Legal Matters

In an earlier post, I analyzed Bishop Robert Duncan’s letter to the Presiding Bishop intended to prevent him from being deposed by the House of Bishops. That letter, I am afraid, will not accomplish what it was intended to do.

Duncan’s Philadelphia law firm is doing better work on his behalf. As I noted in my first post on the material that the Diocese of Pittsburgh released today, the letter from Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP, to David Booth Beers, the Presiding Bishop’s chancellor can be read here.

In this essay, I want to consider the letter to Beers and some of the canonical issues raised there and elsewhere.

The letter from attorney John Lewis first asserts that Duncan’s affirmation in his letter (“I state that I consider myself ‘fully subject to the doctrine, discipline and worship of this Church.’”) has fulfilled the requirement of the Presiding Bishop’s letter of January 15 (“I would, however, welcome a statement by you within the next two months providing evidence that you once more consider yourself fully subject to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of this Church.”) and therefore puts the matter of Duncan’s abandonment of the communion of The Episcopal Church to rest.

This is a strong opening move by Mr. Lewis, but the Duncan letter surely does not provide the sort of evidence Bishop Jefferts Schori was seeking. It may seem that the Presiding Bishop actually asked the wrong question, but I want to revisit that matter below.

Mr. Lewis’s next point is perhaps his strongest. He maintains, as others have done, that Canon IV.9 assumes that a bishop found to have abandoned the communion of the church must be inhibited before he or she can be deposed. Duncan has not been inhibited. The recent deposition of Bishop William Cox suggests otherwise, but a case can be made for Mr. Lewis’s point of view.

According to Canon IV.9, once the Review Committee has certified to the Presiding Bishop that a bishop has abandoned the communion of the church:

The Presiding Bishop, with the consent of the three senior Bishops having jurisdiction in this Church, shall then inhibit the said Bishop until such time as the House of Bishops shall investigate the matter and act thereon. During the period of Inhibition, the Bishop shall not perform any episcopal, ministerial or canonical acts, except as relate to the administration of the temporal affairs of the Diocese of which the Bishop holds jurisdiction or in which the Bishop is then serving.

The canon seems to assume that the three senior bishops will, in fact, consent to inhibition. It is possible that, in writing this canon, it occurred to no one that inhibition might not happen. Why would the bishops overrule the Review Committee? Lewis would have us believe that the matter is ended if the three senior bishops do not agree to inhibition. It is certainly possible to interpret the canon in the case where they do not consent to inhibition, however, and I plan to do that. I note, however, that the notion that the three senior bishops can interrupt the disciplinary process by not agreeing to inhibition is at least a little crazy. In practice, this means that a single, elderly bishop—if consent from three bishops is required, the lack of consent from one can prevent inhibition—can override the work of the Review Committee and possibly the entire House of Bishops, which, by this reasoning, has no say in the matter.

How do we interpret the part of the canon cited above if the bishop charged is not inhibited? Logically, everything after “During the period of Inhibition” is irrelevant. No restrictions apply to the actions of the non-inhibited bishop.

The canon continues:

The Presiding Bishop, or the presiding officer, shall forthwith give notice to the Bishop of the certification and Inhibition. Unless the inhibited Bishop, within two months, makes declaration by a Verified written statement to the Presiding Bishop, that the facts alleged in the certificate are false or utilizes the provisions of Canon IV.8 or Canon III.12.7, as applicable, the Bishop will be liable to Deposition. If the Presiding Bishop is reasonably satisfied that the statement constitutes (i) a good faith retraction of the declarations or acts relied upon in the certification to the Presiding Bishop or (ii) a good faith denial that the Bishop made the declarations or committed the acts relied upon in the certificate, the Presiding Bishop, with the advice and consent of a majority of the three senior Bishops consenting to Inhibition, terminate the Inhibition. Otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House. If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the Ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.

If there is no inhibition, presumably, “certification and Inhibition” in the first sentence is equivalent to “certification,” as if the sentence ended with “certification, if any.” The next sentence refers to “the inhibited Bishop,” and so is irrelevant. Because this sentence is null and void where the bishop has not been inhibited, we can see that we may ignore everything in the canon up to the sentence beginning “Otherwise.” Without inhibition, it appears that the process by which the bishop offers a defense is short-circuited. This might explain why the Presiding Bishop did not actually ask for a “Verified written statement” as described in the canon. She asked for something a bit different, seemingly as something of a courtesy.

Is this reading reasonable? Why not? If the senior bishops think the case is not strong, perhaps it should just go to the House of Bishops, where it may be quickly dealt with or the bishops may initiate their own investigation in any way they see fit. This seems to be what the Presiding Bishop intends to do.

Lewis next suggests that the certification should not go to the House of Bishops because the charges are similar to charges brought against Bishop John-David Schofield before San Joaquin claimed it had left The Episcopal Church. No certification was forthcoming from the Review Committee in that case. Presumably, the current Review Committee either sees a difference in the two cases, or its members believe that the former Review Committee erred. I suspect that both are true. That the church made one honest mistake is no reason to repeat it.

The rest of Lewis’s letter simply argues for as many rights for his client as he can get. There is no need to discuss that here.

Two questions have been raised about the recent depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox, and, since those objections might be brought in Duncan’s case, I would like to mention them here. First, there is the question of whether the spring meeting of the House of Bishops had a quorum. The parliamentarian and the Presiding Bishop’s chancellor say that it did, and this is a commonplace enough issue for the House for me to assume that these people know what they are talking about.

More complicated is the matter of what sort of majority is needed to agree to deposition when the House of Bishops votes on the matter. Consent to deposition must be given by “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” (see above). What exactly does that mean? Those who have suggested that the depositions of Schofield and Cox, all of whom seem to be on the staff of The Living Church, was improper contend that a majority of all bishops that can vote in the House of Bishops is meant. On the face of it, however, the canon could as easily refer simply to a majority of those present at the meeting entitled to vote. A follow-up story in The Living Church offers various reasons for accepting this interpretation.

I will offer additional reasons to think that no sort of supermajority is intended by the canon. First, since the Review Committee has already offered a judgment—in most cases, a judgment in which the three senior bishops concur—the House of Bishops is really just validating what is, presumably, a strong case. The history of the canon, however, suggests a reason for the presence of the confusing words “whole number of Bishops.” This canon, the first version of which was enacted in 1853, has been changed a number of times, usually in response to particular problems encountered in its application. An earlier version included the wording “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled at the time to seats in the House of Bishops.” This wording clearly is intended to refer to all bishops who could attend a meeting, rather than those who actually do so. On the other hand, “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” could conceivably refer to all bishops who can vote or to all bishops at a meeting who can vote. Admittedly, the “whole number” locution suggests something special, but there is reason to believe that this odd phrase was merely carried over from the earlier canon. The interpretation of the Presiding Bishop’s chancellor seems as good as anyone’s here. If the General Convention believes that the effect of the canon should be otherwise, it can change it in 2009.

Duncan’s Defense

Below is the letter from Bishop Robert Duncan referred to in my post of earlier today, “Duncan Responds.” It is instructive to analyze the text, which is largely devoid of exculpatory material. To do so, I will insert comments within the text of the letter. My comments will be in larger type and longer lines.

14^th March, A.D. 2008

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop
815 Second Avenue
New York NY 10017

Dear Katharine,

In response to the request set forth in your letter of January 15^th (which enclosed the certification of the Title IV Review Committee), I state that I consider myself “fully subject to the doctrine, discipline and worship of this Church.”

In particular:

1. I have striven to follow the Lord Jesus with all my heart and mind and soul and strength, all the while relying on God’s grace to accomplish what my sinfulness and brokenness otherwise prevent.

This, of course, is mere boilerplate. Duncan asserts that he is a sincere and committed Christian. The statement is somewhat self-deprecating, which is, no doubt, intended to be endearing.

2. I have kept my ordination vows – all of them – to the best of my ability, including the vow I made on 28 October 1972 to “banish and drive away all strange and erroneous doctrines contrary to God’s Word.”

This does not address any particular charge. The remark about “strange and erroneous doctrines” is a not-so-subtle jab at The Episcopal Church. Duncan is not being charged with heresy, so his relation to church doctrine, whatever that might be, is irrelevant.

3. I have preached and taught nothing but what faithful Anglicans and mainstream Christians have always preached and taught, with the exception only that I have supported and encouraged the ministry of women in Holy Orders.

