I am Harry Potter?

"A little reckless and hot-headed at times, but a more brave and courageous friend would be hard to find."

The first part is true, anyway.

Okay, I don't seek them out, but I have a weakness for those "who are you" quizzes when I come across them. Sharecropper had this "Who Are You in the World of Harry Potter" quiz posted.

Here are my results:

You scored as Harry Potter, You can be a little reckless and hot-headed at times, but a more brave and courageous friend would be hard to find. Harry Potter 75% Remus Lupin 70% Sirius Black 65% Albus Dumbledore 65% Ginny Weasley 65% Hermione Granger 60% Severus Snape 55% Ron Weasley 55% Draco Malfoy 45% Lord Voldemort 35% Your Harry Potter Alter Ego Is...? created with QuizFarm.com

Just who is orthodox?

I started this as a reply to comments on the last post, but it got kind of long for that, so here it is. My venting.

Thanks to Caminante and Grandmere Mimi.

Caminante asked, "Has your bishop defined what he means by that catch-all word, 'orthodoxy,'" and the answer is no.

"Orthodoxy" is one of those imprecise words that means different things to different people, even different things to the same person at different times.

There's a large element of personal judgment in making calls on another person's orthodoxy.

Who decides what is orthodox? If it's defined as "the way it's always been done," then perhaps our services should be in Latin.

If we're going to be truly Orthodox(TM), we're going to have to run things differently in this diocese.

Anyone who seems a little "funny" or different should be run out of town at the least, or burned at the stake.

There will be no guitars or praise teams (I know, many of you wouldn't miss praise teams!) in church if it is truly orthodox. No prayer ministers ready to lay hands on parishioners after they take Communion. None of that is part of the traditional, orthodox Catholic-Anglican way of running a service. No female deacons or priests - remember that, ye women clergy who cling so desperately to the Orthodox(TM) pretension. A number of your Orthodox(TM) brethren just can't wait to get rid of you.

The Diocese of Central Florida honchos pride themselves on "orthodoxy," yet the charismatic/evangelical/fundamentalist strain of Anglicanism they practice is not orthodox Anglicanism, for all their calls to orthodoxy.

The ironic thing is, Jesus was NOT orthodox. He constantly outraged the Orthodox(TM) religious community of his day. He ministered to the lepers, the tax collectors, the castaway women, the gentiles. He took them as his Apostles and disciples — there's a thought. Jesus let his disciples eat the show bread. He healed on the Sabbath (shocking!).

Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, to minister to us after he was gone from the Earth. Yet, some of the "orthodox" would deny the Spirit's work among us, because the Holy Spirit is no more orthodox than Jesus was.

And, as for making judgments about who's a "real" priest or bishop, or Christian, what does the Holy Spirit say to that? What did Jesus say about making those kind of judgments?

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

Interesting times, part II
the rest of the tapes

This is a continuation of my post from July 11, on the now-infamous May 24 meeting of the standing committee and the diocesan board in the Diocese of Central Florida.

The subject on the minds of these two bodies was how to secede the diocese from the Episcopal Church, and keep the property, too. They were told repeatedly, that because of both canon law and Florida state law, they could do the first, but not with the second. They could leave, but they couldn’t take the property with them.

The members mostly seemed to think the canons were written so the national church could keep parishes or dioceses from straying, (true, I'm sure), but without provision for the dioceses to respond when the national church strays. They believe the national church has gone "off the rails."

There was talk of changing the diocesan preamble wording from describing the diocese as a constituent member of the Episcopal Church to a constituent member of the Anglican Communion. After all, they're the same right now, Curran (?) said. But if TEC won't sign the covenant, then the diocese would automatically be out of TEC, because TEC wouldn't be a member of the Anglican Communion any more. Crafty.

Forgive me, and let me know if I misattributed any quotes. I don’t know their voices, so it isn’t always easy to ID who’s who on a recording.

There’s a new wind blowing

It was noted that under the last presiding bishop, Frank Griswold, the national church didn’t get involved in property disputes.

“Under Katherine Schori, it’s a new day.”

I'm not sure who talking here, but it provides some context:
“Suddenly, for the first time, the national church is joining the Diocese of Virginia in the lawsuit against these 11 parishes, and, it is widely rumored - I can’t verify this - that it was under pressure Peter Lee changed the direction he was moving, because there was this protocol that had been developed over a period of months. My understanding is it was not finally accepted as any official thing but it was en route to finaly becoming officially accepted by the diocese, and then for whatever reasons, a change of mind about that, and a lawsuit, and the national church has joined the lawsuit. So what’s behind all that, I don’t know, that’s new.”

