The First Four Councils, ALPO, and Newark: References

All references from Schaff editions at Christian Classics Ethereal Library. May the Lord bless all who contributed to these works and their publication.

Note that the ancient Canons should be treated as guidelines, since some of them were clearly dispensed with as customs or conditions changed. For instance, have you ever answered questions about the Christian faith without being licensed to do so by the Bishop? Well, then, you are violating Canon XXVI of the Council of Laodicea, received by the First Council of Constantinople. Shame on you for obeying the Great Commission... Father Kniseley apparently might be in trouble for violating Canon XXXVI of the same Holy Synod for teaching about the existence of gravity and the tides.

Canon IX of the Synod of Antioch in Encaenis, which was received by the First Council of Constantinople

It behoves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed from [the times of] our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.

Canon XI of the same Holy Synod

If any bishop, or presbyter, or any one whatever of the canon shall presume to betake himself to the Emperor without the consent and letters of the bishop of the province, and particularly of the bishop of the metropolis, such a one shall be publicly deposed and cast out, not only from communion, but also from the rank which he happens to have; inasmuch as he dares to trouble the ears of our Emperor beloved of God, contrary to the law of the Church. But, if necessary business shall require any one to go to the Emperor, let him do it with the advice and consent of the metropolitan and other bishops in the province, and let him undertake his journey with letters from them.

Canon XIII of the same Holy Synod

No bishop shall presume to pass from one province to another, and ordain persons to the dignity of the ministry in the Church, not even should he have others with him, unless he should go at the written invitation of the metropolitan and bishops into whose country he goes. But if he should, without invitation, proceed irregularly to the ordination of any, or to the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs which do not concern him, the things done by him are null, and he himself shall suffer the due punishment of his irregularity and his unreasonable undertaking, by being forthwith deposed by the holy Synod.

Canon XIV of the same Holy Synod

If a bishop shall be tried on any accusations, and it should then happen that the bishops of the province disagree concerning him, some pronouncing the accused innocent, and others guilty; for the settlement of all disputes, the holy Synod decrees that the metropolitan call on some others belonging to the neighbouring province, who shall add their judgment and resolve the dispute, and thus, with those of the province, confirm what is determined.

Canon XVI of the same Holy Synod

If any bishop without a see shall throw himself upon a vacant church and seize its throne, without a full synod, he shall be cast out, even if all the people over whom he has usurped jurisdiction should choose him. And that shall be [accounted] a full synod, in which the metropolitan is present.

Canon XIX of the same Holy Synod

A bishop shall not be ordained without a synod and the presence of the metropolitan of the province. And when he is present, it is by all means better that all his brethren in the ministry of the Province should assemble together with him; and these the metropolitan ought to invite by letter. And it were better that all should meet; but if this be difficult, it is indispensable that a majority should either be present or take part by letter in the election, and that thus the appointment should be made in the presence, or with the consent, of the majority; but if it should be done contrary to these decrees, the ordination shall be of no force. And if the appointment shall be made according to the prescribed canon, and any should object through natural love of contradiction, the decision of the majority shall prevail.

Canon II of the First Council of Constantinople

The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.

Canon VIII of the Council of Ephesus

Our brother bishop Rheginus, the beloved of God, and his fellow beloved of God bishops, Zeno and Evagrius, of the Province of Cyprus, have reported to us an innovation which has been introduced contrary to the ecclesiastical constitutions and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and which touches the liberties of all. Wherefore, since injuries affecting all require the more attention, as they cause the greater damage, and particularly when they are transgressions of an ancient custom; and since those excellent men, who have petitioned the Synod, have told us in writing and by word of mouth that the Bishop of Antioch has in this way held ordinations in Cyprus; therefore the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood.
Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured: every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is here determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect.

Canon IX of the Council of Chalcedon

If any Clergyman have a matter against another clergyman, he shall not forsake his bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishop’s consent, select. And if any one shall contravene these decrees, let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried.

Canon X of the same Holy Synod

It shall not be lawful for a clergyman to be at the same time enrolled in the churches of two cities, that is, in the church in which he was at first ordained, and in another to which, because it is greater, he has removed from lust of empty honour. And those who do so shall be returned to their own church in which they were originally ordained, and there only shall they minister. But if any one has heretofore been removed from one church to another, he shall not intermeddle with the affairs of his former church, nor with the martyries, almshouses, and hostels belonging to it. And if, after the decree of this great and ecumenical Synod, any shall dare to do any of these things now forbidden, the synod decrees that he shall be degraded from his rank.

Canon XII of the same Holy Synod

t has come to our knowledge that certain persons, contrary to the laws of the Church, having had recourse to secular powers, have by means of imperial rescripts divided one Province into two, so that there are consequently two metropolitans in one province; therefore the holy Synod has decreed that for the future no such thing shall be attempted by a bishop, since he who shall undertake it shall be degraded from his rank. But the cities which have already been honoured by means of imperial letters with the name of metropolis, and the bishops in charge of them, shall take the bare title, all metropolitan rights being preserved to the true Metropolis.

Canon XVIII of the same Holy Synod

The crime of conspiracy or banding together is utterly prohibited even by the secular law, and much more ought it to be forbidden in the Church of God. Therefore, if any, whether clergymen or monks, should be detected in conspiring or banding together, or hatching plots against their bishops or fellow-clergy, they shall by all means be deposed from their own rank.

Gracious Father, we pray for thy holy Catholic Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ thy Son our Savior. Amen.

The Spiritual Sword is Very Dull...

A Word for the Anglosphere

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no,not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? I Corinthians, 6:1-5. (KJV)

More Musings on the Canons

Yes, it seems to be turning into canon law week here at the Monastery. For obvious reasons, no one was enthused by my last post, which was frankly rather depressing. For the record, I am not promoting schism, I am merely outlining more irenic schemes for responding to the requests for ALPO. These requests essentially are extraconstitutional and if treated in their present extraconstitutional framework, they make life very problematic for dissenters within non-dissenting dioceses, whatever your definition of dissent. And besides, the proposed process gives three years for God to work. Man proposes, God disposes.

However, what I want to reflect on today is the treatment of fratrimony and sororimony in a canon law framework. Emily of Hazelnut Reflections mentioned in comments somewhere (I can’t find it) that she would like some canonical guidance if the Episcopal Church authorized rites for fratrimony or sororimony in the future. I do not intend to propose revisions to the Canons in this piece, only outline the important issues that will have to be considered. Law, as the Institutes say, legislates only for the normative, so we can’t possibly consider everything. And that is why I urge you to consider also Grace in this discussion, for when God forgives us, He does not forgive those things, which we or an average human being normally do; He forgives us everything. And thus the law of the Church is meant to be relaxed in unusual situations. In civil law, this is the prerogative of mercy. In canon law, the same prerogative exists by the gift of Christ to the apostles to bind and to loosen, i.e., in this case: to legislate and to relax the laws.
I also do not wish to speak in great detail, because the end of canon law must be the better care of souls, and thus I seek advice from same sex couples and those who pastor them about how the Church can support spiritual fraternity and sorority as manners of life for the upbuilding of the Church and the good of the partners’ souls.
This discussion is greatly problematic in an Anglican framework. Because of the roots of our ecclesiastical tradition, our canon law often is written with the expectation of the need to conform to the civil law (and I mean secular law in general, not Roman-derived ius civile in particular) or the ability to control or at least have dialogue with it. This, of course, is an expectation by the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, too, but these Churches are more accustomed to long-term tension between church and state on certain matters or accommodation of their systems in terms of an “ethnic law.”
However, for Anglicans, especially in England, there is an expectation that the law of the Church and that of the state be in harmony in certain matters including family law. There is a particular division of Queen’s Bench dedicated to family, probate, and admiralty law, which is an odd grouping, until you realize that all three categories derive from the ius civile , but also realize that the first two were long matters of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Thus, the probate record of the Court of Arches at Canterbury (the supreme ecclesiastical tribunal of the Church of England…below the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the Law Lords, of course) remains an excellent source for genealogical records before a certain period. And we need not appeal to oddities and antiquities to see the tension. The recent kerfluffle over the Civil Partnerships Act in the English House of Bishops and the Church of England generally is illustrative that the Church still feels very bound to having some sort of parity between its own sort of family law and that of the United Kingdom generally. I will omit considering the effects of the Established Church on the marriage law of England, but they lead to such inanities as “inflatable churches,” which I am sure you can learn all about from Google.
Yet one cannot quarantine the infection of Erastianism from the most non-Erastian of Anglicans. The Salty Vicar said a year ago or so that if the laws of New York allowed him to marry same sex partners, he would feel authorized to marry them according to the Liturgy of the Church provided without requiring further authorization from General Convention, though Canon I.18.2(b) is a little more specific than the laws of New York. However, we must consider the possibility that fratrimony or sororimony will be celebrated in jurisdictions where the laws concerning same-sex couples differ significantly from those of marriage generally or indeed legal recognition of such unions might be forbidden by the state constitution. The variety of civil frameworks, however, does not obligate the church to stand idly by and gawk. Instead, the church is obligated to walk the dichotomy between obeying the laws of the God-ordained rulers and obeying those of God. Thus, in some states, fratrimony and sorimony will create civil incidents and the church will have to adapt to those situations. In other states, no civil incidents will be consequent and the church will have to uphold sororimony and fratrimony without state support as it still may do in scattered parts of Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Besides, upholding godly manners of life without state support may become necessary in the case of matrimony as well, if certain libertarians ever gain support. If the government gets out of the marriage business, the Church will have to dive more fully in.

