"Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God..."
                                              Philippians 4:6 NKJ

• Message from Bishop David C. Anderson
• Fort Worth visit an 'unwarranted invasion,' Presiding Bishop tells Southern Cone primate
• Bishop Iker's response to PB's Letter
• Memo concludes Presiding Bishop subverted TEC Constitution and Canons
• Methodist delegates vote to reject same-sex unions

_____________

A Message from Bishop David C. Anderson

Dearly Beloved in Christ,

In North America, there is a continuing battle between the revisionist Primates and Bishops and those who are orthodox Christian Anglicans. We note with approval the visit of the Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone, the Most Rev. Gregory Venables, to both Canada and the United States. In Fort Worth, ++Gregory met with clergy from that diocese and apparently discussed options available in view of the accelerating conflict with the Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori. A Chinese military strategist from the 6th Century B.C., Sun Tzu, wrote that the most expensive information that you can acquire is outdated information. It is always prudent, when faced with a conflict, to have current and correct information about options. Jesus himself counseled his followers to be meek as doves, but wise as serpents. Obtaining accurate, current information is the wise course.

TEC Primate Schori was, of course, not pleased with Venables' visit, and complained loudly to the Southern Cone Primate in a letter. She urged him "not to bring further discord into the Episcopal Church." She did not, however, explain how she was herself working to diminish the discord, since she is one of the primary causes of it, with her DSH approach (Dewey, Suem & Howe). Bishop Iker of Forth Worth responded to her open letter with some great Texas straight talk: "You should know that under the canons this does not require either your approval or your support. You have no say in this matter. A diocesan bishop is free to invite other bishops to visit and speak in his diocese.....Once again, you are the one meddling in the internal affairs of this diocese, and I ask you to stop your unwelcome intrusions." Schori may have gotten away with telling Bishop Lee of Virginia that there is a new sheriff in town, but clearly in Fort Worth, Jack Iker is still in charge.

Journalist George Conger is reporting that there is a legal memorandum circulating in the American House of Bishops which concludes that sufficient legal grounds exist for presenting Schori for ecclesiastical trial on 11 counts of violating the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Could anything come of this? I don't think so. Remember the Bishop Walter Righter trial? Accused of knowingly ordaining a practicing homosexual, he went before a panel of judges (some of whom had already themselves done exactly the same thing - for example, Bishop Fred Borsch of Los Angeles), and as a panel of peers who shared his viewpoints, the judges decided that neither the doctrine nor the discipline of the Episcopal Church at that time prohibited the ordination of a non-celibate homosexual person living in a committed relationship. Trial over, Righter acquitted. There is no justice when the judges are as guilty as the defendant.

This brings us to the advisability of pushing for a trial of Schori; does it make a good faith statement to attempt to bring her to justice, or is it a counterproductive waste of effort? I hope that those contemplating bringing such a presentment would quietly and carefully weigh the gains and the losses from such an attempt, and try to anticipate the collateral effects as well. I don't think there is any chance in the Episcopal Church of getting a conviction, despite the apparent evidence that is in the public domain, for the same reason that, in my opinion, Walter Righter never got his just day in court. If Schori could be convicted, it would be a huge victory for the orthodox, but can anyone imagine the Episcopal junta letting the presentment get far enough to even get to an open trial?

In the bigger picture, I would rather see money and effort spent defending the Los Angeles area churches who are being sued by the Episcopal Diocese and TEC, or helping the Virginia churches who are being sued by the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia and TEC for their property, or the churches in the northern Ohio area who are being sued, etc., etc. Favorable decisions in these areas would allow people to keep the churches they have paid for and maintained. Decisions in these areas might well set precedent in other states and dioceses and affect the scope and duration of other possible litigation.

Speaking of trials, several years ago the Methodist Conference of California and Nevada lost a judicial decision on property in California, which went all the way to the California Supreme Court. That decision awarded the property and assets to the local former Methodist Congregation. The Methodist denominational leaders were not happy with this, and now in Virginia the Methodists are back, asking to join the TEC/Diocese of Virginia suit against the departing Virginia Anglican congregations.