Someone asked, "Were they [the national church] a party to the California lawsuits?" The answer: They intervened in at least one.

Chancellor Wooten commented on the New Covenant Church* case: "The national church was aware how we were handling things and what our understanding of the law was. And ... we’re satisfied with that, that the trust interest would be protected, and that the resources would be redirected. So. If we had not been having that communication, the answer may have been different as to whether we got (inaudible)

Howe: "We didn’t ask anybody's permission, but we kept them apprised."

*[New Covenant was the church that decided to leave the “heretical” Episcopal Church and wanted to take the church property with them. An agreement was reached in 2004, wherein the departing congregation would lease the church property from the continuing church (via the diocese), while providing space for the Episcopal Church of the New Covenant to worship and rebuild. If the diocese decided it would not use the property as a parish or mission, the diocese would sell the property to the new church entity at fair market value, with an interest-free, 30 year loan. Lease payments would be credited. I felt leery of this, that it would be setting a precedent for future moves to take church property. Maybe it was the best way to settle the matter.]

Chancellor Butch Wooten was asked if he’s been pressured by national-church Chancellor David Beers in any way. Wooten said no. He also said, in another part of the discussion, he was feeling uncomfortable with the pressure he was feeling from the committee to find a way around church canon.

Some of the members didn't seem convinced the chancellors had tried hard enough to find precedents for what the committee wanted to do.

Back to finding a way around law and canon:

Curran said, "Then we need to find our solution elsewhere ... It seems to me to me that the straightforward solution is not going to be in the civil courts. That puts us into the ecclesiastical realm to find a viable solution. Now, thus far, we have been fabulously unsuccessful in doing that. But how do we do that, how do we approach that, so that we can create a climate in which, for example, when TEC does not sign onto the covenant, that we can have an amicable divorce, at that point in time? ... What can we do now so that we have an ecclesiastical resolution, and then if the courts are going to default to the ecclesiastical decision of who the members are and who’s in control of the property, then let's create the ecclesiastical reality that's going to move us in the direction. And how do we do that, how do we make those moves?"

Howe: "I don't know the answer to that, but here's a factor that you need to think about: The leadership of the diocesan board and the standing committee are a good deal more conservative and a good deal more exercised about these issues than are an awful lot of people in our pews. And even if the delegates to a convention had a significant majority that wanted to make that separation, they would not represent, uh, let me put this very carefully, there would be at least, at least a sizable minority, if not a majority in the pews that would not want to do that. How do you protect their rights?"

[In my opinion, a little ugly undertone came into this questioning:]

"How do you know that?"

"I know that. I visit every congregation."

"Do you take a poll or a survey?"

"No, I talk to people."

"See, that’s a pretty dramatic statement."

Curran said he had a hard time restraining his people, who don't want to wait any more, and Liebler said his parishioners ask, if they give to the cathedral, will the national church “swoop in” and try to take it.

Howe said, "The answer is no, unless you’re going to try and steal the property."

And someone added, he hears from people in the parishes, when are we going to get back to doing ministry?

There was some usual TEC bashing, for example, citing a sermon supposedly preached in All Saints California that called the atonement “cosmic child abuse.”

I looked this up and saw something from a rector’s forum by the Rev. J. Edwin Bacon at All Saints Church, Pasadena. Read it here.

I really don’t get their hatred of the presiding bishop. Maybe it’s that she is a woman. And a strong one. Then, I don’t get their hatred of the Episcopal Church, either.

It was clear the majority of the Standing Committee, and apparently the diocesan board, too, is ready to jump ship to the Global South, to be with like-minded "conservatives" and "Anglo-Catholics." Now.

There was some dissent to this. Canon Ernie Bennett (?) said he didn’t paint the presiding bishop and the Episcopal Church with the same black paint brush they did. He took vows as an Episcopal, not Anglican priest, and planned to remain Episcopal.

As for the covenant process, Curran said it would have to get through Anaheim 2009, if Lambeth even happens, then a period of discernment. If TEC signed the covenant it would be 2012, and it wouldn’t be worth the paper it’s written on.