Consanguinity and Conspirituality
I’m hoping that it should be fairly obvious that the Scriptures should be upheld in matters of consanguinity and the civil law thereafter. There might be talk about how the church should respond to spinster sisters entering into civil partnerships, if ever that should be legal or perhaps first cousins will wish to unite in a state in which that is not permitted. The Church should not allow celebration of fratrimony or sororimony in these cases, because fratrimony and sororimony are potentially physical as well as spiritual. Sisters according to the flesh cannot be brothers or sisters according to the Spirit to signify that the Church is meant to be a disturber of households. First cousins and other close relatives ordinarily forbidden by the Law or the civil law are barred from such unions by the signification of household disturbance, because the Moral Law is still operative, or in obedience to rulers.
Conspirituality is more difficult. We often do not consider this to be a bar. Although it probably is forbidden by ancient canon law, I do see spouses sponsor one another for Baptism. The ancient canons probably were concerned more with exploitation of young wards rather than “spiritual incest” in an ontological sense. In the cases in which we are interested, conspirituality affects matrimony. Brian McLaren in his famous reflection on homosexuality meets a couple whose fathers are partners. Should it be lawful to marry such a couple? I argue that as long as the couple was not raised together in the same household and the civil law does not forbid it, it’s probably all right, but that opinion depends on a hermeneutic of the Moral Law, in which the laws against incest exist for sake of natural justice, order in households, and the protection of children from abuse. If you don’t subscribe to this hermeneutic, your opinion might be different, but you almost certainly object to the whole idea in the first place.

Public Health

Many states require blood tests for various diseases. If the church has to have its own rules, it really should consider mandating that both partners get tested if they haven’t been tested recently. Although I intend to be a virgin when I marry, I also intend to be tested for the usual suite of STDs, since some can be transmitted without intimate contact. The point of this requirement shouldn’t be to set up a formal bar to union but to get both partners honest about what they’re living with and the precautions they need to take in future life. We know from the Law that God is concerned with disease, especially these sorts of diseases. If we gain some pastoral and theological insight from this requirement, we could do great good in Africa and Asia.

Counseling

One thing I disliked about the Book of Daniel was the complete emphasis in the marriage counseling sessions on the couple’s relationship. I think this is very important, of course, but I also think it is important that the priest also be careful to instruct the couple in the meaning of the union into which they seek to enter. We receive all kinds of poor cultural cues on marriage, and I fear this will complicate the expectations of same-sex couples. Counseling should be simultaneously catechetical and relational. The Canons presently emphasize catechesis. They also focus on the ability of the couple to contract from the standpoint of consent.

The Requirement of Baptism

At present, it is only required that one of the parties has received Holy Baptism. If the theology of Fratrimony and Sororimony generally propounded on this blog is honored by future legislation, I think that both parties should be baptized. It seems problematic for a union that signifies the unity of the Church through the power of the Holy Spirit to be between a Christian and a non-Christian. Frankly, I’m not sure if Christian Marriage should be celebrated between a Christian and a non-Christian for similar reasons, though I would be agreeable to any correction on the matter. But I’m still concerned with the Apostle’s command, “be ye not yoked unequally.”

Notice

We still seem to have some remnant of the requirement of Banns and hints of Special License in our canons, but most of this is gone. I think it would be preferable in cases of Matrimony, Fratrimony, or Sororimony that notice be given in some convenient way of upcoming unions rather than after the fact, so that the community have the opportunity to pray for the couple, but that’s just me.

Declaration of Intention

To signify the completion of the catechetical requirement, there should be a Declaration of Intention that has some relation to the relevant liturgical formulae.

Conscience Clause

Should be retained. There are many good reasons why a priest should be free not to solemnize any union which she or he does not want to solemnize.

Of Dissolution

The Canons require that at least one of the divorcing parties inform the Clergy before taking legal action so that attempts can be made to reconcile. In states where there are no civil incidents associated with fratrimony or sororimony, there is no way to pause for an attempt at reconciliation. I would recommend that the Canons ask that one of the parties not effect a permanent separation of bed and board (as the medieval canonists would put it) before attempting reconciliation. Tradition provides little insight into dissolution of spiritual brotherhood or sisterhood. The closest analogy would be separation from a religious order. The Rule of Saint Benedict is problematic in this regard in that it essentially provides the greater excommunication for the contumacious, making full identification of the monastery with the entire Church. One wonders whether Benedictines thrice estranged from their family could be reconciled with the Church. Serious reflection needs to be done here, and frankly our problems with the theology of matrimonial dissolution are partially to blame for my doubts here.

For the same reasons, I always have had reservations with same-sex unions involving divorced persons. But as I said before, law is normative, but grace is not. These questions are important, but their settlement is not definite. In all cases, I would advise that special concern be directed toward the children of all types of holy unions.

I am sure that I have missed many important issues or not treated others in sufficient detail. So please consider these thoughts to be the start of a conversation. *Christopher, I know, already has put down excellent thoughts on related issues in the build-up to the affirmation of his fratrimony with his spiritual brother, C.

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who settest the solitary in families: We commend to thy continual care the homes in which thy people dwell. Put far from them, we beseech thee, every root of bitterness, the desire of vainglory, and the pride of life. Fill them with faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness. Knit together in constant affection, those who, in holy wedlock, have been made one flesh. Keep in thy faith and fear those who have been made by thy Spirit brothers and sisters in the bond of peace. Turn the hearts of the parents to the children, and the hearts of the children to the parents, and so enkindle fervent charity among us all, that we may evermore be kindly affectioned to one another; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

"Province X" and Canon Law: References

Article VII of the Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America :

Dioceses may be united into Provinces in such manner, under such conditions, and with such powers, as shall be provided by Canon of the General Convention; Provided, however, that no Diocese shall be included in a Province without its own consent.

CANON 9: Of Provinces :

constituted. Sec. 1. Subject to the proviso in Article VII of the Constitution, the Dioceses of this Church shall be and are hereby united into Provinces as follows:

The First Province shall consist of the Dioceses within the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.

The Second Province shall consist of the Dioceses within the States of New York and New Jersey, the Dioceses of Haiti and the Virgin Islands, and the Convocation of American Churches in Europe.

The Third Province shall consist of the Dioceses within the States of Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

The Fourth Province shall consist of the Dioceses within the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Louisiana, except for the portion thereof consisting of the Diocese of Western Louisiana.

The Fifth Province shall consist of the Diocese of Missouri, and of the Dioceses within the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

The Sixth Province shall consist of the Dioceses within the States of Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado.

The Seventh Province shall consist of the Dioceses of Western Louisiana and of West Missouri, and of the Dioceses within the States of Arkansas, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico.

The Eighth Province shall consist of the Dioceses within the States of Idaho, Utah, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii, the Diocese of Taiwan and the Area Mission of Navajoland.

The Ninth Province shall consist of the Dioceses of this Church in Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Honduras, and Puerto Rico.

Section 2(b) of the same Canon :

Dioceses. (b) By mutual agreement between the Synods of two adjoining Provinces, a Diocese or Area Mission may transfer itself from one of such Provinces to the other, such transfer to be considered complete upon approval thereof by the General Convention. Following such approval, Canon I.9.1 shall be appropriately amended.