The Methodists haven't done everything wrong, however, since at their church's General Conference meeting in Fort Worth, Texas, the delegates voted to adhere to the church's position that marriage should not include same-sex unions and that homosexual acts are not compatible with Christian teaching. Now the question is, will they discipline those who willfully defy their church order?

The Presbyterians, perhaps from their Scottish ancestral thriftiness, are looking at negotiation instead of litigation for a departing congregation. The largest Presbyterian church in Northeast Ohio is offering a $550,000 buyout to its denomination so it can move to a more conservative church body. Unlike the Episcopal Diocese of Ohio, which is using the above-mentioned Dewey, Suem & Howe approach, the Presbytery of the Western Reserve is negotiating with Bay Presbyterian. Let us commend their efforts at a peaceful resolution.

North of the border in Canada, events are boiling. The Most Rev. Fred Hiltz tried to block ++Gregory Venables' visit to minister to Canadian Anglicans who have realigned with the Southern Cone. The Canadians, with two realigned Canadian Bishops, and many churches and clergy, are now under the Province of the Southern Cone. I'm not sure if you would call it "Southern Cone Norte"... but now that Province stretches from Tierra del Fuego to the Arctic Circle.

In other Canadian news, the archbishop of Athabasca issued a letter confirming his diocese's commitment to the Canadian church and the Anglican Communion after its synod passed motions supporting churches that have left the Anglican Church of Canada and criticizing bishops who have gone to court over property issues. Now this is fairly amazing: the synod voted to give encouragement to those who have left the Canadian Anglican Church, and then the bishop has to give assurances to Primate Fred Hiltz that they are still loyal to the Canadian Anglican Church. It sounds like there is more going on here than appears in print. The letter was made public after the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada asked the archbishop to explain his synod's motions. One of the resolutions said that the synod, meeting in High Prairie on April 24 to 27, voted to "inform the parishes and the bishops who have joined the Anglican Network in Canada and the Province of the Southern Cone that we are in full communion with them."

Finally a note about GAFCON: The numbers of bishops signed up continues to grow. Additional rooms may have to be sought if all goes well.

Blessings and Peace in Jesus Christ,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
_____________

Fort Worth visit an 'unwarranted invasion,' Presiding Bishop tells Southern Cone primate
Source:Episcopal News Service 
April 29, 2008
  
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has advised Southern Cone Presiding Bishop Gregory J. Venables in an April 29 letter that his planned May 2-4 visit to address a special convocation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth "with the expressed purpose of describing removal to the Province of the Southern Cone is an unwarranted invasion of, and meddling in, the internal affairs of this Province."
 
"I write to urge you not to bring further discord into The Episcopal Church," Jefferts Schori told Venables, who was, according to reports, scheduled to be in Central California on April 29 to meet with church leaders who last year voted to disaffiliate with the Episcopal Church and align with his Argentina-based province.  
 
"The actions contemplated by some leaders in Forth Worth are profoundly uncanonical," Jefferts Schori wrote. "They also prevent needed reconciliation from proceeding within this Province." 

The rest of the article may be found at the link above.
_______________

Bishop Iker's response to PB's Letter
Source: TitusOneNine blog 
April 30, 2008

Dear Katharine,

I am shocked and saddened by the rude letter you released yesterday to Archbishop Greg Venables, concerning his visit this weekend to the Diocese of Fort Worth. Far from being "an unwarranted interference," he is coming at my request as an honored visitor and guest speaker.

You should know that under the canons this does not require either your approval or your support. You have no say in this matter. A diocesan bishop is free to invite other bishops to visit and speak in his diocese.

There are no efforts at reconciliation proceeding within this Province, which is one reason why faithful people continue to leave TEC in droves. Your attitude and actions simply reinforce alienation and bring further discord.

Once again, you are the one meddling in the internal affairs of this diocese, and I ask you to stop your unwelcome intrusions.

Faithfully in Christ,

The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth

cc: The Archbishop of Canterbury
_______________

Memo concludes Presiding Bishop subverted TEC Constitution and Canons
Source: The Living Church 
By George Conger
April 30, 2008

Sufficient legal grounds exist for presenting Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori for ecclesiastical trial on 11 counts of violating the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, according to a legal memorandum that has begun circulating among members of the House of Bishops.
 