They’re ready to go now. They want Howe on board with them. For, either at convention or special convention, it’s the bishop people will listen to, Howe was told. If the bishop tells the diocese something is a bad idea, the people will tend to think it’s a bad idea.

Therefore, the bishop should tell them schism and hooking up with the Global South is a good thing.

Somebody said the people in the pews need to be “educated.”

Howe told them he couldn't play ball with them. He likened the pain of presiding over a disintegrating diocese to that of being crucified.

He objected to their opinion the diocese is going straight to hell in a handbasket.

"Despite all this crap, there is good work being done in this diocese," he said.

***

Howe's concern about presiding over internecine warfare in the parishes and in the diocese was apparent. That is the future we face, if they persist in pushing schism.

Will they act like mean little kids, who, if they can't take it with them, will destroy the diocese before leaving it?

I do believe the bishop is right (it’s what I’ve been saying, after all) - the majority of parishioners won’t go along with leaving TEC, certainly not with going to the Church of Wherever (Nigeria-CANA or AMiA, as was suggested during the meeting). But the fight would be ugly, hurtful and costly on a number of levels. Little parishes like mine could well be torn apart.

And that will be a shame.

Preventing deadly cow emissions

Like many officials, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is out to help protect the environment by putting the brakes to auto emissions.

According to the BBC television new report I saw the other night, it looks like he's barking up the wrong tree ... er ... or, chewing the wrong cud.

No, the BBC says, methane (in Brit talk, pronounced MEE-thane), coming from emission points at both the front and back ends of bovines, is responsible for an enormous amount of global air pollution/global warming.







Not even cattle can stand the stench.


British scientists are hard at work on a solution to this problem. In hi-tech laboratories, they are sequestering test cows in air-tight quarters, and trying different feeds on them. Then, dressed in hazmat-white suits, technicians go in and measure bovine methane output, to determine which feed produces the lowest emission rate.

What a job to list on a resumé!

I wonder if they have tried dosing the cows with Beano.

Interesting times

In her comment on the previous post, Caminante noted interesting things are going on in the Diocese of Central Florida.

Yes, they are, though the powers that be might prefer they stay behind closed doors.

On June 4, I talked about a May 24 meeting of the diocesan board and standing committee. They want to secede from the Episcopal Church. The chancellors told them the legal (Florida law) and canonical reasons they can leave, but can't take the property with them.

This made most of the board and committee members very unhappy. They want to take it with them.

I got a recording of the meeting, and I've only listened to the first hour of it so far, to the patient explanations of the chancellors. The members immediately started looking for loopholes, of course.

It's apparent in what I've heard so far, they expected to be in a position of claiming to be the true Anglican presence in North America, with TEC kicked out "walking apart from" the Anglican Communion.

That's not happening. Now, the Global South forces and any TEC parishes or dioceses allied with them look to be the ones "walking apart."

Their plan is falling apart. How many parishioners want to leave not only TEC, but the Anglican Communion? I don't think arguments for this will get far. I didn't even think arguments for leaving TEC would go over that well, in general.

Now, they're agitating against Bishop Howe for not going along with them. Bishop Howe's latest letter is posted on Virtue's site, with the headline, "DIOCESE OF CENTRAL FLORIDA: Standing Committee Chairman wants legal right to secede from TEC -
Bishop John W. Howe says No"

Here's the letter, originally posted to the diocesan clergy listserv, so you won't have to hold your nose and go to the virtue-free site. I've heard things got uglier during the meeting, and they obviously have, since. I'll post more after I've listened to the rest of the meeting:


July 7, 2007

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

There have been a surprising number of posts on this list this weekend regarding the Bishop and whether or not he is being treated respectfully and fairly by the Diocesan Board and Standing Committee. (Thanks for your concern!) I think it is important for all of you to know what is behind this discussion.

At last month's meeting of the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church a motion was presented by Bishop Stacy Sauls of Lexington that passed (with two negative votes), declaring that any legislation by Dioceses of this Church that have amended or withdrawn their "accession clause" to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church is "null and void." It named the four Dioceses that have done this: Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy, and San Joaquin. (You can read this story on the web site of The Living Church, if you are not familiar with it.)

One of the members of our Board proposed a resolution to respond to this action. It had three parts:

1) that the Board "declines to accept the limits on our freedom...to qualify or withdraw our accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church in order to maintain our primary allegiance...to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ."