Section 3 of the same Canon

Sec. 3. For the purpose of the Province the Synodical rights and privileges of the several Dioceses within the Province shall be such as from time to time shall be determined by the Synod of the Province.

Certain Canons on Membership of the Provincial Synod Omitted...

Section 8 of the same Canon

Sec. 8. The Provincial Synod shall have power: (a) to enact Ordinances for its own regulation and government; (b) to elect judges of the Provincial Court of Review; (c) to perform such duties as many be committed to it by the General Convention; (d) to deal with all matters within the Province; Provided, however, that no Provincial Synod shall have power to regulate or control the internal policy or affairs of any constituent Diocese; and Provided, further, that all actions and proceedings of the Synod shall be subject to and in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution and the Canons for the government of this Church; (e) to adopt a budget for the maintenance of any Provincial work undertaken by the Synod, such budget to be raised in such manner as the Synod may determine; (f) to create by Ordinance a provincial Council with power to administer and carry on such work as may be committed to it by the General Convention, or by the Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council, or by the Synod of the Province. Powers of Provincial Synod.

Section 9 of the same Canon

Sec. 9. The Synod of a Province may take over from the Executive Council, with its consent, and during its pleasure, the administration of any given work within the Province. If the Province shall provide the funds for such work, the constituent Dioceses then members of, and supporting, such Province shall receive proportional credit therefor upon the quotas assigned to them for the support of the Program of the Church, provided that the total amount of such credits shall not exceed the sum appropriated in the budget of the Executive Council for the maintenance of the work so taken over.

Section 10 of the same Canon

Sec. 10. Within sixty days after each session of the General Convention, the Presidents of the two Houses thereof shall refer to the Provincial Synods, or any of them, such subjects as the General Convention may direct, or as they may deem advisable, for consideration thereof by the Synods, and it shall be the duty of such Synods to consider the subject or subjects so referred to them at the first meeting of the Synod held after the adjournment of the General Convention, and to report their action and judgment in the matter to the Secretary of the House of Bishops and to the Secretary of the House of Deputies at least six months before the date of the meeting of the next General Convention.

Article VI, Section 1-2 of the Constitution...

Sec. 1. The House of Bishops may establish a Mission in any area not included within the boundaries of any Diocese of this Church or of any Church in communion with this Church, and elect or appoint a Bishop therefor.

Sec. 2. The General Convention may accept a cession of the territorial jurisdiction of a part of a Diocese when such cession shall have been proposed by the Bishop and the Convention of such Diocese, and consent thereto shall have been given by three-fourths of the Parishes in the ceded territory, and also by the same ratio of the Parishes within the remaining territory. Any territorial jurisdiction or any part of the same, which may have been ceded by a Diocese under the foregoing provision, may be retroceded to the said Diocese by such joint action of all the several parties as is herein required for its cession, save that in the case of retrocession of territory the consent of Parishes within the territory retroceded shall not be necessary; Provided, that such action of the General Convention, whether of cessionor retrocession, shall be by a vote of two-thirds of all the Bishops present and voting and by a vote by orders in the House of Deputies in accordance with Article I, Section 5, except that concurrence by the orders shall require the affirmative vote in each order by two-thirds of the Dioceses.

Canon I.11.4(f)

(f) At the request of the Convention of a Missionary Diocese, supported by the presentation of relevant facts and a reasonable plan, the General Convention may by joint Resolution (1) permit the Diocese seeking autonomy to unite with another Province, or Regional Council having metropolitical authority, of the Anglican Communion, or (2) permit the Diocese seeking autonomy but not planning to unite with another Province or Regional Council, to unite with no less than three (3) other viable Dioceses at the same time which are geographically contiguous, or so located geographically as to be considered of the same region, for the purpose of establishing a new Province, or new Regional Council having metropolitical authority, of the Anglican Communion.

In other words, suppose that Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, Quincy, Dallas, Fort Worth, and South Carolina wish to affiliate after the next General Convention with another Province but have some autonomy until then. Unfortunately, it is impossible for them to do so as Province X under the present Canons. Thus, this series of actions would need to happen.

1. By agreement between Province III and Province V, Pittsburgh becomes part of Province V.

2. By agreement between Province VII and Province V, Quincy and Pittsburgh become part of Province VII.

3. By agreement between Province VII and Province IV, South Carolina becomes part of Province VII.

4. By agreement between Province VII and Province VIII, San Joaquin becomes part of Province VII.

5. By cession of the Dioceses of Pittsburgh, Quincy, South Carolina, San Joaquin, Dallas, and Fort Worth, the Missionary Dioceses of the Allegheny, Hickory Grove, Charleston, Stockton, Plano, and Watauga are erected. The parishes who do not wish to join are allowed to remain part of the extant dioceses by clever boundary drawing.

6. General Convention approves the cession in 2009 and the Missionary Dioceses affiliate with their preferred metropolitical authority who now can draw boundaries as big as they want, govern their own ordination process, and be subject to canon law other than that of PECUSA.

7. Dioceses of Pittsburgh etc. elect new bishops once Missionary Dioceses erected with former Diocesans moving to Missionary Dioceses.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that the good Lord deliver us from all false doctrine, heresy, schism; from hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word and commandment.

Confessions of a Theophiliac Or Why I May Have An Unhealthy Affection for Doctrine

Disclaimer: This is a post of personal explanation. It is most definitely not meant to criticize or demean anyone else's relationship with God, just describe my own. Warning: It is entirely possible after reading this that you might need to poke out your eyes. This might be considered a response to Nate's post here . But many of the good points Nate raises are ones I encounter at least once every Sunday, sometimes more often. But, most of all, I really hope that this post serves as a transition from the GC2006 postmortem, which is being very admirably performed elsewhere, to further explorations of the Articles of Religion.

Hear what our Lord Jesus Christ saith:
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with
all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great
commandment. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments
hang all the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 22:37-40

If you hear something enough as a child, you may believe it for the rest of your life. Or as Robertson Davies might say, "What's bred in the bone comes out in the flesh." And I heard the above any given Sunday for the first ten years of my life. Love God, love your neighbor. This is all we need to know. Simple, right?

Ah, no. It was with some strange pang of regret that I realized today that my most intimate relationship always has been with God. First, let us consider the degree of emotional intimacy. I can tell God anything. After all, it's impossible to keep anything from Him. It's very hard to me to talk about physical intimacy in this context, because there is a continual assumption in our culture that all physical intimacy is ultimately sexual. But it doesn't have to be. There is an odd subsumption of being when one is snuggling with another person, as if you are more than united but rather within one another. And that's about all I want to say on the Web. But I'll point out one more interesting tidbit. I have a great prejudice against penetration in general, but yet I earnestly am willing to eat the Body and Blood of Christ, earnestly believing in its nature without having any idea why like a good Anglican (of some sort). So far (perhaps fortunately), the elements have not spoken to me (there are stories in the hagiography about this), but I am willing to let Someone come within me, as long as it is the Christ. And because it is precisely not sexual, my intimacy with God does not participate in the primal shame and so never occasions regret.

But let not my intimacy confuse you. I am a very poor lover of God. I am frankly a poor lover of anyone. I'm emotionally needy, oblivious to the needs of the Other, have trouble separating public and private life, and can have serious issues with lust when that is an issue. I'm so glad that my parents love me, because I often have trouble figuring out why anyone else would. That's just the emotional neediness talking. And what's funny is that my weaknesses with God and my weaknesses romantically are pretty much the same list. Indeed, I once treated both God and a very good friend in exactly the same way with fairly disastrous results. Kyrie eleison , but the rest of us aren't so merciful.

The reason for this carload of Too Much Information is that the similarity of my relationship with God to my romantic relationships has made me have certain anxieties about my relationship with God. First, I am exceptionally bad at remembering people's names. If you know me in real life, please be aware that I probably have forgotten your name at some point while we've known one another. Thus, it is entirely possible that I may have an unhealthy obsession with what we call God. The most nightmarish scene of the modern cinema for me does not involve torture or giant chainsaws, but the scene where a man wakes up to company in bed and starts searching for clues to company's identity. Of course, it's fairly hard to go that wrong with God. But everyone has something which they like to be called, especially by intimates, so that they feel most safe, most true, and most beloved. In the feminist blogosphere, there have been debates recently about whether "the feminist credentials" of women who take their husband's surname should be revoked. My mother kept her surname. Tongues probably still wagged. But it was her choice. It plays havoc with telemarketers, but it fits her as a person. Its use in personal and professional settings makes her comfortable in her own skin. But if a woman feels more comfortable in her own skin to be Mrs. Schwyzer (for sake of example), that is good, too. And though it is odd to think of a being without body, parts, and passions having such preferences, I wonder if there are forms of address that make feel God most beloved. And I think the tradition of the Church might bear that out.

