Month: May 2007

The ballots are in and the brave Anglican faithful of Grace & St Stephens in Colorado Springs have voted to sever ties with the nassssty Episcopal “church” and follow the voice of their conscience and the Holy Spirit into aligning with CANA and the Church of Nigeria. 

More or less.  Mostly less.

A majority of voting members at Grace Church and St. Stephens Parish in Colorado Springs have declared their willingness to break away from the Episcopal Church to join a conservative Anglican network more in line with their beliefs, according to spokesman Alan Crippen.

The vote, tallied Saturday, showed 93 percent of 370 voting members approved of the plan to leave the Episcopal Church, Crippen said. It capped an ongoing period of uncertainty that began March 26 when parish rector, The Rev. Don Armstrong, and a majority of the church’s governing board, declared they were each individually leaving the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Colorado.

So says the article by Jean Torkelson, who adds, generously,

Because the schismatic act was so unusual, the breakaway parish leaders said they would set up a vote to determine what parishioners wanted to do.

What is missing from the story is both how the (remaining, presumably dissenting) parishioners went through a 40 Days of Indoctrination Discernment from CANA, describing how the Episcopal “church” was heretical and dying and Not Very Nice.  Also missing was what those numbers represent.

According to a report in the Colorado Springs Gazette, there were 370 votes cast and 342, or 93%, were in favor of the parish leaving the Episcopal Church and joining CANA. The tally was 348 to 22 about authorizing the vestry to fight to retain control of the $17 million dollar plant.

Wow!  A huge majority.  But a huge majority of what?

Before the break-up, the parish reported a membership of 1500-2000 communicants. The breakaway parish claims 600 to 800 of these, while the Diocese claims that 200 to 400 members of the original parish now worship in the borrowed space down the street.

So of the original reported membership (which reporting by the pastor and vestry is regulated by canon law and is the basis for voting representation in the diocesan convention), taking 1,500 as a lower bound, 22.8% voted to secede.  Even if we take the vestry’s claim of lower bound of 600 dissenters  (which represents less than half of the previously reported communicants), that’s still a bare 58%.

The vote was supposedly open to all members in good standing.  The folks who continued to align to the diocese had previously (and, to my mind, mistakenly) declared they would not participate in the vote.  And that question of who could actually vote was not insignificant.

The leadership of the Episcopal parish contends that the rules established by the breakaway parish make the outcome of the vote a foregone conclusion. The rules establised for the vote require that members of the Episcopal parish must re-register as members of the CANA congregation, contribute to the new congregation and attend its worship. Members of the Episcopal congregation voiced concern that the use of the rolls, or even the possibility of signed ballots, might be used in court in validate the breakaway parish’s claim.

Information posted by the CANA parish about the vote published in their newsletter and posted on their website was unclear as to the eligibility of Episcopalians who might have attempted to vote, except to say that some cases would be handled individually. The question of a necessary quorum is also not addressed in the newsletter.

Despite that, the pro-CANA/Armstrong forces declared it a major victory.

[Parish spokesman Alan] Crippen said he believed the “no” votes on both ballot questions came from Grace Church members loyal to the diocese and to Bishop Rob O’Neill, even though the Episcopal loyalists had said all along that they would refuse to legitimize Armstrong’s cause by participating in the vote.

Crippen said the will of the voting majority was indisputable, “and showed clearly a very strong mandate to affirm the vestry decision of March 26 (to leave the Episcopal Church).”

The diocese, on the other hand, considers the vote illegitimate, as parishes are formed by the diocesan convention and the bishop, as petitioned by members of the parish, and those parishes cannot simply choose to walk off with their name and property intact. 

As the diocesan loyalists continue to meet under another roof, civil proceedings regarding the parish property proceed, and ecclesiastical proceedings against Rev. Armstrong for financial malfeasance  (separate from the whole “I’m a member of CANA, not the Episcopal Church” charges that could be levied) continue.

For the meeting of Anglican bishops at Lambeth next year, the Archbishop of Canterbury (the “ABC,” as we Anglicans call him) has sent out his invitations … but for all the 800-odd bishops invited, he’s explicitly left two out.

One is Gene Robinson, the Bishop of New Hampshire, an openly gay man whose election as bishop by the diocese, and acceptance of same by the General Convention in 2003, has been the flash point for much of the Episcopal brouhaha since.