Again, the charges against Duncan involve the discipline of The Episcopal Church—whether or not he has obeyed the rules of the church—not its doctrine. The assertion about what he has preached and taught is, again, irrelevant. His gratuitous comments are, however, interesting in themselves. On one hand, it could be said that Duncan is here making a grudging admission that the Church can change over time and has actually done so. (If the Church can change its views on the ordination of women, then why cannot it change its views on homosexuality?) This is hardly the message Duncan is sending here, however. The insurgency in The Episcopal Church is largely an Evangelical enterprise. Evangelicals believe that our church does not read the Bible literally enough. Women’s ordination is not a big issue for most Evangelicals. Just as Duncan has looked to “continuing” churches to enhance his coalition (see item 6), he needs the support of the most radical Anglo-Catholics, who view The Episcopal Church’s attitudes toward both gay and women priests (not to mention gay unions) as insufficiently respectful of the tradition of the Church. Duncan has always seemed genuinely in favor of ordaining women, but he needs the support of those opposed to it. (Until Bishop Schofield abandoned The Episcopal Church, the three diocesan bishops opposed to ordaining women have been supporters of Duncan’s schismatic movement.) Duncan walks a fine line trying to keep his unlikely coalition together. In this assertion, he is trying to keep the Anglo-Catholics happy.

4. I have been present to all but two meetings of the House of Bishops (out of twenty-four) during the last 12 years. In those meetings I have clearly and openly opposed the theological and moral drift of the Episcopal Church, often in the face of great hostility and sadly, at times, derision.

Not attending meetings of the House of Bishops might be evidence of having abandoning the communion of The Episcopal Church, but such a charge was not actually lodged against Duncan in the materials before the Review Committee. In fact, however, when Bishop Duncan attends a meeting of the House of Bishops, he usually does not stay in the same accommodations as the other bishops and he often absents himself from deliberations unrelated to the movement that he represents. The defense offered here is irrelevant, but it does raise additional issues that might have been considered. Duncan does take another opportunity to take a jab at the church and to play victim at the same time.

5. I have made no submission to any other authority or jurisdiction.

Again, doing so might bolster the abandonment case, but no one has suggested that Duncan did what he here asserts here he did not do. What he has been doing, however, is working to create a new jurisdiction. His actions suggest that he intends to lead such a jurisdiction, one that is either parallel to The Episcopal Church or a replacement, in the Anglican Communion, for The Episcopal Church.

6. I have gathered Anglican fragments together from one hundred and thirty-five years of Episcopal Church division, vastly increasing understanding and cooperation, though preserving the jurisdictional independence of all.

Finally, in this item, Duncan comes close to addressing the actual charges against him. Ironically, he construes his infractions as virtues. It is not his job, of course, to unite the various “continuing” Episcopal churches, but doing so is not clearly a bad thing. The actual allegation, however, is that Duncan is uniting the various splinter churches to form a jurisdictional rival of The Episcopal Church. Item 6 is actually a partial admission of guilt. Duncan fails to note that the unity he is working to create does not include unity with The Episcopal Church.

7. I have, with the clergy, people and para-church organizations of my diocese, built missionary relationships all over the world, fielding both missionaries and resources on five continents.

Duncan has not been criticized for this. The statement is irrelevant.

8. I have faithfully served and shepherded the clergy and people of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh through what has, by God’s grace, been one of its greatest periods of extension and blessing. My intention is to continue in this call for what remains of my active ministry.

I’m not sure I even know what this means. It is surely irrelevant. Many of us in Pittsburgh do not feel blessed by the service of Robert Duncan!

Faithfully in Christ,
[signed] +Bob Pittsburgh

So this is Bob Duncan’s defense. Not very impressive, I am afraid. This letter is unlikely to save the good bishop from deposition. His lawyer has done a much better job, but I do not want to deal with serious canonical issues here.

I do want to mention one legal issue, however, which was pointed out to me by a real lawyer. (I neither am one nor pretend to be one on the Web.) Canon IV.9 speaks of a bishop charged with abandonment making “declaration by a Verified written statement to the Presiding Bishop” in his or her defense. Apparently, “Verified written statement” has a specific legal meaning in civil law, and this same meaning is applicable here (as defined by Canon IV.15). According to that canon, “Verification shall mean a signature before a notary public or similar person authorized to take acknowledgments of signatures on a document that states that the signer has personal knowledge or has investigated the matters set forth in the document and that they are true to the best of the signer’s knowledge and belief.” Also, “Verified shall mean that an instrument contains a Verification.” Duncan’s letter, which is not notarized, is clearly not a “Verified written statement to the Presiding Bishop.”

UPDATE: I have now posted a—dare I say it?—legal analysis here.

Duncan Responds

The Diocese of Pittsburgh today released a letter from Bishop Robert Duncan to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori dated March 14, 2008, disputing the facts concerning the certification by the Title IV Review Committee that Duncan has abandoned the communion of this church. You can read the letter here. I may analyze the letter in a later post; for now, all I can say is that I am unimpressed.

The date of the letter is interesting. By Canon IV.9.2, Duncan had two months, from January 15, to make a “declaration by a Verified written statement to the Presiding Bishop, that the facts alleged in the certificate [from the Review Committee] are false ….” It seems that the Bishop of Pittsburgh just made it under the deadline.

It is not surprising that Duncan would offer a defense. First, there are indications that the House of Bishops might meet before Lambeth to take up his case and other matters. Moreover, unlike Bishops Cox and Schofield, Bishop Duncan remains in place in The Episcopal Church actively subverting it. Writing a letter to the Presiding Bishop is cheap, and this letter really does not address any of the specific charges considered by the Review Committee.

I do not believe that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori will be convinced that the Duncan letter is either an adequate defense or a recantation. It hardly seems, in the words of the canon, to be “(i) a good faith retraction of the declarations or acts relied upon in the certification to the Presiding Bishop or (ii) a good faith denial that the Bishop made the declarations or committed the acts relied upon in the certificate [of the Review Committee] ….” Should the Presiding Bishop want to give Bishop Duncan the benefit of the doubt, she should insist that he demonstrate the fact by ceasing his actions against the church and undoing his many actions that have harmed it. He will not, of course, do that.

It remains to be seen whether Duncan’s letter will have an influence on other bishops. It should not.

UPDATE 1. In my haste, I neglected to notice that a letter has also been sent on Duncan’s behalf to David Beers, the Presiding Bishop’s chancellor. The letter can be read here. One of its main points is that the House of Bishops cannot take up the matter of deposing Duncan because he has not been inhibited. However, the recent deposition of Bishop Cox, who also had not been inhibited, provides a precedent. I do not know if there are others. The letter from Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP, also asserts Duncan’s right to further dispute the findings of the Review Committee.

UPDATE 2: I have now written an analysis of Bishop Duncan’s letter. You can read “Duncan’s Defense” here.

Random Linguistic Oddities

Certain English words have multiple meanings, some of which can be virtual opposites of one another. “Sanction” is one of these, which can mean authorize or approve of, but can also mean to punish so as to deter. Consider:

Although the administration sanctioned waterboarding, Congress sanctioned the CIA operatives who utilized the technique in interrogations.

Can we construct a sentence using “sanction” that is ambiguous and whose possible meanings are approximately opposite? Actually, this is difficult, as actions are usually sanctioned (authorized), but persons are usually sanctioned (disciplined) for their bad behavior. I remembered that sporting contests are said to be “sanctioned” by sports governing bodies, however, which lead me to this sentence:

Because the all-women league was sanctioned by the ABC, rather than the WIBC, it was sanctioned by the ABC for failing to file the required paperwork.

(The ABC is the American Bowling Congress, and the WIBC is the Women’s International Bowling Congress. These two organizations have now merged.) The usage in the dependent clause of this sentence differs subtly from the corresponding usage in the first sentence. This observation leads to the ambiguous sentence:

The ABC sanctioned the league.

The usual meaning would be that the ABC sponsored or authorized the league, but the meaning of imposing a penalty on the league cannot be ruled out.

A similarly strange word is the verb “to dust,” which can mean to remove dust or to apply it. Consider these two sentences:

Malcolm dusted the cabinet.

Malcolm dusted the cabinet for fingerprints.

Two quite different actions are being described here! (By the way, “Malcolm” is odd in its own right. It contains both a sounded and a silent L. See my essay “Silent Ls” on Lionel Deimel’s Farrago.)

“To trim,” another odd verb, can mean to remove part of something or to add decoration to it. What do you suppose this sentence means?

The logger trimmed his family’s Christmas tree.

The reader cannot tell without more context!

Finally, homonyms can sometimes be used to create sentences that sound alike but have different meanings. Somewhere, recently, I encountered:

You have been to much trouble.