For I am not the only lover of God, and indeed I am one of a low order. There have been many before me, and most of higher order. And they have had a variety of names for God, including one to which +(+)Katharine recently alluded. After Karen's recent post at Kinesis , I have never felt so comfortable singing "Lead Us Heavenly Mother, Lead Us," knowing that the maternal character of God is so well attested by Scripture and Tradition. But likewise I must respect the works of other lovers such as the catholic creeds, which show an admiration for the personhood and acts of God more than the teachings of Jesus, as Nate and others point out to me. God (and I do not mean this in a universalist way) has many aspects. If I am obsessed with names, it is because I fear that we may be emphasizing some aspects of God over others to our peril. God is indeed a loving, reconciling, and far more inclusive God than we are. But God also can be a vengeful God, punishing the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth generation (well, not any more, perhaps). But I read in the Daily Office readings today about God's response to Israel's ingratitude and cowardice in the desert. It's fairly harsh. God is indeed loving and as reconciling as possible in these stories, not killing wantonly but instead pedagogically. Fortunately, I believe God through Jesus Christ takes a different approach to relationship with us now, always seeking to love us more dearly, but He remains a dangerous God. He is very much like C.S. Lewis describes Aslan, not a tame lion. And let's not forget the Gospel from the Daily Office in which the Lord Jesus bewails the slow progress of his mission and seems to be responding to various unwarranted forms of optimism about the coming of the Kingdom, "I did not come to bring peace but a sword."

Because my obligation to love of neighbor and therefore justice is equal and intimately mixed with my obligation to love God, I, in theory, would be willing to compromise my desires for progressive theology to be better grounded in orthodox teaching and progressives to maintain the highest degree of communion possible with moderates and more conservative brothers and sisters in Christ for justice. But I'm not sure such compromises really serve justice. In my opinion, Nate has a good sense of the coming judgment. But so much progressive theology seems to be driven by the idea that not many will come to judgment. Justice often ceases to be something we do in love and obedience to God but as something we struggle to wrest from the hands of an evil Other. Looking at the problems of the world, most of them seem to be my fault (in part). How am I supposed to deal with that unless I have some way of confronting sin? All I am asking for is that the church present a full picture of the Living God.

I was in a meeting today with a lot of angry people. One guess why. I really wouldn't want to be the bishop of Laodicea now, for instance. But it occurred to me that the chief problem here was doctrinal. My Rector has a saying that "faith is what you die for, but dogma is what you are willing to kill for." To which I add, "Doctrine will make you strike your colors." Now there is much doctrine concerning the necessity of mutual love in the Church and about the identity of the church catholic. But the understanding of the justice of GLBT inclusion is fairly novel, and only has been a force in the House of Bishops for a few triennia. So why not prefer the new leading to the old covenant? But if you believe GLBTs always have been essential to the organic unity of the Body and their covenant relationships are ikons of the mystical unity of the Body, you might behave differently.

And that's where we finally get to the meat of it, for to love is to seek the other's good even to the point of death. "There is no greater love than this than to lay down one's life for one's friends." If you talk to a Christian of a certain stripe, he might tell you quite frankly and honestly of his love for gays and lesbians and his belief that their good is deliverance from their "unnatural passions." And why am I not one of those Christians? Because it is beyond belief to me that He through whom all things were made (and made adam male and female) ordained the range of natural behavior among human beings to be so very different from that of the animals, and so I took a different perspective on Scripture and Tradition than is conventional. There is doctrine in there.

There is doctrine in refusing overtures to make out with someone, even if her boyfriend assures you he's cool with it, since God is not a monad and neither should we be. Matthew 25 is quite concrete. It makes no distinction between "God's poor and the devil's," since these are false categories. It makes no distinction between black and white etc., since every tribe, language, and nation shall contribute members to the royal priesthood around the throne. And for me, many of these doctrines that encourage me to support justice and show especial respect to the marginalized derive from the highfalutin philosophical notions and patriarchal prejudices of past lovers of Christ, whose communion with God I long to share.

I am a privileged straight white male, who has been provided with every advantage in civil life and shown every consideration. And yet so many of my companions in privilege find love to be exceptionally difficult. What keeps them going is the love of God, and yet they interpret Scripture and Tradition in far different ways than I and indeed contrary to my sense of justice. What keeps me charitable to them is not just that I may be the deluded one, now or in the future, but that they share with me the same weakness and the same Beloved. It was that same sense of communion that forever shaped my attitude toward gays and lesbians, why would I stop now?

Anyway, my thoughts on doctrine and justice are probably best summarized by J-Tron's song, "Good Doc Trine," whose lyrics are here, though "peace of mind" makes more sense to me than "piece of mind." Or read AKMA. He occasionally discusses this subject far more eloquently than I do.

On a related note, I heard a great story today. A woman came to the Claiming the Blessing booth in the Exhibit Hall at General Convention and asked in a quiet Arkansas voice, "If I have some popcorn, do I have to watch [ Voices of Witness ]?" Fortunately, Claiming the Blessing takes hospitality seriously. The woman at the booth said she was welcome to all the popcorn she wanted and even offered to turn off the film. But the woman demured at the suggestion and ended up watching the entire film while consuming four bags of popcorn. When she didn't have her mouth full and it was therefore polite to exclaim, she was saying, "Oh my Lord etc." Apparently, she hadn't realized the existence of faithful Christian gay and lesbian couples before, especially lay ones. Then after the film was over, she asked, "If I take a DVD of the film, do I have to give you my name?" She was assured that she was quite welcome to take the film, no questions asked. She looked carefully around to see if anyone she knew was about and then quickly secreted a copy in her purse and hurried off. O ruler of the universe, Lord God, great deeds are they that you have done, surpassing human understanding.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind, so that you may do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with the same God who dearly loves you.

The Reformed Episcopal Church Just Isn't For Me

During General Convention I read a lot of blogs, including Father Thorpus' reports at Whitehall. At one point, he discussed his distaste for the Official Youth Presence's calls to revise the Book of Common Prayer to appease the young people. I commented that if there were to be a new youth-driven Prayer Book, I really would like to restore the Commination Against Sinners. Wannabe Anglican then suggested I could join the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC). I recall Bugs Bunny, "He don't know me very well, do he?"

But I did briefly turn over the idea in my head. First, I thought of past experience with the REC. Their principal seminary was not far from where I grew up. There was an REC church on the route between home and school. But I never really heard anything about them doing anything. I knew enough church history to know who they were and why they split, thanks to a c. 1985 issue of Anglican and Episcopal History on schisms, which I think might be helpful reading for these times. The local Episcopal church in that neighborhood recently was closed. I didn't see any signs that the REC parish was doing any better.

Second, I investigated nearby REC churches. There really aren't many in the whole of Ionia. The nearest is on the other side of Colossae, where the next General Convention will be held. As someone who doesn't possess a car, that is a tad impractical.

But I think it was this web site that pretty much settled my future affiliation with the REC in a much more serious and fundamental fashion. I am a High Churchman, after all, and contrary to popular belief, I neither adore Buddha, nor the Ever-blessed Virgin Mary. Hyperdoulia, on the other hand... And considering my discussion of the church catholic last post, I probably disagree with the REC on most matters if this web site is any indication of typical belief in the pews. ++PJA has signed an agreement with the REC. He probably should invest in more muted episcopal costume in the future, maybe something that ++William White would wear. He wouldn't want his purple to look too Papist.

(Hat tip to Google Ads at Questioning Christian)

Carnival on Christian Identity

The following is my contribution to Derek the Ænglican’s Carnival on Christian Identity in commemoration of the feast of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Bishop and Doctor. Because I have been asked to be brief and am normally not, I will proceed by a series of observations on the subjects of the Carnival, some of them disconnected.

On the Canon

1. The question of canon is not “what is text?”, nor is it “how text should be read?” Semiotics answers the former and hermeneutics the latter. The question of text is “What texts should be read more than others?”
2. A friend of mine recently described the literary canon, “the Western canon”, as a “status symbol.” This is to be avoided for the Canon of the Christian Church. The Canon is our common inheritance, preferably even more egalitarian than the literary canon. Nevertheless, I believe the Anglican Reformation was not about increasing individual access to the Canon but instead about ensuring the communal access of all orders of ministry according to their needs. The benefit of such an open interpretive community is accountability that could not be readily sustained in the medieval order of the Western Church; accountability that is not present in the extremes of Protestantism either.
3. May the Lord bless us with Biblical literacy, not Biblical literalism.
4. The Canon is defined ontologically as the nearest emanations of the Divine Word ( logos ) that the Church has found and judged worthy. All truth more or less emanates from the Divine Word in a sort of pneumatological game of telephone, but we believe that the Holy Spirit “τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.” (has spoken through the Prophets), and thus there are presumably some texts that are more truthful than others. Practically, the Canon is defined by its use in Divine Service. Now, of course, there are many texts used in Divine Service, some taken from the Canon or commensurate with it, but the texts of the Canon are unique. We generally speak to God in Divine Service, but in the Canon, we believe that God speaks in the words spoken to our foreparents in faith and thus reveals Himself to us. Therefore, we must be careful about introducing proclamatory texts into Divine Service that are not ordinarily part of the Canon, because by their use in this way, we receive them as the word of God to our peril.
5. Nature is ontologically and practically canonical, ontologically because both Nature and the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are very close to direct emanations of the Divine Word; practically because the life and death of Jesus the Christ is made present to us most palpably not in the proclamation of the Gospel but in the transformation of those visible creatures of God the Father by the Holy Spirit into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist and the waters of His death, forgiveness, and regeneration in Holy Baptism.





On the Creeds
1. The question of the Creeds is “What shall we believe that would be most amenable to Christ’s prevention of us.”
2. I refuse to take off my Chalcedonian glasses or give up all Neoplatonic analytical techniques.
3. The Creeds are not the only possible settlement within the bounds of the Canon of the questions they answer. They, however, are the most elegant, parsimonious, and thus presumably veracious statements concerning the nature of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity.
4. The sense of pisteia (belief) in the Nicene Creed is of an assertion of ontological truth. The sense of credo in the Apostles’ Creed is simultaneously an assertion of ontological truth and of one’s trust in the extant God. The sense of belief in the Athanasian Creed is that you better believe it or else. Thus, the Nicene Creed should be said at the Eucharist, the Apostles’ Creed should be said in the Office, and the Athanasian Creed should be said at the Vigil of Trinity Sunday in some place where no one can hear you and be intimidated.
5. The Athanasian Creed is the ultimate proof that I am not sufficiently afraid of judgment or else lack the intensity of the Fathers.
6. The Creeds challenge the modern mind for all of the wrong reasons. We focus on physics and biology, when we should consider what they teach about incarnation, gender, humility, and our ultimate ends.

Apostolic Succession
1. The apostles were witnesses to the glorified Lord. The usage of apostle in the Scriptures allows for no other reasonable definition. However, the original idea of apostolic succession depended on the relationship of some of the apostles as disciples to the Lord as teacher before and after His glorification. “To the crowds He spoke in parables, but he spoke clearly to His disciples when they were alone.” “And then He unrolled the Scriptures to them.” After the Lord was glorified, there was no need for secret teaching, so his disciples proclaimed His teachings openly and argued against a series of “apostolic competitors” throughout the Levant and Asia Minor while revealing this previously secret knowledge. The apostolic succession is ultimately the transmission in fidelity of the plain truth that there are no secret messages of Jesus and no conspiracies. There also was much faith in the early Church in the purity of the apostolic teaching, and thus St. Polycarp was highly regarded at Rome, because he had been instructed by St. John the Evangelist. Thus, apostolic succession chiefly lies in the continuation of the apostolic teaching through the relationship of teacher to student.
2. But we cannot deny the traditional and more mystical connection through the laying on of hands for the purpose of installation into the various orders of ministry, for we hear of the seven sons of Sceva in Acts 19, who attempted to exorcize “in the name of Jesus, who Paul proclaims.” The demon recognizes the crusher of the adder and the least of the apostles, but he sees no relationship between them and those who adjure him. Apostolic succession is a means whereby we are subtly marked to bind and to loosen the world, but we recognize that some are marked differently and more powerfully than others: some to be deacons, some to be priests, and others bishops. And these last are said to bear the fullness of the apostolic office by being both chief teacher and the “magic hands” who bless the oil whereby we are “marked as Christ’s own forever,” who empower us with the Spirit for service, and who set some apart as servants of the servants of God.
3. Apostolic succession is not a matter of stud books or mandates but sound teaching, faithful learning, and the intimacy of the sacred rites whereby these things are signified and made manifest to the inimical powers.


On catholicity
1. I’ve been reading a very many things lately that assert that catholicity consists in greater universality, whether by inclusion of the marginalized in civil or ecclesiastical society or by respect for the opinions of distant pilgrims in the affairs of the local assembly. To some extent, catholicity comprehends both ideas, but the general invocation of greater universality of believers as a principle might not be recognized easily by the Fathers, unless I am much mistaken.
2. Eschatologically, catholicity is all about Revelation 6:9.
3. St. Irenaeus said, “Where there is a bishop, let there be the whole multitude; just as where Jesus Christ is, there too is the Catholic Church.” (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:2). And if you actually read the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, you realize that Irenaeus’s specific point concerns the necessity of the bishop’s presence at the Eucharist and other sacraments. But his point in general is as the context suggests: the principal mark of catholicity is the Real Presence of Christ Jesus in the Eucharist.
4. Marcion had bishops and dioceses throughout the Empire, but the faith he taught did not comprehend the revelation to the Israel nor the veracity of the Christ as fully human and divine creator and savior, and thus fully comprehensive of the entire created order and the salvation from sins, as St. Cyril of Jerusalem said in his Catechism (18:23), though in general and not specifically about Marcion. And likewise Arius etc. Thus, a mark of catholicity is the veracity, transparency, relevance, and completeness of teaching. St. Augustine emphasizes transparency greatly in City of God . Thus, we must agree with Luther and the Articulators in particular that “The visible Church of Christ [is where] the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance…” for if those things are true, such a Church is the church catholic.
5. If you’re worshipping the Lamb, it’s really hard to see how you could be any more catholic.
6. The catholic Creeds thus are chiefly catholic because of what they say, not because of the circumstances under which they were drafted or promulgated or on account of the merits of the bishops who first assented to them. This should make all students of ecclesiastical history feel better.
7. The Vincentian Canon is not a principle of catholicity, because it, after all, was first used to argue against St. Augustine of Hippo. It fails by irony. It’s vaguely like arguing against the Petrine Doctrine by using Galatians.



On reformation
1. The church always should be reformed. Hmm…I’ve seen that somewhere before.
2. No matter what, Christ is not fully incarnate among us, nor do we teach the fullness of those things that bring abundant life and salvation.
3. Thus, the church should direct its reform toward incarnation of Christ and veracity of teaching.
4. Reformation is not a matter solely of church councils or vestry meetings; it is not a matter of liturgy tweaks or mission trips; it is not achieved by reckless denunciation of the old or equally reckless denunciation of the new, nor by their embrace with total abandon. No, reformation begins with the conversion of the individual soul to the upbuilding of the Body. At its root, it is what we do when we bring the fruits of our labor to the altar and join in the Eucharistic Feast, where we ourselves are epicleted, “Sanctify us also that we may worthily receive…” It is when we seek to become living stones of a holy temple. If we ever think that we are reformed by votes or budgets or missives of praemunires from across the sea and not by the physician of our souls, we are in serious trouble. There is a discipline of holy living in which I greatly fall short, but I see how it could be and thus dimly envision the perpetual reformation of the Bride of Christ, Holy Mother Church.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that you may venerate the sacred Mysteries of Christ’s Body and Blood and evermore perceive within yourselves the fruit of your redemption. Amen.

General Moratoria Resolution (Bumped for the Joint Session of General Convention)

Instinct tells me that this version might not pass muster with Constitution and Canons

GC Resolution DXXX

Resolved , the House of __________________ concurring,

that from the 27th of July 2006, the Feast of William Reed Huntington, Priest according to the Calendar of this Church, until the 27th of July 2009, it shall be an offense within the meaning of Title IV, Canon 1, Section 1 of the Canons of this Church for a Bishop in this Church to consecrate anyone a Bishop for this Church or for a Church in communion with this Church.

Resolved ,

that from the 27th of July 2006 until the 27th of July 2009, it shall be an offense within the meaning of Title IV, Canon 1, Section 1 of the Canons of this Church for any Deacon, Priest, or Bishop of this Church to officiate at the Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage, the Blessing of a Civil Marriage, An Order for Marriage, any rites heretofore irregular but within the bounds of our common life in which covenants are made between two persons of the same sex, or act as an officiant for anything considered a marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership at civil law.

Resolved ,

that from the 27th of July 2006 until the 27th of July 2009, the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the House of Bishops may authorize pastoral provisions for the unusual change in the life of the Church during this time, provided that such provisions do not violate the first two resolves of this Resolution.

Here's a more workable version

GC Resolution DXXX

Resolved , the House of __________________ concurring,

that from the 27th of July 2006, the Feast of William Reed Huntington, Priest according to the Calendar of this Church, until the 27th of July 2009, the General Convention strongly urges that no Bishop in this Church to consecrate anyone a Bishop for this Church or for a Church in communion with this Church.

Resolved ,

that from the 27th of July 2006 until the 27th of July 2009, the General Convention strongly urges that no Deacon, Priest, nor Bishop of this Church officiate at the Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage, the Blessing of a Civil Marriage, An Order for Marriage, any rites heretofore irregular but within the bounds of our common life in which covenants are made between two persons of the same sex, or act as an officiant for anything considered a marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership at civil law.

Resolved ,

that from the 27th of July 2006 until the 27th of July 2009, the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the House of Bishops may authorize pastoral provisions for the unusual change in the life of the Church during this time, provided that such provisions do not violate the first two resolves of this Resolution.

Explanation: The Anglican Communion through the Windsor Report has recommended that the Episcopal Church desist from consecrating bishops who are in covenants other than Holy Matrimony and also desist from authorizing liturgies for the celebration of such covenants. At the same time, many members of the Episcopal Church have frank and serious disagreement with the theological motivation for these recommendations. However, recognizing that the recent fractures in the Anglican Communion will not be healed by continuing with all due speed on the course of enshrining these theological views throughout the life and doctrine of the Episcopal Church, this Resolution proposes to recognize as far as possible that gay and lesbian Episcopalians and Anglicans throughout the world who disagree with recent actions of the Episcopal Church have a full and equal claim on the conscience of this Church. Thus, the Resolution proposes to comply with the recommendations of the Windsor Report regarding concrete actions by the Episcopal Church but also suspend episcopal consecrations and marriages in consideration for Dioceses who feel called to elect gays and lesbians to the episcopate and for faithful gay and lesbian couples, who presently do not receive the ecclesiastical sanction for their relationships that many of us believe they are entitled to by natural law, Scripture, and Tradition. The Resolution also permits the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops to authorize pastoral provisions to deal with this interruption in our common life, while we seek closer engagement with Provinces in the Communion from which we are presently estranged. Pastoral provisions could include authorization for an exchange of marriage vows within the context of the principal Sunday Eucharist after the Peace or accomodations for alternate episcopal oversight of Dioceses with episcopal vacancies.

Presiding Bishop News You'll See Nowhere Else

In a stunning move, the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church has elected a former fisheries scientist, Kathryn Jefferts-Schori, as the 26th Presiding Bishop. Jefferts-Schori is presently Bishop of Nevada and a second career priest, having been a priest for little more than a decade. Commentators are still nonplussed by the movement of the Holy Spirit in this case. One camp is convinced that there is something appropriate in someone who once studied fish at one of the nation's leading universities for marine biology, Oregon State University, becoming the Church's chief fisher for people. Others aren't so sure. They say there is apparently something fundamentally problematic about the author of papers such as "ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT OF SQUID (LOLIGO-OPALESCENS) OFF THE CENTRAL OREGON COAST" becoming the leader of the nation's most increasingly relevant irrelevant mainline denomination. After all, conservatives point out, squid are not lawful eating according to the Pentateuch. "What kind of treif is she going to let in the Episcopal boat, I wonder?," said Sumo Kendall, legendary alterego of the Canon Theologian of South Carolina.

(In homage to That Naughty Anglican Chap of Rich Anglican Fudge with Nuts)

Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music Report

Pisco (Dave) posted it, though you can obtain it from the Big Thick Greenish Book of Legislative Madness, which the vulgar call "The Blue Book" if you wish.

Included are such things as:

1. Principles for Lesser Feasts and Fasts revision, which are a good statement of our hagiology as a church.

2. Proposals for Trial Common for Space Exploration. This is personally meaningful, though it seems rather tuned to manned missions, and I work with people who design unmanned probes, but one can't have everything.

3. Both Oscar Romero and Patriarch Tikhon are to be added to the kalendar for trial use. There are others, but these are the most recognizable names.

4. Blandina to be commemorated as principal martyr of Lyons. There's no question that she was the most notable martyr, and her example was especially spectacular. The commemoration of Perpetua and Felicitas and their Companions really has entered raised consciousness about the martyrdoms under the Empire, so I do hope this change is helpful in this vein.

5. Committee on Multi-Sensory Worship Report. My first experience with multi-sensory worship was Easter Vigil at ILEOS. Apparently, this liturgy has been improved over a period of several years. I do believe there is potential for missiologically and glorificationally fruitful development here, especially in the hands of competent professionals like the priest in charge of liturgy at ILEOS. But I do have reservations about the potential for a loss of continuity between liiturgical tradition and the wonder of the "now." For instance, should liturgical dance be done to instrumental or vocal music? Do I misread the Scriptures to think that the latter was true in the Temple? I also fear that certain texts and their poetry will be lost in the corporatized paradigm of electronic presentation.

6. Rites of Passage Committee: Contains Robert Two Bulls, who is a priest in Laodicea now and a friend of a friend. I, of course, am far more wasicu than Lakota, but I do hope I run into him one of these days to talk about life in Pine Ridge now. The Rites of Passage Report is too dense and too important to be parsed now. I'm going to read and inwardly digest it for a while (oh, I can't just turn the chattering off.)

7. The comments on "Celebrating an Engagement" are quite good.

8. It occurs to me that some of these fuller liturgies (as presently envisioned) might be appropriate for household/small group use. I do not come from a community where it is practicable to celebrate such rites for everyone in the church without it having an assembly line feel. But I really could see Hugo Schwyzer (or one of the priests) doing the teenage one with the Youth Group, their parents, interested members of the community etc. And if I were to become engaged, I can see inviting a mix of work and church friends of both parties to this in anticipation of a shower, conspiratorial doings with bridesmaids, groomsmen, etc. In small communities, these have potential for the fuller community participation envisioned.

9. I envision a priest saying, "There's something in Rites of Passage for this very predicament." "Thank you, Superpriest!"

10. Interesting new liturgy for welcoming a new Rector.

11. I am happy to say that the proposed revision of the Burial Service is fairly close to the present BCP rite. It only seems to consider the need for rites of vigil at the body etc. and has an even greater emphasis on the Resurrection.

12. The chief part of the Kaddish has been translated for use. I still probably could recite the Aramaic in company. It's amazing how much it seems like a prayer Jesus or Paul would have prayed. It is, after all, probably of their era or so.

13. Apparently, something like Yahrzeit is performed in the East. This, too, is incorporated.

14. SCLM also admits the multiplicity of resources has become confusing. I think three books and the Internet should be sufficient, but the Church Pension Fund wouldn't like that.

15. I didn't even know there were catechumenal materials in the Book of Occasional Services

16. Report of the Custodian of the Standard Book of Common Prayer has interesting news about bilingual editions of the Book of Common Prayer.

17. That is all.

Baptismal Theology Discussions at General Convention

Some brilliant (or swift) priest in Arkansas took the optimal blogspot name . He has coverage ("Thursday morning thru 4:30") of discussion by heavyweights of sacramental and liturgical theology about the meaning and status of Confirmation. Any thoughts?

My two cents is that we need better formation and a forum for a mature profession of faith. I also wonder if we have lost some sense of discernment about the gifts of the Holy Spirit among us. I will say, however, that it is my experience (and this is confirmed by certain incidents in Acts) that the Spirit blows where it wills and that the gifts of the Spirit are conferred during Baptism, making the pneumatological significance of Confirmation somewhat less imperative from a practical standpoint. I still think it has symbolic value if the process leading up to Confirmation is about making a mature profession of faith and doing some discernment of those gifts and how they might build up the Body.

Late Breaking News

The Primate of England and Archbishop of York testifies at SCECAC hearings, then has conversation with blogger priest that explains what must be done for Windsor compliance. Puts +Tom Wright's comments in some light. Also indicates what kind of balance ++Rowan might be trying to strike. What a terrible thing it is to be in the hands of the Living God, eh?

General Convention Notes

I've been ill the last few days and simultaneously need to put both research projects back on the railroad tracks. Fortunately, there are two meetings scheduled tomorrow for that purpose. But it's no fun to work fairly hard for nearly a year and then realize you know nothing except that there is still a problem which requires solving. But I like to think I'm making some sort of progress.

When I've not been analyzing my research to date, learning similarity theory, or trying to understand exciting new paradigms in fisheries science, I've been reading General Convention blogs. CaNN has a helpful list on their General Convention blog, which is sorted ideologically (but slightly imperfectly) for your convenience. Father Jake has been giving very useful coverage and sane commentary. Mark Harris is getting worried. Fathers Kniseley and Kirkley have been waxing eloquently on sexuality and more important matters. The lay deputies have equally interesting things to say. The sheer volume of blog is amazing. Even my parish has a blog , where you can read about the video I mentioned earlier and the exciting lobbying activities of clergy and laity. It almost makes me wish that I were in Columbus. But I'm fairly sure that God means me to be here. He possibly wanted me in Minneapolis in 2003, but I turned Him down. Lutheranchik calls the Lord, "the CEO." I should be called, "the oblivious intern." But I should write a little about interesting topics.

Gossip

"God willing and the people consenting, the Most Reverend Peter Jasper Akinola will consecrate the Reverend Canon Martyn Minns a Bishop in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church at the Church of XYZ in Columbus, Ohio on Sunday, June 18. Clergy wear red."

Yes, I've been reading gossip of this type. The casus schismae shall be the election of ++Jefferts-Schori as Presiding Bishop and Primate after the conservatives realize they won't win the PB and throw votes to Jefferts-Schori, because she's a girl, and there ain't no girls in the College of Primates Supersecret Treehouse. The gossip on the other side is that the liberals are planning a global communion of their own by emphasizing relations with Latin American dioceses (some actually part of the Episcopal Church.) I was tempted very briefly this evening to send an inquiry to Canon Popoola about ++PJA's travel plans, but I thought better of it. Frankly, if I want gossip, I'll go over to the Daily Mail and hear that Prince William is secretly engaged to Kate Middleton or something. Schism isn't juicy. It's unspeakably painful. If I had been at Constantinople or Rome on a certain day in 1054 (it was a major feast, right?), I would have cried.

Digamy: Ontological or Prudential?

My chief objection to consent to +VGR was digamy. I still get those thoughts in my mind sometimes. It occurred to me today that 1 Timothy 3 is not quite as plain as I thought, since there are two possibilities that arise of how a potential bishop could not be "a husband of one wife", (1) he divorced and remarried; (2) he is a widower and remarried. In the first case, one wonders how he could be a potential candidate for bishop at all, since if the community in question would be rebuking him for living in adultery by a strict interpretation of Matthew 19 etc. Is it possible that Matthew 19 was not regarded so strictly in this context? (Or the oral teaching on which Matthew 19 was based for all you NT scholars). As for the case of the widower, is Paul trying to advise against anyone who can't control their urges enough to be satisfied with one wife? I'm not so sure. People could be widowed/widowered in the Roman world at 16 or 17 quite commonly, and yet all of the Fathers mention anxieties about baptism at that age because of concerns about the risk of fornication.

No, I think Paul's advice is prudential rather than ontological. He is not speaking of someone living in deep sin. He is looking for someone who organizes his household affairs as the household of the Lord should be organized. For he writes, "for if a man does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take charge of a congregation of God's people?" Paul is looking for bishops who are stable and faithful and maintain intimate relationships even in times of great difficulty. A bishop is wedded to those in his charge much like a husband to his wife (or vice versa ), a possible source of the ancient prejudice against translation, his fidelity must be above reproach.

In our less stringent times, we sometimes forget that this prudential standard is no less important than the ontological one. The latter condemns the candidate as a sinner in mortal peril, more worthy of the church's care than to take care of the church. The former is a qualification, like a bachelor's degree. The failure to be acceptable under either criterion is a reason to withhold consent. But at the same time, the qualification is more flexible.

These issues now arise again with Rev. Canon Beisner's election in Northern California, where the Committee (according to Brad Drell) wants to hear about Beisner's second divorce. What I want to know is why they don't want to hear about his first one. If one thinks ontologically, such limits seem reasonable. We live in more flexible and forgiving times, after all. It used to be one divorce and you're out. Now, it's two divorces and you're out. We must uphold the Scriptures somewhere. But that's not the right idea of it at all. What turned me about concerning +VGR were two things. First, it was clear to me that both parties entered his first marriage fully conscious of certain matters that could arise in the future and both tried to maintain that relationship as best as they could. But there is a difference between friendship and intimacy after all, the gulf between the present and the eschaton. Second, +VGR worked to make sure the physical and emotional needs of his wife and his family were met before he sought any form of romantic relationship with another man. In the first example, I saw a man who was truthful, honest, and willing to struggle. In the second example, I saw a man who put the needs of his household before his own emotional fulfillment. His wife, after all, needed a husband who was ontologically capable of being an intimate. To some extent, I have seen these traits as marks of his episcopate. At other points, I have been disappointed. But looking at other episcopates, I have seen patterns of infidelity that have had little to do with marriage (meaningful cough...).

Thus, in examining Beisner, I would urge the Committee to consider the holistic aspects of Beisner as a household manager rather than focusing on some legalistic definition of fitness. If his divorces suggest he possesses qualities that might make him a poor bishop, consent certainly should be refused, but if this becomes some sort of test case to uphold the authority of Scripture, the authority of Scripture will be compromised by it.

Clarity

As you probably know, it is Amish Fudge that is being sold at Convention and not Anglican Fudge. Amish Fudge, of course, explains why some Anabaptist sects allow adherents to operate riding lawnmowers. But the great fear of the reasserter side is that the Anglican variety will reappear soon in the form of the SCECAC resolutions. Mysteriously today, there appeared a piece by +N.T. Wright, Bishop Palatine of Durham (he's no longer Palatine, but humor me...), in which the SCECAC resolutions were deemed insufficient by his Lordship and not in compliance with paras. 135 (or was it 136) of the Windsor Report. Well, Bishop Wright, I'll give it to you straight. I would prefer there be strong compliance with Windsor or no compliance. But at this point, we reassessors have no assurances that border-crossing will be punished, nor that the parts of Lambeth I.10 we like will be enforced. Thus, if you're going to quote committee documents or Lambeth resolutions (you only do so implicitly) as law to us, you must simultaneously give assurances that the whole of the law is enforceable in some settled tribunal. And the thing is, my Lord, it's not.

At this point, the desire for clarity from Minns et al. is half-earnest and half a desire for an excuse for schism. (See Gossip). Even if GC complied with the Windsor Report, I am fairly certain little would change. Initially, the Federal Conservatives (see Thinking Anglicans) would run around like decapitated chickens, but I very much doubt the powers and dominions set against TEC here and abroad would be appeased by such concessions. Because at the end of the day, it would still be the same House of Bishops and same House of Deputies. If you refuse to commune with a body before they do things you dislike, you are unlikely to commune with them when they have failed to do so. And, of course, even TEC complies, Bishop Iker still is compelled by Canon to ordain women. This is a horrible ordeal to him. He will want it to stop soon. And his allies will do likewise. Over the last few decades, TEC has revealed its true self. For me, it is a ground ready for re-planting. For them, it is too choked with weeds to continue. I really hope I'm wrong. I hope they'll stay. But I also know there are those in Ft. Worth and Pittsburgh who have been gravely injured by some of these. I count one as a good friend. If they do stay, there must be some exchange of pastoral oversight between each side. Perfect love must take away all fear.