A copy of the April 21 document seen by a reporter representing The Living Church states Bishop Jefferts Schori demonstrated a "willful violation of the canons, an intention to repeat the violations, and a pattern of concealment and lack of candor" in her handling of the cases of bishops Robert W. Duncan, John-David Schofield and William Cox, and that she "subverted" the "fundamental polity" of The Episcopal Church in the matter of the Diocese of San Joaquin.
 
Prepared by an attorney on behalf of a consortium of bishops and church leaders seeking legal counsel over the canonical implications of the Presiding Bishop's recent actions, it is unclear whether a critical mass of support will form behind the report's recommendations for any action to be taken, persumably as a violation of the Presiding Bishop's ordination vows. Title IV, Canon 3, Section 23a requires the consent of three bishops, or 10 or more priests, deacons and communicants "of whom at least two shall be priests. One priest and not less than six lay persons shall be of the diocese of which the respondent is canonically resident."  Victims of sexual misconduct and the Presiding Bishop also may bring charges before the Title IV [disciplinary] Review Committee. Title IV, Canon 3, Section 27 specifies that the Presiding Bishop appoints the five bishops to the Review Committee and the president of the House of Deputies appoints the two members of the clergy and two lay members. A spokeswoman said the Presiding Bishop was unable to respond to the charges as she had not yet seen the memorandum. ...
 
The 7,000-word memorandum states it does not address issues of doctrine under Title 4, Canon 1, Section 1c, but limits its review to the "recent actions she has taken against bishops Cox, Schofield and Duncan and the Diocese of San Joaquin."
 
The paper argues the Presiding Bishop "failed to seek the inhibition of Bishop Cox as required by [Title IV, Canon 9]." This failure was not a "technical issue that could be waived," but was an "important procedural protection that is integral" to the use of the canon. Nor did she comply with the requirement that the bishop be given timely notice of the legal proceedings, as the Presiding Bishop withheld notice for seven months.
 
By not inhibiting Bishop Cox during the two-month period she gave him for denying the charges, the Presiding Bishop was also creating "new procedures" for deposing bishops. The 60-day notice to deny the charges applies only to an "inhibited bishop," according to the memorandum. Bishop Jefferts Schori had made the same error in her treatment of Bishop Duncan, the document noted.
 
Bringing Bishop Cox before the House of Bishops without securing his inhibition first also violated Title IV, Canon 9, Section 2, the memorandum said, as "a bishop who has not been inhibited is not 'liable to deposition' under this canon." ...
 
Concerning the Diocese of San Joaquin, the Presiding Bishop's announcement that she did not recognize the "duly elected" diocesan standing committee violated Articles IV and II.3 of the church's constitution and repudiated her duties under [Title I, Canon 2, Section 4(a)(3)] which permits her only to "consult" with the diocesan ecclesiastical authority in the event of an episcopal vacancy.
 
The appointment of "representatives and vicars" to act in San Joaquin violated Article II.3 of the church's constitution, the document stated, while the convening of a special convention in San Joaquin and installation of Bishop Jerry Lamb as the provisional bishop violated Article II.3 and Title III, Canon 13.
 
"The violations with respect to Bishops Cox and Duncan, although willful and repeated, pertained primarily to individual bishops. The violations with respect to [San Joaquin] however, subvert the governance of an entire diocese and go to the heart of TEC's polity as a 'fellowship of duly constituted dioceses' governed under Article II.3 by bishops who are not under a metropolitan or archbishop," the legal memorandum concluded.
 
The procedural difficulties in bringing this matter to adjudication were formidable, the paper argued, as the "ability of the complainants to hold accountable the Presiding Bishop or another bishop thus ends at the [Title IV] Review Committee."
 
The authors of the legal memorandum were not optimistic the current legal and political environment within the church would be conducive for a conviction. The Title IV committee could issue a presentment, it could decline to issue a presentment and "produce a rationale that is persuasive to most objective observers," or it could "decline to issue a presentment on grounds that are not persuasive and serve only to discredit the Review Committee and the process as well as the respondent," it said.
 
This third outcome is "highly likely," the paper concluded, but it noted the effort should nonetheless be made to hold the institution "accountable."