Another letter from Bishop Howe
No civil war in the diocese, please

Bishop Howe put another missive out to the clergy of the Diocese of Central Florida, clarifying and expanding his response to members of the standing committee and diocesan board who want to leave The Episcopal Church and take the property with them.

It offers some insights into the bishop's thinking about the Episcopal Church and the Communion, also.

While Bishop Howe thinks of the diocese as "Windsor-compliant," and himself a "Windsor" Bishop, we are actually a Network diocese. If the bishop had made a clear stand about the property a few years ago, we wouldn't be in such a mess. But that's water under the bridge.


Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Last week I told you I might want to share with all of you the longer letter that I sent to the members of the Diocesan Board and Standing Committee following our Board meeting this morning. I am printing it below my signature box. If you have already read more than you want to about all of this, please just hit "delete."

The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida



A Letter from the Bishop of Central Florida

To the Members of the Diocesan Board

And the Members of the Standing Committee

Of the Diocese of Central Florida



July 12, 2007



Dear Brothers and Sisters,



We are in a very difficult moment of conflict, both in this Diocese and in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, and we need our Lord’s help in dealing with it. Please join me in praying for it.


Our Chancellor, Butch Wooten, Vice Chancellor, Bill Grimm, and I have consulted the following persons regarding Charlie Holt’s motion last month, my ruling on it, Don Curran’s motion to over-rule, and my refusal to allow that:

David Beers, Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop,

+ James Brown , Louisiana , ret., and former Parliamentarian of the House of Bishops,

+ William Folwell , Central Florida , ret., my predecessor and our Bishop for 20 years,

+ Frank Gray , Northern Michigan , ret., and a former priest of this Diocese,

Larry Hitt, Chancellor of the Diocese of Colorado ,

+ Dorsey Henderson , Upper South Carolina , and a former attorney,

Steve Hutchinson, Chancellor of the Diocese of Utah ,

Sally Johnson, Parliamentarian of the House of Deputies,

+ Peter Lee , Virginia , my own former bishop, who has an earned law degree,

+Stacy Sauls, Lexington , former attorney, and the mover of Executive Council

Resolution NAC023 to which Charlie’s motion attempted to respond,

Randi Sutphin, the (non-Episcopalian) parliamentarian Butch has consulted from time to

time since he first accepted my appointment as our Chancellor,

+William Wantland, Eau Claire , ret., and one of our foremost canon lawyers,

Belton Zeigler, Chancellor of Upper South Carolina



(All of these are, of course, in addition to Butch and Bill, themselves.)



As best we can summarize the preponderance of their various opinions, they are as follows:

* There are some matters which may not legitimately be addressed by a Diocesan Board or Convention, among them the continuing accession on the part of a Diocese to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. It is entirely legitimate for an individual to wish to no longer accede, but if s/he chooses to act upon that wish s/he effectively ceases to be a member of The Episcopal Church, and thereby ceases to hold office on either the Board or Standing Committee (or as a member of the clergy) of a Diocese within The Episcopal Church.


* The argument that “other dioceses have done this with impunity” is not really relevant, for at least two reasons: a) if something is improper it simply should not be done, regardless of whether or not others have done it; and b) the fact that there have been no consequences UNTIL NOW does not mean there will be none in the future. The action of Executive Council suggests there will be an attempt to bring consequences. All of these matters are (tragically) headed toward court.


* The so-called “Dennis Canon” (I.7.4) has never previously been tested at the level of The Episcopal Church’s alleged claim that a congregational property is held in trust for The Episcopal Church when a Diocese is not making a claim to the property, but it has been upheld in several cases in terms of the claims of Dioceses that parishes hold their property in trust for the Dioceses. Most notably, just last month, an appellate court in California REVERSED the decision of the lower court, and held in favor of the Diocese of Los Angeles and The Episcopal Church, in an extraordinarily detailed seventy-seven page decision that effectively brings California law into very close agreement with the common law of Florida regarding “hierarchical churches” enunciated by the Florida Supreme Court.