Budget Priorities

I'm disappointed that Children, Youth, and Young Adults was defeated as the top budget priority. We are in such dreadful shape when it comes to evangelization and catechesis of my generation and the generation after me. And frankly, looking at the numerical trends in infant baptisms in many dioceses of the church, this is worrisome. The infant baptism rate is 5-7% of ASA in some dioceses. If we could keep these infants as ASA, we would do much good to souls and help the rest of the world. I do believe that a well-catechized and faithful Episcopalian can be a great force for good. I'm not much of one, of course. But I have friends who clearly are and see how much their faith is at the root of it. I also have seen in the Episcopal Church and in other denominations what the effects of bad catechesis and poor flexibility with regards to youth are. People talk about how going to Bard College or Europe is a way of getting their Christian faith attacked. You know where I felt most despised as a Christian. Texas. People my age have been burned by the church there.

Prayer Continues

Of course, our attitude here at the monastery is that anything wrong with the world can be fixed by prayer, study, hard work, and four-square. So since I'm back nearly to 100%, I'll continue to say the Office with my friends in the Anglosphere and the work of General Convention in my prayers.

O God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Savior, the Prince of Peace: Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions; take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatever else may hinder us from godly union and concord; that, as there is but one Body and one Spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may be all of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ out Lord. Amen.

Days 7 and 8

Day 7: Grow in Peace

The Collect for Peace (you can find it in Evening Prayer I)

Day 8: Grow in the Trinity

The Athanasian Creed. (It's in the back... ;) )

Day 6: Grow in Service

Adapted from the Confirmation Service of the Book of Common Prayer

Almighty God, we thank you that by the death and resurrection of your Son Jesus Christ, you have overcome sin and brought us to yourself, and that by the sealing of your Holy Spirit you have bound us to your service. Renew in us your servants the covenant you made with us in Baptism. Send us forth in the power of that Spirit to perform the service you set before us; through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen

Day 5: Grow in Gratitude

Because it is in the Holy Eucharist that I feel most expressive with gratitude, the Collect for Maundy Thursday

Almighty Father, whose dear Son, on the night before he suffered, did institute the Sacrament of his Body and Blood: Mercifully grant that we may thankfully receive the same in remembrance of him who in these holy mysteries giveth us a pledge of life eternal, the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord; who now liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit ever, one God, world without end. Amen

Day 4: Grow in Understanding

A Prayer attributed to St. Francis from the Book of Common Prayer

Lord, make us instruments of your peace. Where there is hatred, let us sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is discord, union; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy. Grant that we may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen.

Day 3: Grow in Love

From the Book of Common Prayer, the prayer for the Human Family

O God, you made us in your own image and redeemed us through Jesus your Son: Look with compassion on the whole human family; take away the arrogance and hated which infect our hearts; break down the walls that separate us; unite us in bonds of love; and work through our struggle and confusion to accomplish your purposes on earth; that, in your good time, all nations and races may serve you in harmony around your heavenly throne; through Jesus Christ our Lord Amen.

Anyone Need A Godfather?

I'm available. My godson was confirmed this day by the Bishop of Pennsylvania and apparently acted commendably. And yes, the irony is killing me.

Blog List Updates

David Huff's blog is now linked. Simeon is gone. I also have added Rev. Dr. Knisely of Entangled States, which is a fascinating blog by an Episcopal priest who sidelines as an astronomy professor. (How I could I not love his blog?) He's also a GC Deputy if I recall, so expect interesting coverage at his site.

Octave of Prayer for General Convention

Which brings me to the next agenda item: the Monastery has been debating about how to observe this week. Well, the theme for today is "Grow in the Spirit."

So I post one of the Collects for today from the BCP:

Day 1: Grow in the Spirit

O God, who on this day didst teach the hearts of thy faithful people by sending them the light of thy Holy Spirit: Grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgment in all things, and evermore to rejoice in his holy comfort; through the merits of Christ Jesus our Savior, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the same Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

And since it's nearly tomorrow, I probably should post a prayer for "Grow in Hope."

Here is the Collect for Proper 27:

Day 2: Grow in Hope

O God, whose blessed Son was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil and make us the children of God and heirs of eternal life: Grant us, we beseech thee, that having this hope, we may purify ourselves as he is pure; that, when he shall appear again with power and great glory, we may be made like unto him in his eternal and glorious kingdom; where with thee, O Father, and thee, O Holy Ghost, he liveth and reigneth ever, one God, world without end. Amen

Morning Prayer will be so much fun tomorrow morning.

Bishop Swing Speaks

The madness is at T19. Just don't read the comments.

So at this point, here's where the story is:

1. The priest in question started predation while under the supervision of his brother, who is presently the Bishop of PA, and while their mutual father was a Bishop.

2. The priest was caught (?) and deposed after trial by the Bishop of Los Angeles at the time. No criminal charges were filed, probably for the sake of the victim.

3. The priest was restored to ministry under a Canon no longer in force, having not caused any trouble for three years.

4. The priest was called to a parish in the Diocese of California. No one bothered to notify the Diocese of certain important facts. I still can't understand that. The parish Search Committee somehow missed the fact that the priest had been deposed a few years before, suggesting that someone broke a key Commandment of the Decalogue.

5. The priest seems to have cleaned up his life in those three years. At least, no one complains of him now.

6. In 1993, someone finally brings this issue to the attention of California. California tries some form of restorative justice in consultation with the only known victim. Someone accuses the priest of further offenses in the past.

7. +Swing says that it's Los Angeles's problem. Can three clergy or seven laity in my Diocese be found to bring further charges? Is it worth it at this point? Is it Christian?

God save the Fathers for their vigilance:

If any Priest shall defile his lips, he shall not be deposed and instead be forbidden to assist at the Eucharist but take Communion with the order of Priests. If he shall offend more deeply [in this manner], he shall receive a greater penalty in proportion to his offense. (Paraphrase of an ancient canon).

GC2006 Take Three--All I Need is Three Deputies

GC Resolution DXXX

Resolved , the House of __________________ concurring,

that from the 27th of July 2006, the Feast of William Reed Huntington, Priest according to the Calendar of this Church, until the 27th of July 2009, it shall be an offense within the meaning of Title IV, Canon 1, Section 1 of the Canons of this Church for a Bishop in this Church to consecrate anyone a Bishop for this Church or for a Church in communion with this Church.

Resolved ,

that from the 27th of July 2006 until the 27th of July 2009, it shall be an offense within the meaning of Title IV, Canon 1, Section 1 of the Canons of this Church for any Deacon, Priest, or Bishop of this Church to officiate at the Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage, the Blessing of a Civil Marriage, An Order for Marriage, any rites heretofore irregular but within the bounds of our common life in which covenants are made between two persons of the same sex, or act as an officiant for anything considered a marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership at civil law.

Resolved ,

that from the 27th of July 2006 until the 27th of July 2009, the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the House of Bishops may authorize pastoral provisions for the unusual change in the life of the Church during this time, provided that such provisions do not violate the first two resolves of this Resolution.

Explanation: The Anglican Communion through the Windsor Report has recommended that the Episcopal Church desist from consecrating bishops who are in covenants other than Holy Matrimony and also desist from authorizing liturgies for the celebration of such covenants. At the same time, many members of the Episcopal Church have frank and serious disagreement with the theological motivation for these recommendations. However, recognizing that the recent fractures in the Anglican Communion will not be healed by continuing with all due speed on the course of enshrining these theological views throughout the life and doctrine of the Episcopal Church, this Resolution proposes to recognize as far as possible that gay and lesbian Episcopalians and Anglicans throughout the world who disagree with recent actions of the Episcopal Church have a full and equal claim on the conscience of this Church. Thus, the Resolution proposes to comply with the recommendations of the Windsor Report regarding concrete actions by the Episcopal Church but also suspend episcopal consecrations and marriages in consideration for Dioceses who feel called to elect gays and lesbians to the episcopate and for faithful gay and lesbian couples, who presently do not receive the ecclesiastical sanction for their relationships that many of us believe they are entitled to by natural law, Scripture, and Tradition. The Resolution also permits the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops to authorize pastoral provisions to deal with this interruption in our common life, while we seek closer engagement with Provinces in the Communion from which we are presently estranged. Pastoral provisions could include authorization for an exchange of marriage vows within the context of the principal Sunday Eucharist after the Peace or accomodations for alternate episcopal oversight of Dioceses with episcopal vacancies.


Frankly, I think the Explanation needs a little more Scripture. [I probably would confuse everyone by citing Romans.] But frankly, I think this resolution is shorter, to the point, and recognizes the great tension in both the Church and the Communion.)