diluting the Gospel to exclude repentance and transformation, etc.). I have seen Bp Howe’s strong push for TEC reform both from St. Lukes and later from Truro.
This letter by Bp Howe is a powerful one and a good reminder that TEC is a voluntary association of dioceses. However, Bp. Howe still apparently thinks that TEC can somehow be reformed from within and that he should continue working with the corrupt and heretical leadership and HoB in TEC. That is certainly a matter of judgment on his part, but I think his judgment to continue working with those who control TEC and are clearly espousing and living out heretical beliefs is flawed. Such cooperation with the enemies of the Gospel, as far as I am aware, has never been the Church’s response to heresy. Leaders as early as the Apostle John, and his disciple Polycarp would not even associate with heretics and clearly proclaimed them as enemies of the Gospel:
Irenaeus in his writing against heresy (Adv. Haer. 3.3.4) wrote that Polycarp said ‘that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.” And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, “Do you know me? ““I do know you, the first-born of Satan.”’
In Bp Howe’s otherwise very helpful letter, his stated position to continue to work within TEC, despite its complete takeover by those espousing a different “gospel”, is disappointing. This continuing cooperation does not align well with the practice of the Apostle John, nor of Polycarp, nor with the warnings in Scripture.

Thank you for that interesting history lesson, Mr. Cool.  +Howe’s efforts are indeed admirable, if quixotic.  If the organization was growing, there would be some hope that the infusion of new members could turn it from heresy, but the fact that it is contracting means those most likely to correct it are either leaving or passing on.  There comes a point at which one must declare the battle lost, and that line was crossed with TEC some time ago.  There’s little chance of cleaning up a church that loves being dirty.

Bill, echoing the thanks for the history lesson.

I doubt that +Howe believes that TEC can be reformed, but he (and other Windsor bishops) may well believe that, depending on what actions the ABC and the Primates take in the near future, TEC may well be re-formed.

My thought is that Katherines reponse (or lack thereof) to John Howe could be critical. A harsh answer could push the previously compliant Howe into the arms of the emerging CCP province. The power mad PB might just not be able to restrain her demonically driven controlling tendencies enough to avoid sending a harsh response back. On the other hand, she may just be shrewd enough to try to “sooth” Bishop Howe in order to settle him back down and keep him from stirring the pot-or, issue no response at all, at least not publicly. Might she give the Bishop a stern warning privately in an attemt to quash a possible rebellion? Stay tuned.

Bob K.,
If the Grand PooBaal even gives a response I think it would be more in line with the latter of your scenarios above. She is shrewd and will want to come off as being <i>understanding & soothing</b> to Bishop Howe.

The idea of Samuel Jackson threatening to open a can of reconcilation on one’s a** just came to mind.

Let me begin by appreciating Bp. John Howe’s clear strong letter in defence of Bp. Duncan. I am sure that there are genuine bonds of affection between bishops who share a common faith and have worked together over the years that will begin to emerge as the powers-that-be come down hard on some of their number. I do think, by the grace of God, we are all going to end up together in one church – sooner or later.

I must comment, as well, that I do not quite understand the logic of his argument. I’m not an expert on the legality of these matters but:

1.  Bishop Duncan and the Diocese of Pittsburgh have not left TEC. They have simply put in place the steps to do so. For this reason, I am not sure on what basis Schori-Beers could claim to depose Bp. Duncan (not that they will bother with a reason, I suppose).

2.  John Howe seems to argue that a diocese can legally disassociate with TEC. I don’t think I have heard that proposition argued so strongly and openly before by a Windsor bishop.

3.  True, the ACN and all the groups that came before it hoped to find a remedy within TEC, with the help of the ABC and Primates. One by one, they saw this hope dashed by the intransigence of TEC and the indifference of Canterbury. If hypothetically a settlement were negotiated tomorrow between TEC and the Network/Common Cause movement, then Pittsburgh, Fort Worth et al could always draw back from final separation.