2) that the Board "does not recognize...any trust between this Diocese and the general Episcopal Church...upon the real or personal property of this Diocese...." and,

3) "that in the event such trust has been...asserted...the Board...hereby specifically revokes any such trust."

Before allowing any discussion of this resolution, I asked our Chancellor, Butch Wooten, to give us his opinion regarding it. He said he believed it reached so far into the doctrinal and spiritual affairs of the Diocese - which according to our Diocesan canons are in the "exclusive charge" of the Bishop - that it could not be considered by the Board. Our Vice Chancellor, Bill Grimm, agreed with this opinion.

I then ruled, as Bishop, not as Chair, that the motion was "out of order."

The President of the Standing Committee, Don Curran, who is a member of the Board, ex officio, immediately moved to "over-rule" my ruling, and he was seconded by several members.

I would not allow the motion to over-rule to be considered.

It was a very difficult meeting for all of us. Several members of the Board and members of the Standing Committee, some of whom were present, believe that as Chair I do not have the authority to prevent the motion to over-rule and that our Chancellors were wrong in their judgment that this motion falls within the arena of the Bishop's "exclusive charge over the spiritual affairs of the Diocese." They have argued this forcefully, and (with only one exception), I believe entirely respectfully.

Robert's Rules are clear that the Chair must allow a motion to over-rule if the issue is one that may be legitimately considered by the legislative body in question.

However, several passages in Robert's Rules indicate that the "rules" of the organization in question may surpass and limit Robert's Rules themselves. If a particular matter is not one that may legitimately be considered by a given legislative body, Robert's Rules do not apply.

It is the opinion of our Chancellor and Vice Chancellor that a resolution that says we have the right to withdraw our accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church is NOT one that the Diocesan Board or even the Diocesan Convention may consider.

(It might be possible to dispute Canon I.7.4 that says that property owned by a parish is held in trust not only for the Diocese but also for The Episcopal Church. However, a California appellate court just last month held that "the right of the general church in this case to enforce a trust on the local parish property is clear, and that right has not been affected by intervening United States Supreme Court decisions or any statute enacted by legislature." And certainly this is very much in play in the current law suit in Virginia.)

To remove our accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church would be - in my understanding, that of our Chancellors, and that of the Executive Council - a matter of abandoning one of the requirements for being a Diocese in The Episcopal Church. The fact that other Dioceses have done (or attempted to do) this is irrelevant. (If something is improper, it simply should not be done, no matter how many others have done or tried to do it. And, if the Executive Council says their attempts are "null and void," have they actually done it, or have they not?)

Under the National Canons, members of the Board must "faithfully perform the duties of that office in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church and of the Diocese." (This point was made very clearly in a special meeting of the Board and the Standing Committee a month and a half ago, when our Chancellors gave a briefing on Canon and Florida law.) And, of course, all clergy have promised to "conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church." Voting to withdraw our accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (or to retain the "right" to do so) or to negate the property Canon would violate that duty and would make that vote "null and void."

The Board cannot act on this matter because we, the Diocese, wish to be a Diocese of and in The Episcopal Church, and those members of the Board who wish no longer to be such are free to leave, but they cannot decide for the rest of us that we are no longer part of The Episcopal Church.

Not even Convention can do this, for the same reasons. Those who want to continue to be part of The Episcopal Church would be the continuing Diocese.

So, we are at an unprecedented disagreement, at least in my time here. The Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, and I have solicited expert opinion on this matter, and we remain convinced that I was correct to disallow the motion, and correct to disallow the appeal to over-rule my judgment.

I told the Board that if I was wrong, I would gladly apologize profusely, and allow the consideration of the motion, but the more we have researched the matter the more we are convinced we are correct.

There is one member of the Standing Committee who believes the Chancellors and I are so wrong that he suggests the Board might consider a motion of no confidence in the Chancellors, and a law suit against the Bishop.

It is interesting to contemplate a law suit against the Bishop for insisting we cannot consider a motion that would be a violation of the Constitution and Canons of the Church!

That is where we are. I will try to keep you posted.

I covet your prayers for all of us in this highly conflicted time.

Warmest regards in our Lord,

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

Let's spice it up
We're really hip, uh-huh

I'm square. I'm so square, I don't even know what the current vernacular for "square" is.