This sentence acknowledges the efforts of another. This sentence, however, has a very different message:

You have been too much trouble.

Of course, although the words in both sentences are pronounced alike, we would speak the sentences with emphasis on different words!

Playing by the Rules?

NOTE: I have been following the presidential primaries closely, but I haven’t had much time to comment on them. Tomorrow, however, could be an important day in determining the nominee of the Democratic Party (or not), and this seems a good time to make a brief comment about Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Let me begin with a disclaimer: My first choice for a nominee was John Edwards, but I am now supporting Barack Obama.

The Clinton campaign has suggested that it might argue that Clinton “victories” in Florida and Michigan should give its candidate additional delegates. The Democratic National Committee, of course, penalized Florida and Michigan for disregarding its regulations about primary dates, and the expectation was that no delegates would be seated from those states. Democratic candidates—and there were a lot of candidates when Florida and Michigan voted—pretty much eschewed campaigning in those two states, though Clinton celebrated her “victories,” even if they were essentially uncontested. Now there are rumblings that Clinton might also protest the admittedly idiosyncratic primary/caucus system in Texas, which is widely thought to favor Obama, though not because of anything he has done personally.

What’s wrong with this picture? Are not people are fed up with the brazen partisanship of the Bush administration, with its take-no-prisoners disregard for law and the Constitution (not to mention science and human decency)? Hillary Clinton’s similar attitude of winning at any price and trying to circumvent the rules that everyone knew in advance does not suggest that she is the kind of person the American people want to see in the White House. Is her attitude toward rules of the Democratic Party a preview of how she will treat Federal law and the U.S. Constitution if she becomes President? I don’t think I want to find out.

The Pittsburgh Laity Speaks

An article in yesterday’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described an open letter from laypeople in the Diocese of Pittsburgh supporting Bishop Robert Duncan in his efforts to remove the diocese from The Episcopal Church. (See “Episcopalians support break from church.”) The latest letter is a response to an earlier letter from 12 conservative Pittsburgh priests indicating that they are not going to leave The Episcopal Church. The Post-Gazette reported on that letter in its January 30 story “Letter shows rift among Episcopal conservatives.” The two stories are not equally newsworthy. That conservatives have strongly supported Bishop Duncan’s schismatic plans in recent diocesan conventions makes a declaration of support for him from Pittsburgh laypeople a ho-hum, dog-bites-man story. (Duncan’s proposals have generally been approved by conventions by something like 3–1 margins.) That self-identified conservatives would break publicly with Duncan, however, is a man-bites-dog story worthy of prominent placement in the morning edition.

What is going on, of course, is a battle to control the perception of how much support there is in the diocese for one position or another. It is also a battle to characterize the positions themselves. Although what the general public thinks is of limited importance, what clergy and laypeople in the diocese believe will be crucial in determining who will leave The Episcopal Church and who will be willing to fight over property when what appears to be an inevitable schism occurs.

That there are at least two contending parties has long been obvious. On the one hand, there are those who have consistently supported Bishop Duncan, his withering critique of The Episcopal Church, and his plans to wrest the Diocese of Pittsburgh, along with all its assets, from the church’s control. The leaders of this group include the bishop, Assisting Bishop Henry Scriven, and Canon Mary Hays. They have been strongly supported by most members of the Board of Trustees, Standing Committee, and Diocesan Council, as well as some prominent rectors and Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry faculty. Opposed to the bishop have been most of the clergy and parishioners of about a dozen parishes of various sizes, including some of the largest and smallest in the diocese. The opposition has rallied behind the efforts of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, a Via Media USA alliance member, and Calvary Church, whose rector, the Rev. Dr. Harold Lewis, is regularly vilified by Duncan supporters for having brought a lawsuit against Duncan and other diocesan leaders in 2003 to prevent the improper alienation of Episcopal Church property.

The two obvious parties are usually called “conservative” and “liberal,” though these terms are certainly inadequate. Operationally, they might best be described as, respectively, revolutionary and loyalist, at least with respect to their attitudes toward The Episcopal Church. That is, one group disdains The Episcopal Church and is willing to destroy or wound it for the sake of its perception of truth, whereas the other group values the church and wants to preserve it. In this sense, the group usually called “liberal” is peopled by conservatives.

Usually, of course, “conservative,” in the religious sense, refers to people holding views typical of nineteenth-century Evangelicals. (This may be an exaggeration, but it is surely true that Duncan’s supporters, despite their rhetoric, do not “believe what Christians have always believed,” and they certainly do not exemplify the traditional Anglican preference for unity based on liturgy, rather than on doctrine.) In that conventional sense of “conservative,” it has long been clear that many adherents of this theological viewpoint are not revolutionaries and are not willing, for whatever reason, to abandon The Episcopal Church. These non-revolting theological conservatives have kept a low profile in the diocese, probably because their views lead them to regard their bishop with great ambivalence. Everyone has known that they are out there, yet there has been much speculation as to who was actually in this group, at least among the clergy. The revolutionaries wanted this group to join the revolution, and the loyalists hoped that its members would rally behind the barricades in the face of the insurgents.

The “liberals” in Pittsburgh are a mixed group, united by their support of The Episcopal Church. Some of these people, by nearly any measure, should be called liberal. Many people do not understand, however, that Southwestern Pennsylvania is a socially, politically, and religiously conservative enclave, and that churches such as Calvary, which is reviled for its liberalism, would seem decidedly middle-of-the-road if transported to another part of the country. No objective observer expects to see open communion or the blessing of same-sex unions in Pittsburgh Episcopal churches any time soon. Some very conservative people attend churches that have been adamant in their support of The Episcopal Church, and being progressive, as it is usually understood, is hardly a requirement for membership in Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh.

In other words, there are three significant parties in the Pittsburgh diocese—the insurgents, the enthusiastic loyalists, and the reluctant loyalists. The Episcopal Church is certainly more liberal than most Pittsburgh Episcopalians, and the loyalist camp that has just come out of the closet knows that its members are destined to feel somewhat uncomfortable and marginalized in their chosen church for the foreseeable future, no matter how “inclusive” that church is. Such is the fate of minorities, and no one has figured out how to change it. When the Pittsburgh schism actually arrives, I suspect that additional revolutionaries will get cold feet and join the reluctant loyalists, albeit reluctantly.

The New Letter

The letter from the Duncan-supporting Pittsburgh laypeople is posted on a new blog called “Pittsburgh Laity.” For convenience, and because it may disappear or be changed—the blog suggests that more names may be added over time—I reproduce the letter, dated February 8, below. You can find the currently posted version here. (The letter is relatively short, but it concludes with a long list of signatures.)

A Statement of Support for the Diocese and our Bishop

As committed laity within the Pittsburgh diocese of the Anglican Communion, we hereby publicly express our strong support for the godly direction of our Bishop, Robert Duncan, and for the strategy approved by delegates to our annual diocesan convention last November. It is not our bishop who is mistaken, but rather the interpretation of the twelve dissenting clergy that is skewed: our diocese is not separating from the Church, but can no longer travel with a national Episcopal body that is departing from its foundations. As a result, we are participating in a necessary realignment with biblical, catholic, traditional and evangelical Anglicans across the globe. Last November, delegates demonstrated an astounding show of support for this direction, a decision that was not hasty, but that came after nearly five years in which we waited for our national church to repent and to respond to the pleas of the rest of the worldwide Anglican Communion. They did not, and since then have clarified the disturbing course to which they intend to hold—promoting a so-called “gospel” that is faithful neither to Jesus, nor to the
Holy Scriptures.

We are told that a major reason for the dissent of these twelve brothers and sisters from our Diocese is “the prospect of protracted court cases evolving from the diocese's realignment effort” (Pittsburgh Post- Gazette, January 30, 2008). We want to remind them and the public that the court cases came about because of suits against the diocese and officers of the diocese; our bishop did not initiate these suits. Indeed, with others who support him, he has done everything possible to defuse the situation outside of the courts. We are responding to an attack (an attack in secular court, forbidden in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians), not initiating it. In this response, the Diocese is preventing a take-over of parish properties by the national church: such actions protect not only the majority of parishes who agree with the direction of the Diocese, but also the parishes of those who have seen fit to dissent from the decisions of the annual diocesan convention. Perhaps clergy could have taken the “high ground” by recommending that Christians not defend themselves, and so be prepared to suffer loss for the sake of truth; this would have demonstrated integrity. However, it is unconscionable that the faithful be constrained, because of the fear and inconvenience of litigation, to continue in communion with those who preach and walk after a different gospel. For the sake of our children, our children’s children, and those to whom we deliver the good news, we cannot agree with those who would counsel us to maintain our ties with an increasingly apostate national church. We pray that in the coming year, even more laypersons will recognize the danger and folly of remaining in the punctured hull of the Episcopal Titanic.

We understand that faithful pastors who stand against the policies of the national church face hardship, including likely loss of position and full pension. As laity, we know that there are those who will attempt to take away the places where, in some cases, our families have worshipped for generations. Under the current threat, we understand the fear of those who do not want to move with the Diocese, though it grieves us that some of our brothers and sisters have given way to such fears. Even more, however, we applaud and honor our own bishop and those many other priests of this Diocese who are prepared, as our shepherds, to “put their life on the line.” They are acting as they are, not to be quarrelsome, but for the sake of truth and love for the worldwide Anglican communion-- especially for numerous courageous Anglicans in Africa, South America, Asia and elsewhere, who are also standing against innovative departures from Christian life and faith.

No, Pittsburgh Diocese is not arranging to “leave,” but to stay. We intend to stay and be the Church that we have always been, believing and practicing as we have always done, with other faithful Anglicans across the world, with those of the past who paid for the truth with their lives, and with the apostles and ancient theologians who transmitted the knowledge of Jesus and the Triune God.

Edith M. Humphrey, Ph.D., Church of the Ascension (Oakland) and District 7 Delegate
William F. Orr Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Appointed Member of the Commission on Ministry, Pittsburgh Diocese

Dr. Leslie Thyberg,
Chair, Board of Examining Chaplains for the Priesthood, Diocese of Pittsburgh

Mr. Chris Thyberg
Director of Global Missions, American Bible Society

Dr. Jeanne Kohn, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)
Director of Music Ministries

Dr. Andy Kohn, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Gillis Harp, Ph.D., Grace Anglican Fellowship, Slippery Rock, PA;
Professor of History, Grove City College

Stuart P. Simpson, Fox Chapel Episcopal Church
Deputy to Diocesan Convention; Deputy to General Convention
Board of Trustees, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry
Board of Church Army USA

Ann F. Castro, Grace Church, Mt. Washington;
Adjunct Professor of Greek, Trinity School for Ministry

Robert G. Devlin, Fox Chapel Episcopal Church
Senior Warden; Chancellor of the Diocese

Kenneth W. Herbst, St. Peter's Church, Butler, PA;
Lay Leader for Pittsburgh Episcopal Cursillo; Diocesan Standing Committee member

Marilyn Clifton Chislaghi, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)
Parish Administrator
Board of Anglican Frontier Missions

A. Michael Galbraith, Church of the Savior, Ambridge
Alternate to General Convention, Member of Array, and on the Commitee for Donegal Property

Mary Ann Evankovich, St. Andrew's New Kensington and District 3 Delegate
Fourth Day Coordinator for Pittsburgh Cursillo Secretariat;
Member of the Diocesan Commission of Racism

Ann Dickinson, St. Stephen's Sewickley

Leslie Uncapher Zellers, St. Andrew's New Kensington

Tony Errico, St. Andrew’s New Kensington
Member of Vestry

Kenneth Clever, Holy Innocents, Leechburg
Previous vestry member

Pat Errico, St. Andrew's New Kensington

Gregory R. Campbell, St. Paul's Kittanning
Layreader and St. Paul's vestry member

Eric W. Cook
Organist and Choirmaster, St. Paul's (Kittanning)

Lois J. Ilgenfritz, St. Mary's, Charleroi

Charles T. Hach, St. Alban's Episcopal Church

Duane F. Ilgenfritz, St. Mary's, Charleroi

Gladys Bell, St. Mary's, Charleroi

William J. Bell, St. Mary's, Charleroi

Robin Capcara, Church of the Ascension

Jim Catlos, Holy Innocents

Kay Catlos, Holy Innocents

Jesse Catlos, Holy Innocents

Cindy Zimmerman, Somerset Anglican Fellowship

Lynda Miller Holy Innocents

Robert S. Smith, Holy Innocents, Leechburg, PA

Margot S. Smith, Holy Innocents; Leechburg, PA

Dr. Daniel C. Lujetic, Senior Warden, Church of the Good Samaritan, Liberty Borough

Stephen B. Whipple, St. Stephen's Ambridge

Ellen Cappelli, St. Alban’s Murrysville

Guido Cappelli , St. Alban's Murrysville.

Tasso Spanos, Shepherd’s Heart Fellowship

Wendy Scott Paff, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Marian M. Kreithen, Church of the Ascension, Convention Deputy, District 7
Altar Guild Directress, Lay Eucharist Minister and Visitor

Alexandra Tiel, Church of the Ascension

Brian Tiel, Church of the Ascension

Alan Komm, Church of the Ascension
Senior Warden
Diocese of Pittsburgh Celebrate 250

Timothy Podnar, Church of the Ascension

Cole Van Ormer, Church of the Ascension

Jay Gowdy, Church of the Ascension

Brian Mack, Church of the Ascension
Member of Vestry

Paige H. Forster, Church of the Ascension

Nancy B. Foster, Church of the Ascension

Agnes Green, Church of the Ascension

John K. Walsh, Church of the Ascension
Member of Vestry

Michael W. Luckett, Church of the Ascension

Brad Hgoz, Church of the Ascension

Nicole D. Mack, Church of the Ascension

Joelle Humphrey, Church of the Ascension

David Picking, Holy Innocents Episcopal Church

Katherine Picking , Holy Innocents Episcopal Church

Gordon Keith McFarland, Holy Innocents Church, Leechburg, PA
Member of Vestry

Alison D. McFarland, Holy Innocents Church, Leechburg, PA
Member of Diocesan Council & Deputy to Diocesan Convention

Andrea Paskorz, St. Andrew's New Kensington,
Member of the Vestry

Diane Kaufmann, St.Alban's, Murrysville

John Kaufmann, St.Alban's, Murrysville

Cyndi Taylor, St. Philips, Moon Township

Elaine P. Morehead
Ministry staff of Shepherd’s Heart Fellowship

Theresa T. Newell, D. Min., St. Stephen’s Sewickley
Diocese of Pittsburgh Standing Committee

Director of Travel-study, Trinity School for Ministry
Chairman, CMJ USA

Gloria J.Clever, Holy Innocents, Leechburg
Former secretary to Bishop Henry Scriven

John W. Polczynski, St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, New Kensington, PA
Junior Warden

Julia A. Polczynski, St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, New Kensington, PA
Member-Pittsburgh Episcopal Cursillo Community

William F. Roemer, St. Stephen's Sewickley
Deputy to General Convention;
Trustee of Trinity School for Ministry;
Treasurer of Anglican Communion Network;
Board Member of Anglican Relief and Development Fund

Gale Wilson, St Paul's, Kittanning and Delegate of District 3
Parish Ministry Committee

Georgette Forney, St. Stephen’s Sewickley
President, Anglicans for Life
Co-founder, Silent No More Awareness Campaign

James D. Bradley Sr., St. Pauls Kittanning
Member of Vestry

Paul Stirbis, Church of the Good Samaritan, Liberty Boro, District 8

Bernice Rowe-Stirbis, Church of the Good Samaritan, Liberty Boro, District 8

Travis S. Hines, Church of the Savior, Ambridge,
M.Div., Director, Center for Distance Learning,
Trinity School for Ministry Postulant for Holy Orders.

Linda Banks Grissom, St. Alban’s Murraysville

Amy V. Campbell, St. Paul’s Kittanning,
Parish Secretary; Assistant Treasurer

Tina Wurschmidt, Shepherd’s Heart
Worship Pastor and Lay Leader

Sarah M. Kwolek, Church of the Savior, Ambridge
Interim Music Director

Mark A. Kwolek, Church of the Savior, Ambridge
Interim Music Director

Peter Frank, Church of the Nativity, Crafton

Amy Maddalena, Church of the Ascension, Oakland

David F. Black
Member Diocesan Board of Trustees
Growth Fund Committee
Pittsburgh Episcopal Foundation/Chaplaincy Endowment Committee

Richard Jernigan
All Saints’ Church, Brighton Heights

A. Dwight Castro, Ph.D.
Professor of Classics
Westminster College, New Wilmington, PA
Member of the Vestry of Grace Church, Mount Washington

Sue Crary
Treasurer, Church of the Ascension

Allison S. Burgan
Member of the Vestry of Fox Chapel Episcopal Church

Aaron Pelot, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)
University of Pittsburgh Student

Margaret Whitacre, Grace Church, Edgeworth
Organist and Vestry Member

Patricia Kriever, Grace Church, Edgeworth
Former Senior Warden

Thomas S. Hay
St. Stephen's Sewickley
Former Treasurer & Vestry Member
Former Member of the Board of Trustees of the Diocese of Pittsburgh
Senior Investment Officer, The Pittsburgh Foundation

Beth Kriever, Grace Church, Edgeworth

John Kriever, Grace Church, Edgeworth

Nicolaas G. Storm, Esq.
St. Philip's Episcopal Church, Moon Township
Former Senior Warden
Delegate Diocesan Convention
Member Commission on Ministry

Jonathan Cagwin, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)
Coalition for Christian Outreach, Staff Member

Chad Whitacre, Grace Church, Edgeworth

Jessica Whitacre, Grace Church, Edgeworth

Shannon Hach, St. Alban's Episcopal Church

Seth Whitacre, Church of the Savior, Ambridge

Roger Maddalena, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

David E. Berklite
Fox Chapel Episcopal Church
Treasurer, Vestry Member

Robert L. Forrest, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Mary Lou Herbst
St. Peter's Butler
Pittsburgh Episcopal Cursillo Secretariat
Servant Community Coordinator

Ruth A. Fitzpatrick, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Jane R. Flaherty
Fox Chapel Episcopal Church
Cursillo Secretariat Member, Pre-Cursillo Coordinator

Michelle D. Everson, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)
University of Pittsburgh student

Marilyn German
St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Mt. Lebanon
Former member of the Parish Council, Lay Eucharistic Member and Parish Archivist
Former Diocesan Delegate, District 5
Former member of Diocesan Council and Array
Former Diocesan Archivist

Fritzie Hess, St. Stephen's, Sewickley

Davida van Mook, Fox Chapel Episcopal Church

Ron James, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Sally James, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Kathleen Hartle, Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

John Stevenson, St. David's Church
Former Senior Warden and Treasurer
Former member of the Diocesan Board of Trustees

Dorothy A. Fleming, St. Martin's Monroeville
Member, Pittsburgh Cursillo Community

Robert M. Fleming, St. Martin's Monroeville and District 8 delegate
District Representative on Diocesan Board of Trustees
Lake Donegal Common Life Committee and Donegal Program and Events Commission
Former Vestry member, Former Senior Warden, Former Treasurer
Former Pittsburgh Cursillo Secretariat

Della A. Crawford
St. Thomas Church in the Field, Gibsonia

Richard Bates
St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, Sewickley

Bill Klingensmith
Holy Innocents Church, Leechburg
Senior Warden

Carolyn Smail
Holy Innocents Church, Leechburg

Linda Roemer
St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, Sewickley

David M. Ball
St. David's Church, Peters Township
Junior Warden
Treasurer
Diocesan Board of Trustees

Curt Henry
Christ Church, Greensburg
Former Junior Warden
Senior Warden
Member of Diocesan Council

Wendi Richert
Christ Church, Greensburg
Projection Team Member

Allan Rathbone, St. Martin's Monroeville

Yvonne Rathbone, St. Martin's Monroeville
Treasurer

Howard Yant
Christ Church, Greensburg

Esther Yant
Christ Church, Greensburg

Truth Topper
Church of the Savior, Ambridge
Vestry member

Howard Finney
Christ Church, Greensburg
Chairman of Worship Committee
Head Usher

Bettyann Finney
Christ Church, Greensburg

Dana Walker
St. Andrew's Church, New Kensington

William Topper
Church of the Savior, Ambridge
District 1 Delegate
Member Diocesan Council

William C. Knapp
St. James Church, Penn Hills
Worship Leader

Linda F. Knapp
St. James Church, Penn Hills

Donna Evans
St. Thomas, Gibsonia

Chris M. Evans
St. Thomas, Gibsonia

Diana Yuhanjak
St. Thomas, Gibsonia

Peter Yuhanjak
St. Thomas, Gibsonia

John J. Means Jr.
Trinity Episcopal Church, Washington
Vestry member

Gretchen F. Means
Trinity Episcopal Church, Washington
Former Vestry member

Bill Lutes
St. Mary's, Charleroi

Mary Lutes
St. Mary's, Charleroi

Mrs. John H. Morgan
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Mrs. Barbara Baur
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Virginia Fitzsimmons
Church of the Savior, Ambridge
Member of the Vestry

Glenn Crytzer
Verger, St. Peter's Butler
Postulant for Holy Orders, Diocese of Pittsburgh

Lynn Crytzer
St. Peter's Butler

Laura Crytzer
St. Peter's Butler

Margaret L. Prather, D.O.
St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, New Kensington

Teri Dillon
The Church of the Good Shepherd
Treasurer, Vestry Member, Daughter of the King
Past Secretary for Good Shepherd and Trinity Cathedral

Ralph Hiller
St. Peter's Brentwood

Lois Hiller
St. Peter's Brentwood
Former Vestry, Altar Guild & Search Committee

Yoseph Barhem
Member of Church of the Good Shepherd (Anglican/Episcopal)
Binghamton, NY

Mark Stevens
St. Christopher's, Cranberry Township

Susan Milligan
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Edward J. Milligan
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Avin Fernando
Bishop's Committee Member
Seeds of Hope Mission Fellowship

Ian Sadler
Trinity Episcopal Church
District 10 Representative on the Diocesan Council

James S. Moore
Fox Chapel Episcopal Church
Delegate Diocesan Convention
Member Diocesan Board of Trustees
Member Board of Church Army

Carmen Moore
Fox Chapel Episcopal Church

Kathryn Smith
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Rebecca Tickner
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Frances Hartzell
St. Andrew's, New Kensington
District 3 Alternate

Gerald Hartzell
St. Andrew's, New Kensington

Tom Meyers
St. Andrew's, New Kensington

Ron Yadrick
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Judy Yadrick
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Ann R. Steenkiste
Fox Chapel Episcopal Church
Former Vestry Member
District 3 Deputy
EFM Coordinator

Jason Smith
Church of the Savior, Ambridge
Area Director, Young Life Beaver County

Margy Baker
Previously Eucharistic Minister, St. George's Waynesburg
Currently member St. Christopher's, Cranberry Township

Jason Toman
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)
Intervarsity Christian Fellowship staff

James J. Vevers
Grace Church, Mt. Washington

Ellen R. Stolpe
Church of the Ascension (Oakland)

Bill Driscoll
Church of the Savior, Ambridge
Candidate for Holy Orders in the Diocese of Pittsburgh
M.Div. student at Trinity School for Ministry

Kim Driscoll
Church of the Savior, Ambridge

The attacks against The Episcopal Church have been led by clergy, especially bishops. The prominent leaders of that movement in Pittsburgh have largely been clergy, although the Episcopal Church loyalists have both clergy and laypeople prominent among their leaders. It is, therefore, refreshing to hear from laypeople in Pittsburgh dissatisfied with their church. (It may take longer for the reluctant loyalist laypeople to organize themselves.) The new letter is endorsed by approximately 175 people (and counting, I’m sure they would assure me). It is interesting to see how the signers have identified themselves. (Or not. Peter Frank, who is Communications Director for the diocese, fails to note the fact, perhaps out of modesty.) Nineteen people hold significant official positions in the diocese. (I discounted many minor offices. All these counts are approximate, by the way.) Three are former office holders or staff members. Eight seem to be paid staff members in their respective parishes; one is the spouse of a staff member; three are relatives of conservative clergy. Six are associated with Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. Two are from “Anglican” congregations in the diocese but already out of The Episcopal Church. One lists himself as being in New York. Forty-eight are from Church of the Ascension, a large church led by the Rev. Jonathan Millard, an insurgent rector who has argued passionately for leaving The Episcopal Church and taking Ascension’s property with him. (Millard made his case for this at a workshop at the November convention and had a letter published in the Post-Gazette on the subject on Friday.) Several very small congregations are represented by ten or more members.

I do not mean to belittle the commitment of anyone who has signed this letter, but no one should think that it represents a cross-section of the laity of the diocese, which the title “Pittsburgh Laity” might suggest. Many of these people are closely tied to Bishop Duncan, to Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, or to churches led by especially vocal insurgent clergy. That the letter was initiated at Church of the Ascension is obvious from the fact that more than a quarter of the signatures are from that parish.

Analysis

What can be said about the content of the letter? To begin with, its purple prose is painful to read. The rhetoric is overblown and emotional. This is not a letter intended to win converts through its logic, and I suspect that it is intended to rally the troops and denigrate the 12 clergy who dared to defy the movement. Some choice phrases for which I would deduct points on a freshman paper: “punctured hull of the Episcopal Titanic, “those of the past who paid for the truth with their lives,” “godly direction of our Bishop,” and “suffer loss for the sake of truth.” Ironically, of course, while claiming the moral high ground and standing for truth against all odds, even in the face of death, these people seem most interested in leaving The Episcopal Church with their parish property intact. Such willingness to sacrifice is touching!

Looking past the rhetoric, I will mention just a few of the many defective arguments and deceptions prominent here. We must begin at the first sentence, where we encounter the phrase “Pittsburgh diocese of the Anglican Communion.” The “committed laity” signing the letter want to remove the diocese from The Episcopal Church, yet they cannot even bring themselves to admit that the diocese is in The Episcopal Church! The opening paragraph goes on to attack first the judgment of the “twelve dissenting clergy,” followed by The Episcopal Church and its “so-called ‘gospel.’” As it happens, however, the letter never uses the phrase “Episcopal Church”; like rabid Republicans who insist on referring to the “Democrat Party,” the signers cannot even bring themselves to write the name of the church they so despise. (I suppose it is, to the signers, “the church that cannot be named.”) “Anglican Communion,” on the other hand, occurs three times, and members of its (other) provinces are described as “faithful” and “courageous.” Some of us have always thought that the hallmark of Anglicanism, however, was respect for differences. That Anglican virtue is absent here.

A surprisingly large fraction of the letter is devoted to railing against lawsuits, both the existing action brought by Calvary Church and future litigation likely to be brought by The Episcopal Church against seceding congregations intent on retaining parish property. While asserting that the use of secular courts is forbidden by biblical injunction, the letter maintains that it would be “unconscionable” to be constrained by this injunction if it meant that signers could not protect “their” property. Incredibly, the letter argues that Bishop Duncan is “preventing a take-over of parish properties by the national church,” including the properties of parishes that have supported The Episcopal Church. Such parishes have no fear in that regard, however, since they freely acknowledge that the property is held in trust for The Episcopal Church. Calvary would like nothing more than for The Episcopal Church effectively to “take-over” all diocesan property. That is the situation its lawsuit was initiated to protect!

Finally, the paragraph I find most offensive is the last one, where the letter repeats the now trite argument that the diocese is not leaving, but staying. (The bishop usually expresses this by saying that The Episcopal Church has left the diocese; the diocese is not leaving The Episcopal Church.) This is, as they say in England, utter rubbish. I am actually hard-pressed to figure out what logic is being used here, but I am sure it is defective. It may be that, if you are part of an organization and that organization changes over time, even through legitimate processes, you are free to leave the organization and—as we used to say in the ’60s—liberate its property. Perhaps the argument is that, if you are part of an organization you have come to dislike, you are free to declare yourself part of another organization you like better and—as we used to say in the ’60s—liberate its property. Either way, the argument seems a justification for theft, which, if I remember, is enjoined elsewhere in the bible.

I hope that “Pittsburgh Laity” will offer more edifying fare in the future, but I hold out little hope either that it will do so or that it will broadly represent the many Pittsburgh Episcopalians who attend church regularly in the vain hope that their church—their diocese, at any rate—will not self-destruct in the near future.

Postscript (2/11/2008): My tabulation of characteristics of signers of the “Pittsburgh Laity” letter was done rather informally on a few sheets of blank paper. Someone else reports having used both a spreadsheet and a diocesan directory. This procedure yielded a count of 14 clergy spouses. Moreover, I failed to note the two officers of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (Anglican Communion Network) who signed the letter.

What to Call Her

NPR carried a report yesterday of another school shooting, this one at a Baton Rouge vocational school. The reporter rather clumsily explained that the “gunman” in this instance was female. As gender roles in society continue to blur, more obscure holes in our language are exposed.

If a man wielding a gun is a “gunman,” should not a woman in the same role be a “gunwoman”? One would think so, but this is not a standard word, and it seems not only unfamiliar, but clumsy. “Gunman” is short and powerful in a way that “gunwoman” is not. “Shooter” might have been a better word to use, though I suspect that, even in the mind of a confirmed feminist, this does not immediately conjure up a Bonnie Parker.

My first thought upon hearing the report, was that the proper term was “gun moll,” but that actually means something else, usually a (male) criminal’s girlfriend. Bonnie was actually more than just a gun moll to Clyde Barrow. And were Clyde just a pretty boy along for the ride, we wouldn’t have had a name for him either.

What should we call Latina Williams, the 23-year-old who shot two female students before using the gun on herself? I will offer some suggestions, though each one is defective in one way or another; some might be considered quite objectionable. I write them as phrases, but the phrases could be combined into single words: “gun girl,” “gun maid,” “gun gal,” “gun bitch,” “gun dame,” “gun lady,” “gun lass,” “gun babe,” “gun broad,” “gun chick,” “gun doll,” “gun she,” or, most improbably, “gun frail.” Most of these terms rely on slang terms and seem no better than “gunwoman.” Perhaps “gun she” (“gunshe”?) has most potential in this group, though I’m probably being influenced by the familiarity of “banshee.” “Gunlass” might work, if the accent is on the first syllable. Another approach might be using a standard suffix for a female actor. We could balance “shooter” with “shooteress,” “killer” with “killeress.” Somewhat more fancifully, we might coin the term “gunneress.”

Of course, we could write off “gunman” as sexist—like “mailman”—and use “gunperson,” providing the sex of the miscreant more directly, as in the phrase “female gunperson.” I’m not personally keen on this approach, actually. Any other ideas?

What Didn’t Happen

That the Title IV Review Committee concluded that the former San Joaquin bishop, John-David Schofield, has abandoned the communion of The Episcopal Church should surprise no one. Even the fact that the three senior bishops of the church (Frade, Lee, and Wimberly) agreed to Schofield’s inhibition by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is hardly a shock. Concluding that Schofield has broken with the church that consecrated him a bishop is really a slam dunk, despite Schofield’s gobbledygook letter regarding his present status in The Episcopal Church. If what he has done is not abandoning the communion of this church, then Canon IV.9 might as well not exist.

The surprise, however, is that no charges have been brought forward against my own bishop, Pittsburgh’s Robert Duncan, or against the Bishop of Fort Worth, Jack Iker. Each of the bishops was warned by the Presiding Bishop that his anticipated actions at his diocesan convention last year would make him vulnerable to an abandonment charge.

The causes of action laid out in Canon IV.9 are indeed quite limited, and, although Schofield has surely abandoned the communion of The Episcopal Church under any reasonable reading of the canon, the cases against Duncan and Iker, though strong, are admittedly less compelling. No doubt, successful presentments could be brought forward against either Duncan or Iker—the causes of action for a presentment are considerably more numerous—but the presentment process, which is lengthy and costly, is clearly an ordeal the church would rather avoid.

Given that the Presiding Bishop warned all three bishops, it is difficult to believe that the Review Committee was not asked to bring similar charges against the bishops of Pittsburgh and Fort Worth. What happened? Was the committee unconvinced that they had stepped over the Canon IV.9 line? Did the committee conclude that either or both of them had abandoned the communion of the church, but the three senior bishops were unwilling to agree to inhibition? Is, in fact, inhibition necessary if the Review Committee believes that the abandonment charge is valid? (The canon seems to expect inhibition, but there is some question as to whether charges can be brought before the House of Bishops if the senior bishops do not go along with the Presiding Bidshop’s pronouncing inhibition.) Knowing what didn’t happen, we would like to know what did.

What is in the future for Bishops Duncan and Iker? I suspect that there will be no more talk of disciplining them before the House of Bishops votes to consent to the deposition of John-David Schofield. If the bishops confirm the judgment of the Review Committee, it could be argued that there is no reason to bring presentments against Duncan or Iker, as abandonment charges against them would surely be successful once their dioceses follow the course of San Joaquin in “leaving” the church. Presentments brought forward today would take years to resolve, whereas Canon IV.9 could rid the church of these troublesome bishops in a little more than a year from now.

The downside of this calculus, of course, is perhaps more apparent to the Episcopalians of Pittsburgh and Fort Worth than it is to those who work at the Episcopal Church Center, serve on the Review Committee, or are bishops of Southeast Florida, Virginia, or Texas. We would prefer not to be subjected to the same uncertainty, disruption, and (no doubt) legal actions that are being visited on the people of the Diocese of San Joaquin. We had hoped to be spared that pain. Unless something dramatic happens that would convince whoever needs to be convinced that Duncan and Iker have abandoned the communion of this church before the Pittsburgh and Fort Worth conventions, the inevitable pain and suffering of faithful Episcopalians in those two dysfunctional dioceses will, apparently, be written off as collateral damage.

Welcome to my church...

The Episcopal Church has been much in the news in the past few years, but it is difficult to be thankful for all the publicity. Whereas, historically, The Episcopal Church has been notable for its ability to accommodate diverse points of view, even on important matters of theology, one could easily get the impression from reading the New York Times or the Washington Post that we are an especially contentious lot. Well, perhaps, we’ve always been that, but we have usually stayed together in spite of our passions.

The prospects for staying together in my own diocese, the Diocese of Pittsburgh, however, are not good. Our bishop, the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, has made it clear that he wants to remove the entire diocese from what he sees as a heretical church. That isn’t going to happen, of course, if only because many Pittsburgh Episcopalians are quite happy with our church, if not with our angry bishop and his angry followers.

Thinking that people in our diocese needed to hear from local Episcopalians who are content to be in The Episcopal Church, an ad campaign called “Welcome to my church...” was launched in October. The ads, which have appeared in the weekly church sections of three newspapers in Southwestern Pennsylvania, each picture an Episcopalian talking about his or her church and what it means to him or her personally. Each ad features a different church. There have been seven such ads so far, and more are on the way.

Here is sample. This one features my own church, St. Paul’s, in Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania:


A new Web site has just been unveiled that shows all the ads and, in addition, contains links to information about The Episcopal Church. You can click here to have a look. Perhaps a similar campaign could build goodwill for The Episcopal Church in your diocese.

“Schism”

The big news in The Episcopal Church (and, I suppose, in the Anglican Communion) is the Diocese of San Joaquin’s alleged “realignment” to become a diocese of the province of the Southern Cone. This was engineered by the diocesan bishop, the Rt. Rev. John-David M. Schofield, SSC, though not without with a good deal of arm-twisting within the diocese and conspiring with other “orthodox” bishops bent on schism and empire-building outside it.

The ugly events in Fresno this past weekend inspired me to write one of my occasional limericks today. I reproduce “Schism” below. For an illustrated and annotated version, click here to read and read about the poem in the poetry section of Lionel Deimel’s Farrago.

Schism
by Lionel Deimel

There once was a bish in the valley

Who asked his convention to tally

Its votes to secede

That would make his church bleed

Causing right-wing schismatics to rally.

Of course, I don’t think my modest effort here can compare to the new hymn composed by Susan Russell, “Come, Thou long expected Schism.” I’m not sure what tune Susan had in mind, but the Charles Wesley hymn “Come, thou long expected Jesus” is paired in Hymnal 1982 with Stuttgart. Appropriately, Wesley’s is an Advent hymn, as is Susan’s, in a manner of speaking.

Quick Monday Morning Thoughts

In light of the Diocese of San Joaquin’s reputed transfer from The Episcopal Church to the Southern Cone this past weekend, I find myself wanting to write long essays on a variety of related subjects. Since I do not have time to do that just now, permit me to offer a few quick takes on the situation.

First, I am wondering why Bishop Schofield has not yet been charged with abandoning the communion of The Episcopal Church under Canon 9 of Title IV. Surely, this time, no one can argue that an abandonment charge is being misused. This is exactly the sort of circumstance for which it was designed. (The charge would be brought against Schofield, of course, for his actually leaving, not for his fomenting schism, which, though an appropriate allegation under Canon 9, is a rather more abstract one.) The Presiding Bishop warned that an abandonment charge would be the result of Schofield’s following through with his plans. It is time for +Katharine to act. In fact, it is long past the prudent time to act.

An interesting question that has been bandied about on several blogs (on Preludium, for example) is the status of the now Bishop-elect of South Carolina, Mark Lawrence. Lawrence has been canonically resident in San Joaquin, and Bishop Schofield has declared that all clergy in the diocese are in the Southern Cone. He did, however, give them the option of staying in The Episcopal Church or taking time to think about it. Perhaps Lawrence’s canonical residence is in ecclesiastical limbo at the moment, but I would argue that he should immediately declare what province of the Anglican Communion he wants to be in. He cannot be in the Southern Cone and be consecrated Bishop of South Carolina.

What really set me off this morning, was an item on The “Lead”:

“Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has not in any way endorsed the actions of the Primate of the Southern Cone, Bishop Gregory Venables, in his welcoming of dioceses, such as San Joaquin in the Episcopal Church, to become part of his province in South America,” a spokesman for the Anglican Communion said.

Such a courageous declaration! The Archbishop is clearly more interested in evading personal responsibility for the current mess than he is in preserving anything that looks like order in the Anglican Communion, which has become an ecclesiastical Wild West under his “leadership.”

The big question, from my own vantage point in Pittsburgh, of course, is whether we are seeing the future of our my diocese unfolding in California. I hope not.

Now what?

This weekend, I watched the convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin on Anglican TV, as, with some jubilation, it changed its constitution and canons and declared itself free of The Episcopal Church. At the same time, the diocese declared that it had joined the Southern Cone, a small, South American province of the Anglican Communion. Now what?

The ENS story on the convention repeated the now-familiar message:

If Schofield is considered to have abandoned the communion of the church, he would have two months to recant his position. Failing to do so, the matter would be referred to the full House of Bishops. If the House were to concur, the Presiding Bishop would depose the bishops and declare the episcopates of those dioceses vacant. [There seems to be a lapse in editing here, as the story is supposed about only the Diocese of San Joaquin.] Those remaining in the Episcopal Church would be gathered to organize a new diocesan convention and elect a replacement Standing Committee, if necessary.

An assisting bishop would be appointed to provide episcopal ministry until a new diocesan bishop search process could be initiated and a new bishop elected and consecrated.

A lawsuit would be filed against the departed leadership and a representative sample of departing congregations if they attempted to retain Episcopal Church property.

This all sounds so cleverly well thought-out and straightforward, but is it really?

Consider Step 1: if someone thinks Bishop Schofield has abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church—am I the only person who concluded hours ago, without an iota of doubt, that this has certainly happened now, if not years go?—charges could be brought against the bishop and, if the three senior bishops of the church and the Presiding Bishop agree on the matter, Schofield could be inhibited, which prevents him from performing episcopal acts, such as confirmations, but does not prevent him from administrative actions, such as moving trust funds offshore. Inhibition is not necessary for the House of Bishops to consider whether Schofield is guilty as charged, and one might ask if it really even does any good. If charges are pressed, the church is likely to hear from the likes of Archbishops Venables, Akinola, et al., and their words are likely to be—how shall I put it?—unkind. Meanwhile, the Archbishop of Canterbury can be relied upon to make another of his now-famous ill-conceived statements guaranteed, likely inadvertently, to make the situation markedly worse.

And Bishop John-David Schofield will, I assure you, say that he is beyond the reach of the discipline of The Episcopal Church because he is a bishop in good standing in the province of the Southern Cone. He is not going to pay the slightest attention to the Presiding Bishop, Title IV Review Committee, or any vote of the House of Bishops.

The Episcopal Church has only one recourse: sue. It will, and the case will likely drag on for a long time. The outcome, irrespective of which side is in the right—I have no doubt that The Episcopal Church is right here—will, for years, perhaps, be in doubt. The publicity will not be especially good for evangelism.

Step 2 is interesting: organize a new diocesan convention to reconstitute a Standing Committee. (The Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin will, presumably, be running the diocese that continues to be headed by Bishop Schofield.) In this step, the church will be winging it, constitutionally speaking. By organizing a new convention, will the church be admitting that the diocese has (or, even, could) leave the church? Under whose rules will the convention operate: under those of the departed diocese or under some other rules? The church must argue, I think, that the real Diocese of San Joaquin has been hijacked and must, somehow, be returned to its rightful stewards. Meanwhile, we are likely to have what might best be described as “Dueling Dioceses of San Joaquin.”

Step 3, appointing an assisting bishop, presumably with the concurrence of the newly constituted Standing Committee, should be easy enough, but the appointed bishop seems unlikely to have much of a flock. The convention votes were, to put it delicately, overwhelming.

Step 4, suing, as noted above, should probably be Step 1 or, to provide more rationale for the action, Step 2.

The question that must be asked is why has the church not acted against Bishop Schofield before now. Charges against the bishop, before today, could not so easily have been ignored. Of course, abandonment of the communion charges were brought against Schofield last year and were dismissed. A presentment could have been brought against the bishop, which, though it involves rather messier procedures, also allows greater latitude in the charges. In any case, The Episcopal Church has a bigger mess to clean up today than it did yesterday.