Now this is what I do not understand. What is John Howe’s vision for the Diocese of Central Florida if the ABC and Primates do not force a settlement and if four Network Dioceses and Common Cause do form an alternative jurisdiction under the Global South Primates. What would be the harm in Central Florida (and Dallas and South Carolina) taking the first steps toward disaffiliating?

If Bp. Howe thinks that an entire Diocese can leave with its property and he simply has chosen not to lead that way, would he not be sympathetic to parishes who wish to disaffiliate “without penalty”? Why be a stickler about keeping diocesan assets intact when you admit that the entire diocese could choose to remove its assets from TEC? He notes that there might be a reunion of seceding dioceses in the future. What about a reunion of seceding parishes within a diocese?

My main concern is that the non-Common Cause orthodox bishops are not giving any vision for the future, but for an eleventh hour intervention by Canterbury. Do they really think that if they keep squeaky clean, the ABC is more likely to intervene? Any solution with Canterbury and the GS Primates is going to have to include those Common Cause groups that have already realigned. Meanwhile, “where there is no vision, the people perish.”

From a Dallasite, Amen and Thank You Dr. Noll. Well spoken.

As Stephen Noll says:

My main concern is that the non-Common Cause orthodox bishops are not giving any vision for the future, but for an eleventh hour intervention by Canterbury.

Although predicting the future moves of the ABC may be entertaining on a blog, any such prediction that incorporates a best case scenario of his actions may be risky. As I have said previously on SF or T19, our only current guide for Rowan is not our optimistic conjectures, but his essentially complete lack of effective support for the orthodox in North America, with the exception of the few times he has been under substantial pressure by either the GS Primates or by actions such as Howe’s original letter to the ABC.

Given the ABC’s nearly complete lack of clear support (especially by actions, not merely by muddled and vague bunches of words), I hope that Bp. Howe has a solid contingency plan in his pocket for departure from the clutches of TEC leadership. Without it, his flock, both parishes and priests, are in danger. Delaying implementing such a plan for any extended period will continue to cause damage to his flock and to others of the orthodox who need the kind of leadership for which he was once known.

Dr. Noll, I am not a theologian.  Nor do I have access to African primates.  However, I can respect the decision of the non-Common Cause bishops to wait for Canterbury’s response.  Because they are longsuffering does not necessarily mean that they have not developed a vision.

Very interesting questions from Stephen Knoll:

If Bp. Howe thinks that an entire Diocese can leave with its property and he simply has chosen not to lead that way, would he not be sympathetic to parishes who wish to disaffiliate “without penalty”? Why be a stickler about keeping diocesan assets intact when you admit that the entire diocese could choose to remove its assets from TEC? He notes that there might be a reunion of seceding dioceses in the future. What about a reunion of seceding parishes within a diocese?

Answering those questions should be a thread of its own.

She obviously wants Bishop Duncan to leave the church quietly, but Bishop Duncan and Bishop Howe are wise to stand their ground and prove that they have NOT abandoned the Church. It seems to me that the leadershop of TEC desires that they excommunicate themselves but that is no reason why these Bishops should cooperate with the Presiding Bishop and do her dirty work.
Does anyone know what would happen if she falsely accused Bishop Duncan of abandoning the Communion of TEC and deposed him? It seems to me that this still would not prove that he has abandoned Communion with the Anglican Communion.

In the ABC’s letter to +Howe, he all but discards the idea of anyone who “leaves” now.  Something about causing anger… Don’t know if its his anger or Katharines. 

‘I’ve thrown up my hands in dispair at trying to understand him.  But am beginning to suspect he’s not on “our” side, no matter who, bishops or parishes. 

With an ABC like that, who needs antagonists?

Grannie Gloria

In the links by pageantmaster:

“Obviously a handful of our church leaders are still upset and would like to see the church never ordain and never baptize a gay or lesbian person,” said Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, in Burlington to attend the annual convention of the state’s 175-year-old Episcopal diocese.

Sorry to be OT, but I was stunned by this inflammatory mischaracterization of the issues.

Bp. Howe says “Dioceses voluntarily join (accede to) The Episcopal Church. And they can voluntarily determine to separate from (withdraw their accession from) The Episcopal Church.”