I'm so square, my blog is rated "G." sigh

I'm so square, I just found out about this blog rating "thang" over at Padre Mickey's. Of course, Padre Mickey is rated a hip NC-17.

Here's my rating:

Mingle² - Free Online Dating

Mingle2 disliked only the word "kill" (2x) and "death" (1x).

Maybe, as the song says, "It's hip to be square."

Mac who?

I've found in the calendar another female saint I knew nothing about. We will celebrate Macrina's feast day July 19. Note the "experts" thought she couldn't be the "Teacher" and theologian her brother Gregory described, because she was a woman.


I shamelessly cribbed this bio off this Web site.

Gregory's Life of Macrina can be found here.

About St. Macrina



St. Macrina (ca. 330- 380) was the eldest child in a family of saints. Her grandparents (one of whom was also named Macrina, so our patron is more precisely called St. Macrina the Younger) were martyrs. Her parents are also recognized as saints. They saw to it that she was very well educated. Macrina in turn became the teacher of her younger brothers Basil, later bishop of Caesarea, now Kayseri in Turkey, and Gregory, later bishop of the nearby small city of Nyssa. These brothers themselves became two of the greatest teachers in the Universal Church.

There is every reason to believe—based on their own testimony—that if Macrina had not attended to their education, and later, their spiritual growth, we would not know them today.

There is a wonderful little speech in Gregory’s life of his sister in which Macrina rebukes Basil, who has just returned from a brilliant university career in Athens, and warns him not to be so uppity — just the sort of thing it is easy to imagine a big sister saying to a little brother gotten too big for his britches!

She was equally firm in guiding her parents’ spiritual lives, and seems to have been as wise in practical management as she was in spiritual direction. Like another great teacher-saint much nearer our time, St. Therese of Lisieux, Macrina knew what she wanted, or more to the point what God wanted for her, and how to get it.

She was a consecrated widow (though therein lies a tale) and eventually the head of a double monastery of women and men established under St. Basil’s auspices. Although her teaching survives only in the words of her brother Gregory, and indirectly in the influence she had on him and Basil (perhaps also on their friend Gregory of Nazianzus), St. Macrina certainly deserves a place among the Fathers and Mothers of the Church.

An English translation of the charming Life of Macrina by her younger brother St. Gregory of Nyssa, in the form of a letter to a mutual friend, is available online. There is also a translation of the dialogue she had with Gregory on her deathbed On the Soul and Resurrection, described by him in the Life. Macrina is the person titled The Teacher in this dialogue, though many scholars have tried to deny this, on the assumption that no woman could be such a theologian. (If you follow the link to the dialogue, be aware that the “Argument” is the editor’s summary; scroll down to the title to begin the dialogue itself.)

As a teacher of several of the greatest of the Church Fathers; as a pioneer of women's independent religious life; as a loving sister and daughter; as a saint who nurtured others to sanctity; as a clear-minded practical worker for the poor and sick; as a woman whose power, intellectual ability, and sacred calling has sometimes been challenged or even denied altogether; and as a woman unafraid to preach, govern, and act publicly as a model for others, St. Macrina is a fitting patron saint for a congregation in Grinnell.

The feast of St. Macrina is July 19th. This is the troparion (a special short hymn of praise sung in the liturgy) for her feast:

The image of God was faithfully preserved in you, O Mother, for you took up the Cross and followed Christ. By your actions you taught us to look beyond the flesh, for it passes, but rather to be concerned about the soul that is immortal. Therefore, O Holy Macrina, you now rejoice with the angels.

From whence does my help come?

Psalm 121
Song of Ascents
I lift up my eyes to the mountains; where is my help to come from?
My help comes from Yahweh who made heaven and earth. May he save
your foot from stumbling; may he, your guardian, not fall asleep!
You see�he neither sleeps nor slumbers, the guardian of Israel.
Yahweh is your guardian, your shade, Yahweh, at your right hand.
By day the sun will not strike you, nor the moon by night. Yahweh
guards you from all harm Yahweh guards your life, Yahweh guards
your comings and goings, henceforth and for ever.

***

Where are you? I look to the hills, and find only slate and rubble.

Where are you? I look to the skies; I look for you in the patterns of the clouds. There is nothing but the soughing of the wind.

Where are you? I seek you in the stillness of an empty chapel, tracing stained-glass images with my finger, and find only silence.

Where are you? I look in my heart, and find only a well of loneliness.

Where are you?