Of course, I am especially interested in the situation in San Joaquin, as the Diocese of Pittsburgh is planning to do exactly as San Joaquin has done. The Presiding Bishop threatened Bishop Duncan—as, in fact, she did Bishop Schofield—about moving forward with constitutional changes just before the 2007 diocesan convention. He was unmoved, and the diocese, on November 2, did what Duncan asked it to do. It is now December 8, and the Presiding Bishop has not acted. Is the church going to wait until Pittsburgh follows San Joaquin into the South American sunset?

A Pittsburgh Lament

My friend and fellow parishioner at St. Paul’s, Mt. Lebanon, Jane Little, has written a reflection on the current situation in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. I want to share “What to Do with a Bishop,” but, particularly for those outside of the diocese—and, perhaps, for those who do not know Jane—some words of introduction will be helpful.

Readers likely know that Pittsburgh is known as a “conservative” diocese, although this has not always been so. The Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan is the present diocesan bishop, and he has not only moved the diocese to the right—very much with the help of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry (TESM), I hasten to add—but he has also been working to remove the diocese completely from The Episcopal Church, an impossibility, in the same sense that removing money from banks at gunpoint is an impossibility.

It is less well known that Bishop Duncan came from a family perhaps best described as dysfunctional, and that he was elected bishop somewhat unconventionally. He had been brought into the diocese as Canon to the Ordinary, largely because the then bishop, Alden Hathaway, needed administrative help. Duncan was generally seen as having performed well in this capacity and having been supportive of all parishes, irrespective of their theological or liturgical orientation. It was, therefore, something of a surprise that the search committee that identified candidates for Hathaway’s successor did not include Duncan among its candidates. Moreover, the committee was obstinately silent regarding what was widely seen as a slight. Duncan was nominated from the floor of the convention and, eventually, was elected.

Jane mentions the Diocese of Chile in her piece, as well as its province, the Southern Cone. It has been suggested that the Southern Cone could become a haven for dioceses, such as Pittsburgh, that want to secede from The Episcopal Church. Not long ago, the Diocese of Chile was a companion diocese of Pittsburgh. Jane and her late husband Chuck were on the so-called Chile Committee. (The Committee was led by the Rev. Mark Lawrence, now bishop-elect of South Carolina.) The Chile Committee not only traveled to Chile, but also arranged for clergy from Chile to study at TESM. Whereas many in the diocese would see the Southern Cone’s willingness to “shelter” the Diocese of Pittsburgh as the fruit of Pittsburgh’s faithfulness and generosity, Jane and others see it as a case of biting the hand that feeds you.

And, now, a few words about Jane: Jane is speaking from what, in Pittsburgh, is a minority perspective. She is unsympathetic to the bishop’s theological position and unsympathetic to his methods. Jane has a Baptist background—American Baptist, she is quick to point out—and only began attending Episcopal churches after meeting her husband-to-be. Her friends sometimes refer to her as Jane the Baptist because, whenever it seems that The Episcopal Church might experience an ecclesiological meltdown, Jane reminds us that she has a church to which she could return. Not all of us feel that we have the same sort of safety net.

In contrast to my own preference for methodical, rational analysis, Jane responds to circumstances from the heart, often seeing patterns and connections she is at a loss fully to explain to others, but which seem to capture valuable insights and to offer paths forward that the more “logical” among us might miss. Oddly, while taking a “big-picture” approach in her own analysis, she is also very good at finding subtle technical flaws in the works of others (well, in what I write, anyway).

Jane has had a long-running private correspondence with Bishop Duncan, which displays a generosity of spirit and pastoral concern at which I can only marvel. Her latest thoughts about the diocese seem devoid of her usual optimism, however, and I think that “What to Do with a Bishop” is best seen as a lament, as she is neither asking a question nor answering one. Actually, I’m not sure that the title is well-chosen, but Jane’s intuitive choices often turn out to have a deeper significance than is immediately apparent. Finally, I should point out that her quotation of Matthew 25:40 is from memory and does not quite match any available translation of the Bible.

Jane’s meditation is below. If you have any comments, feel free to send them to me, and I will forward them to Jane.

What to Do with a Bishop

There are no words to tell you this terrible story of how a man, here nurtured, has turned against his church, and taken his own followers with him, as a final salute to his own accomplishments. He came to us, not chosen by the committee that had worked so hard to get it right, but presented by the brother of the head of that committee, from the floor, for those feeling sorry for this man who had come here, worked for a bishop, and wanted the office at whatever cost. No one knew then what a cost it would be to bring in a man of great personal ambition, coming out of a sad childhood, to offer us all up in his own name. He even went to the Southern Cone for support and sanctuary in his misconduct, the Southern Cone to which we had offered, in Chile, so much love and support for its educational requirements and needs.

This wickedness is against the Lord, who said, “If you do it to one of the least of these, my brethren, you do it unto me.” Knowing this, they went ahead, they go ahead, and in all deliberateness, rip apart the church, for God, they say. How dare they blaspheme in this way! They have convinced themselves that they are right, when they are dead wrong, and anyone can see how wrong it is to rip apart a church, to throw out a segment of the church, and claim to stand in God’s place! There will be punishment for this, but of course, we know not when or how.

We pray for guidance from one day to the next, until we get through this awful time of brother destroying brother. This man cannot now even save face, although he was told again and again to save face while it was still possible. He insists on going through to the bitter end, which may indeed be more bitter than he had ever anticipated. God save us all, that all may turn to right, in Jesus name, now and forever.

Jane Little
Thanksgiving Weekend 2007

The Faith Once Delivered

At the recent annual convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh held in Johnstown, Pa.—reports of the convention can be found here and here—Bishop Robert Duncan read his letter in answer to the warning he had received recently from the Presiding Bishop. The letter, in essence, was as follows:

Dear Katharine,

Drop dead.

+Bob

His actual words were:

1^st November, A.D. 2007

The Feast of All Saints

The Most Revd Katharine Jefferts Schori

Episcopal Church Center

New York, New York

Dear Katharine,

Here I stand. I can do no other. I will neither compromise the Faith once delivered to the saints, nor will I abandon the sheep who elected me to protect them.

Pax et bonum in Christ Jesus our Lord,

+Bob Pittsburgh

Mark Harris, on his blog, called this letter “classic Duncan.” I have to agree.

Almost everything about this letter is irritating, but, for me, one of the most objectionable aspects of it is the use of the phrase “the Faith once delivered to the saints.” This phrase, usually without the needless capitalization of “faith,” is constantly used by the so-called “orthodox” to suggest, succinctly, that their version of Christianity is the one true faith, the Christian faith as Jesus himself meant it to be understood.

The phrase, of course, comes from the third verse of the first (and only) chapter of the Letter of Jude:

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Authorized Version)

Jude is short and passionate, and its basic meaning is clear. Christians are to defend the Gospel against those promoting false teachings, “ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (verse 4b). Much of the rest of the letter is about what these “ungodly men” will do and how they will be punished for it. Nevertheless, the nature of the false teachings the author of the letter is railing about is not clear, and the letter appears to be something of a generic encyclical warning the saints to be vigilant against those who would mislead them.

Scholarly consensus places the composition of Jude toward the end of the first or in the first quarter of the second century CE. Conservatives favor an earlier date, sometime in the last half of the first century. Whenever this letter was written, the epistle can be described a being early church literature, and therein lies a problem.

Bishop Duncan’s implication—the usual implication when “the faith once delivered” is invoked—is that the writer believes what Christians have always believed. Since the writer of Jude does not explicate “the faith,” however, we can only speculate about what he understood by the term. What is clear, however, is that much of the theology that became orthodox Christianity, that is, the consensus that emerged from the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century, was developed only after the Letter of Jude was written. Moreover, to the degree that conservatives insist on an earlier date for the writing of Jude, we know even less of what “the faith” refers to, even if it might be closer to the actual teachings of Jesus or the Apostles.

Of course, Duncan and his followers really don’t care what Jude’s writer meant; they are just latching onto a good sound bite. To them, “the faith [or Faith] once delivered to the saints” simply means what they believe and what they think everybody else should believe. That it includes, among other things, a good deal of medieval accretions and modern anti-Enlightment nonsense is rather beside the point.

The next time you hear someone piously pontificate about “the faith once delivered to the saints,” remember that the proper response is to ask, “Yes, and what was that?” You might even cite Jude 1:19, which says about the false teachers, “It is these worldly people, devoid of the Spirit, who are causing divisions” (NRSV).