The other is Martyn Minns, who was officially invested as a bishop in the Church of Nigeria (but serving in the United States) by Abp Peter Akinola earlier this month, a cross-territorial move that was flew in the face of requests by both the Episcopal Church and of the ABC.

It’s a move that raises a lot of questions.  First off is the social rudeness and ecclesiastical disunity involved in not inviting somene.  But it also raises questions of whether the two were chose as opposite ends of the current Anglican split.  Or, alternately, if the ABC really felt that one or the other would disrupt things too much (less as an individual and more for what he represented) but didn’t want to single out any one “side.”

For example, I suspect that had Bp Robinson been invited, some other bishops would have either refused to attend, or would have felt compelled to make some other overt sign of their displeasure.  Ditto (though to a lesser degree) for Bp Minns.

(In further reading of other sources, it appear that the ABC left out Bp Robinson because of the controversy around him, even while acknowledging him as a real bishop.  Bp Minns was also acknowledged a bishop, but CANA, his missionary group from Nigeria, is not identified as a consituent member of the Anglican Communion, a judgment that will doubtless stick in a few craws.)

“I have to reserve the right to withhold or withdraw invitations from bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion,” Williams wrote in his invitations, which were sent out on Tuesday.

“I do not say this lightly, but I believe that we need to know as we meet that each participant recognizes and honors the task set before us and that there is an adequate level of mutual trust between us about this.”

The problem being, of course, that to withhold invitations is, itself, a sign of disunity and division.  And, of course, “causing exceptionally serious division or scandal” is more than a little bit subjective.  Someone would claim that of Abp Akinola.  Some would claim that of Bp Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.  I can certainly think of multiple bishops in the Episcopal Church who have acted in a scandalous, divisive fashion. 

But, the, maybe the ABC is also thinking of some or all of the above.

It is possible that others will either not be invited or will have their invitations withdrawn before the conference takes place if anything “untoward or unacceptable” occurs between now and then, an Anglican spokesman said.

“There are one or two other cases where the archbishop is currently seeking further advice,” Tim Livesey, the head of public affairs for Lambeth Palace, told reporters.

Frankly, I think it’s a mistake on the ABC’s part.  If someone chooses not to attend because of who else is there, that is their choice.  Ancitipaing their criticism and proactively moving to avoid it is an attempt to avoid the truth, to paternalistically sacrifice the feelings of some of the feelings of others.  Leaving out canonically invested bishops because division has erupted around them is not only a slippery slope, but flies in the face of the unity that the ABC claims to want to hold onto.

Of course, up to now, the ABC has been more accused of indecisiveness in the face of all the contention, and, alas, even in this (counterproductive) firm stand, he’s also betrayed his lack of commitment to his actions.

While the non-invitation of Robinson and Minns is likely to provoke debate, particularly in the United States and Africa, Livesey said it was possible that Robinson, at least, could be allowed to come as a “guest” of the conference — a minor concession that might temper criticism.  “The archbishop is currently studying that possibility,” Livesey said.

A solution likely to appeal to none of the parties involved.

More from Father Jake (who notes others not invited), the Admiral of Morality, .

(via BD)

On the other hand, though most of the media is focusing on Bp Robinson not being invited, the exclusion of Bp Minns, too, may be all worthwhile to have pulled this response from Nigeria and Abp Akinola:

Since only the first set of invitations had been sent, it is premature to conclude who will be present or absent at the conference. However, the withholding of invitation to a Nigerian bishop, elected and consecrated by other Nigerian bishops will be viewed as withholding invitation to the entire House of Bishops of the Church of Nigeria.

Would that the Episcopal House of Bishops treat the snubbing of Bp Robinson the same way. Though this may mean that the Church of Nigeria and other Global South provinces may just stay away from Lambeth.  Which might be a very good (if sad) thing.

The BBC News reports Canon Dr Chris Sugden “The quarrel is not with Gene Robinson but with the 60 bishops who consecrated him and indeed the leadership of the Episcopal Church. If the Archbishop was going to be just clear and transparent and honest he would not invite Gene Robinson or the 60 people who consecrated him.”

So much for the ABC trying to avoid controversy and division.   

The ABC has asked for RSVPs by the end of July.  Interestingly, the Episcopal Church has until the end of September to respond to the “demands” of the Primates meeting this past spring — the result of which response might lead to some further shuffling of invitations and acceptances.

*sigh*  Interesting times.