* Butch and Bill have advised me that there are other places in our national Canons that imply a trust at the national level.


* There is also the Florida case that Butch and Bill discussed with us dating back to the 1950s, that held the Presbyterian Church is “hierarchical,” and therefore the national denomination had an implied trust with respect to the local property.


* Bishop Wantland wrote that “A third party cannot unilaterally impose a trust in its favor without the express consent of the original parties.” However, the Florida Supreme Court has held that even without a Canon like the "Dennis Canon," in a hierarchical Church the Parent Church has an implied trust with respect to property held by a local congregation. Thus there might be some point in stating (perhaps in a letter to the Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council) that the Diocese of Central Florida has not “further confirmed the trust declared under Section 4” (of the “Dennis Canon”). But because of the Florida Supreme Court case, I am reasonably sure this would not change anything.


* It is not the prerogative of the Diocesan Board to make property decisions relating to congregations that wish to leave The Episcopal Church; that falls to the Bishop, and in some cases, to the Bishop and the Standing Committee. Note: the Diocesan Canons stipulate this for consecrated property only, but the statement is more generally true in that property decisions involving a departing congregation fall within the spiritual affairs of the Diocese.


Thus, it remains the judgment of the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor that Charlie’s motion was and is outside of the jurisdiction of the Diocesan Board.


Robert’s Rules addresses the issue of what may or may not be considered in at least four places, see the 10th Edition:


Page 10, lines 16 – 20 “The only limitations upon the rules that such a body can thus adopt might rise from the rules of a parent body (as those of a national society restricting its state or local branches), or from national, state, or local law affecting the particular type of organization.”



Page 16, lines 8 – 12 “When a society or an assembly has adopted a particular parliamentary manual – such as this book – as its authority, the rules contained in that manual are binding upon it in all cases where they are not inconsistent with the bylaws (or constitution) or any special rules of order of the body, or any provisions of local, state, or national law applying to the particular type of organization.”

Page 252, lines 7 – 14, “When an assembly wishes to do something during a meeting that it cannot do without violating one or more of its regular rules, it can adopt a motion to Suspend the Rules interfering with the proposed action – provided that the proposal is not in conflict with the organization’s bylaws (or constitution), with local, state, or national law prescribing procedural rules applicable to the organization or assembly, or with a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.”

Page 332, lines 15 – 18 “Motions that conflict with the corporate charter, constitution or bylaws of a society, or with procedural rules prescribed by national, state, or local laws, are out of order.”

What these sections stipulate is that Robert’s Rules apply ONLY to those matters that a given legislative body may legitimately consider, according to its own rules. The “rules” of The Episcopal Church are that we are to operate within the Constitution and Canons of the Church, and that to set them aside (or to claim we have the right to do so) is thus illegitimate.


Some of the members of the Board and Standing Committee have argued quite vigorously against this position, and I understand and respect their passion.

But the members of the Board and Standing Committee are not the Chancellors or the Bishop. And the fact that they believe an opinion is wrong cannot be determinative or dispository. A motion like Charlie’s simply cannot be considered or decided by either our Diocesan Board or our Convention.


Some have said they do not believe the motion fell within the arena of the “spiritual affairs of the Diocese.” I have to tell you that had it passed a significant number of our people, both clergy and lay, would have felt they had been betrayed by the Bishop and the Diocesan Board, and I do not see how that could be construed as anything but a spiritual matter.

I am truly sorry we have reached this disagreement, but no matter how strongly some of you may think it should be otherwise, it is my conviction, as Bishop, that it is outside the jurisdiction of the Board.

Now, let me share some things I have said to Eric Turner, with regard to the work of the special Task Force.