What is all the confusion about? Is there anything in that paragraph that we don’t understand?  I notice frequently a theolocical proclivity to complicate what is manifestly clear. +Howe is now on record that the Diocese is the ultimate arbiter of its status. Period.  When war breaks out, he will be with us. He will hate what is happening but he will be there. He will be there.

No one knows the mind of ++Rowan. The chilling brutality towards +Duncan from SchoriBeers will not pass unnoticed by him, nor will +Howe’s bold affirmation of the truth of Diocesan supremacy in matters of accession. Remember, in his letter to +Howe the ++ABC affirmed the Diocese was the ultimate structure in the communion, not the “National Churches.” We must give ++Rowan a few days more to digest the results of his poll just completed, triage the scenarios, and, finally, take a position. I am feeling better about all of this. There is movement, irreversible movement. Come Holy Spirit.

+Bishop Howe’s letter said the following:
“But, Katharine, I cannot support your thinly veiled threat to resort to litigation if the Diocese of Pittsburgh rescinds its accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.” 
Where in +KJS’s letter was their any implied threat to litigation?  Over and again, she mentioned canonical concerns.  That is TEC’s constitution and its order and discipline.  If +Howe was saying that +KJS was implying church discipline, I would surely agree that she was.

+Howe also states re +Duncan : “I part company with him in his decision to abandon the commitment we made when we formed the Network, to work “within the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.”  Here +Howe seems to be rendering an opinion as to his belief that +Duncan has decided to abandon the commitment of the Network to work within the Church. +Howe, as a churchman of many many years seems eminently qualified to render an opinion on +Duncan’s decision to abandon his commitment to the communion of TEC and may even be called upon to vote on the issue in the HofB.

+Howe further states
“Dioceses voluntarily join (accede to) The Episcopal Church. And they can voluntarily determine to separate from (withdraw their accession from) The Episcopal Church.”  This appears to be a legal opinion on his part.  He may be right or he may be wrong but it is likely that that decision will not be made by churchmen but by civil authorities.

”Obviously a handful of our church leaders are still upset and would like to see the church never ordain and never baptize a gay or lesbian person,” said Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, in Burlington to attend the annual convention of the state’s 175-year-old Episcopal diocese”. 

Thanks for this heads-up, Deja Vu and Pageantmaster. 

Hard to tell if this is spin or simply a load of dung. 

Frankly I sit pretty right-of-center, but the above sentence doesn’t even apply to someone like me.  I have no problem with the ordination of gays and lesbians as long as they are willing to take a vow of celibacy first(although I consider the ordination of women debatable, and were I a bishop, I wouldn’t do it). 

“Never baptize a gay or lesbian person”?  Puh-leeze.  Most baptisms in TEC are of babies anyway, so how would that even be the case? How does one know how babies will grow and develop? 

I have no problem with the baptism of gay and lesbian adults.  “Marriage” is a whole ‘nother Scriptural issue. 

Or are all the 815/New England elitists planning to use designer, prenatal testing to start “selecting out” gay and lesbian babies?  Why not—they’re using it to select out for everything else, including cleft palates and Down Syndrome, which are conditions that can be fixed(in the former case) or significantly worked with. 

One of my friends has a seven-year-old son with Down’s and he says the little boy is the best kid he could ever have, and he wouldn’t change a hair on his head. 

KJS should stick to denying the Divinity of Christ instead of mischaracterizing others’ opinions.  The former is the more effective way of advancing her secular agenda. 

Bleck…

G.

I too noticed that—either she isn’t Listening

—or she doesn’t want to hear.

I think it is the second—and I think that such willful misinterpretation clearly comes under the heading of “bearing false witness”.

Has TEC abandoned the ten commandments as well?

Dr. Noll, you gelled it all down to a fine point.  Legally and theologically - I am a scolar of the former and a wannabe of the latter.  I think the letters of just past between Williams/Howe/PB/Duncan are a critical mass that will gel to a resolution that hopefully will get all of us past the current log jam.

Somewhat off thread but, as I recall, +Cantaur asked the Primates to reply by the end of October. Is this +Schiori’s response? And are there any others?

Does anyone know if Bishop Howe was the Bishop of SW Florida before his present position?  If so, roughly when?  I think he may have confirmed me and, if so, there is something from our meeting long ago I have always remembered about him, but I’d like to ensure that its him.

Alas, no “seen too much.”  Before John Howe was consecrated the Bishop of Central Florida, he was Rector of Truro Church (Fairfax, VA) for thirteen years.  Before that he was an assistant at St. Stephen’s, (Sewickley, PA).

bb

Thanks, bb.  Someone who told me this is mistaken, then.

Bill Cool wrote:

Bp. Howe still apparently thinks that TEC can somehow be reformed from within and that he should continue working with the corrupt and heretical leadership and HoB in TEC. That is certainly a matter of judgment on his part, but I think his judgment to continue working with those who control TEC and are clearly espousing and living out heretical beliefs is flawed.

The fact that Bp Howe has not left TEC does not mean he believes it can be reformed. It may simply mean that he has not yet received orders to march. Nor is working “within the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church” the same thing as “working with” those in control of TEC. It simply means that, in his opposition to them, he will not violate the Constitution or Canons. For example, bringing presentments against KJS or other revisionist bishops (as was recently suggested on another thread) would be working within the constitution and canons, but certainly not working with the current leadership or direction of TEC.

God bless Bishop Howe for standing up.  Now, as others have said, the ball is in +Rowan’s court. 

This appears to be a legal opinion on his part.  He may be right or he may be wrong but it is likely that that decision will not be made by churchmen but by civil authorities.

No Emily, the decision will not be made by civil authorities.  The decision will be made by the Lord God Almighty.  And He alone will judge in the end who has defended His Church, and who has assailed it.

John1
++Rowan did indeed poll all the primates, and some bishops I hear.The exercise was to end 10/31. The purpose was to determine if the Primates and other respondents accepted the HOB response to the Primate’s demand for compliance. This could be Mrs. Schori’s “response” in a sense. She either is #1, sure TEC has finessed the test, and will be full participants at Lambeth, or, #2, that the meaningless response failed and TEC is out. Her mean spirited letter is consistent with her general philosophy of management, so it could be either 1 or 2, take your pick. Either way, +Bob gets a smarmy nasty in the mail.

I don’t get it, how did Williams horn in and take over this process?  The Primates issued the Dar Communique and requested a response from the HOB by Sept. 31.  Somehow over the summer they simply vanished and now it’s Williams deciding whether the HOB response was “adequate”.  I thought back in March the HOB issued a definitive NO to the Communique.  Why does Williams get to decide if that dodgy fudgy NO statement is good enough?  Didn’t Williams say himself that the Primates had to make this decision?

Nevin,
For one take on this, see Chris Sugden’s <a >Anglicanism in Twilight</a>. Whether Chris’s view is right we shall soon know - or on the other hand we may not soon know.

“When war breaks out, he will be with us. He will hate what is happening but he will be there. He will be there.”

Mmmm. I think the “war” broke out a while back. 

In other statements, Howe has made it crystal clear he is not leaving the Episcopal Church. He has fought efforts to make it easier for his own Diocese to do so.  So his statement that a Diocese can leave is, for him, purely a hypothetical one.

Seems to me that Bp Howe is genuinely personally torn. Tough issues.

If Bp. Howe thinks that an entire Diocese can leave with its property and he simply has chosen not to lead that way, would he not be sympathetic to parishes who wish to disaffiliate “without penalty”? Why be a stickler about keeping diocesan assets intact when you admit that the entire diocese could choose to remove its assets from TEC? He notes that there might be a reunion of seceding dioceses in the future. What about a reunion of seceding parishes within a diocese?

I think that he doesn’t believe that there is a “commutative property” (for lack of a better phrase coming to mind) of the various heirarchecal levels within the church. IOW - that each subset does not hold the same priviledges within each superset.