1. We have done everything that was asked of us by the Windsor Report, the Primates' Communiqué, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, to remain in full constituent membership in the Anglican Communion. I believe events are now in the saddle, and on the very near horizon is the full meeting of the "Windsor Bishops," followed by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s meeting with our House of Bishops. Immediately after that, in fact, partly overlapping it, is +Bob Duncan's "Council of Bishops" which looks to be positioning itself to become a more structured organization, and (it is widely rumored) could at some point declare itself a new Province. I will be joining that meeting for its last evening and morning. Two days later is the September 30 deadline. As has been said many times, there is no way the House of Bishops as a whole will give the unequivocal assurances we have been asked to give.


So, will there be a new Province, or a new Something, recognized by some of the Primates, but not others? If that is the case, what will it then mean to be part of the Anglican Communion? When will the Primates respond to our unsatisfactory response? Will Archbishop Williams agree with them? Will he declare that The Episcopal Church has, in fact, to some degree “walked apart”? And if so, what will he say about those Dioceses within The Episcopal Church that are, and openly declare themselves to be "Windsor compliant"?


We can only speculate about all these questions, but we will know the answers to them within the next six months, or so, I believe.


2. In the meantime, I believe we can STRENGTHEN what we say about our relationship to the rest of the Communion, but we cannot WEAKEN what we say about our accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. The Bishop and the Diocesan Board have a fiduciary responsibility to uphold the accession clause


3. I hope you know I am as uncomfortable as any of you are over this disagreement! Do you think I like being subject to the authority of a Church in which many of its Bishops, clergy and lay members have so compromised their commitment to our scriptures and heritage (and which is certainly moving on the “trajectory” John Liebler has been speaking about on our clergy list serve)? I find that extraordinarily difficult. But this is the reality of the situation.


4. There is an honorable way of disagreeing with The Episcopal Church (leave, as about 2/3 of St. John’s , Melbourne did, “without a single paper clip.”) And there is a dishonorable way of doing so (attempt to take “your” property with you). The part of the congregation that departed St. John’s, by the way (now “Prince of Peace Anglican Church”), is flourishing, with more than three times the membership they had when they left us.


5. Eric has quoted back to me the statement that I have twice made publicly, that if we reach the point where it is no longer possible to be both Episcopalian and Anglican, "I will choose Anglican." That remains true, up until the dissolution of the Communion as we have known it (which may be sooner rather than later), and then it becomes irrelevant But, "choosing Anglican" may well mean that I simply need to resign, retire, renounce my orders or transfer to another Province, and relinquish my present responsibilities. There is no way I can imagine that I would or could attempt to remove the Diocese from The Episcopal Church. And should the Board or the Convention attempt this it would be a kind of ecclesiastical Civil War that would be absolutely horrible in every way imaginable.


6. Eric said there was discussion within the Task Force of the possibility of seeking additional legal advice, and I have cautioned him not to attempt to go around the Chancellors. They are willing to meet with the Task Force, and if they need additional advice, they can and will obtain it on behalf of the Task Force and the Board.


I urge you not to go looking for lawyers who will support a position you would like to see prevail. Look for the best advice you can find regarding what will prevail. I believe we have already received that from Butch and Bill. I can assure you, there is no one in the state of Florida who has thought more deeply about these issues! They had to do so with regard to New Covenant, and their position prevailed in that situation, which is why New Covenant is paying us for “their” property over a thirty-year period.


If the “compromises” of The Episcopal Church are such that one can no longer remain a member of it, if s/he can no longer function under its Constitution and Canons, then there really is no alternative but to leave: “Go in peace, to love and serve the Lord.” But, please do not try to find ways to take property that does not belong to you. That is dishonest and illegal.

I am doing absolutely everything I can – and have done so for eighteen years – to uphold “orthodoxy,” to remain faithful to the Lord and to the scriptures, to call this oh-so-compromised Church back to its own heritage. But I will not break the rules to do so. I am working "within the system" for a comprehensive solution to a complex situation. These efforts can be easily undermined by precipitous actions, and I urge us to be very careful.

The Task Force will be making its report and recommendations to the Bishop and Board in time for our October meeting. Let us allow them to complete their work, and we can continue this important discussion at that time.

With thanksgiving for every one of you,


Warmly yours in our Lord,


The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida