“Blood on Every Page”

That is a phrase we in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) throw around to explain the volume, detail, and nature of our Book of Order.  The phrase is taken from one of our better know books on polity and expresses the fact that much of what has made its way into the Book of Order can be traced back to specific problems that arose and after the fact we decided that clarification or detailed rules were needed to address future instances.  One valid criticism of the proposed new Form of Government is that in the revision we will lose an accumulation of “institutional memory.”  It is also one of the strong arguments for the revision that the Book of Order is so cluttered with these reactive amendments that maybe it is time to start over with a clean copy and begin again.

If you have been following the drama in the American Episcopal Church the last few weeks you know that the recent developments have come down to an argument about applying their church, or canon, law.  I will return to that argument in a moment, but let me fill in the details from my last post  on the topic back in early December.  At that time the convention delegates to the Diocese of San Joaquin, California, had voted by a wide margin to change the diocese’s bylaws to change their oversight from the American Episcopal Church to the Southern Cone in South America. (Episcopal news story reporting that action)  The reason for the diocese’s departure, like in other mainline churches today, is the controversy over ordination standards related to practicing homosexuals.  Since then proceedings have been underway against the Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, John-David Schofield, for “Abandonment of the Communion.”  Well the proceedings reached their final step on March 12, 2008, when the House of Bishops voted to agree with the investigation board to the “deposition” (that would be removal, not testimony under oath) of Bishop Schofield as well as a retired bishop, William Cox, from Maryland.  (Episcopal news story)

For Bishop Schofield’s part, he sent, or at least posted on the Diocese web site, a letter of resignation from the House of Bishops on March 1.  Reception of this letter by the Presiding Bishop has not been acknowledged.  So we have “You can’t fire me, I quit.”

Also, the House of Bishops at their meeting approved Bishop Jerry Lamb to serve as provisional bishop to the Continuing Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin.  The appointment needs to be confirmed by the diocese on March 29.  (Episcopal new story)

While I am not sure what all the implications of deposition are, Bishop Schofield and the majority of the Diocese seem happy to have joined, and welcomed by, Southern Cone.  The deposition seems a formality at this point, unless the American Episcopal Church can find some muscle from either civil authorities or the Worldwide Anglican Communion, to get the realigned churches in San Joaquin back in the fold.

Now, here is the current controversy over polity:  The section of canon law related to the process of removing a bishop for Abandonment of Communion ( Title IV Canon 9 ) says in Section 2:

Otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House. If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the Ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.

The vote was taken by voice vote so the exact count is not known, but as the Living Church News Service reported on March 14, from their reading of this section the vote could not have been valid.  By their count there were 294 members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote on March 12.  That would require 148 bishops to vote in the affirmative to agree to the disposition.  However, they know that only 131 bishops were registered for the meeting and 15 of those left before this item of business.  By their reading “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent” had not happened and the deposition was not valid.

Needless to say, the church hierarchy disagrees with this interpretation and issued a response the next day.  Here it is in its entirety:

The Presiding Bishop’s chancellor has confirmed the validity of votes
taken in the House of Bishops on March 12, correcting an erroneous
report published online March 14 by The Living Church News Service.  

Chancellor David Booth Beers said votes consenting to the
deposition of bishops John-David Schofield and William Cox conformed to
the canons. 

“In consultation with the House of Bishops’ parliamentarian prior to
the vote,” Beers said, “we both agreed that the canon meant a majority
of all those present and entitled to vote, because it is clear from the
canon that the vote had to be taken at a meeting, unlike the situation
where you poll the whole House of Bishops by mail. Therefore, it is our
position that the vote was in order.”

A quorum had been determined at the meeting by the House of Bishops’
secretary, Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of Southern
Ohio.

So the official interpretation, by somebody like the Stated Clerk, is that the vote was valid.  They interpret the phrase in Section 2 “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” to mean “a majority
of all those present and entitled to vote.”  I will say that I may be missing certain implications of the next line “because it is clear from the
canon that the vote had to be taken at a meeting” because I am a GA Junkie, not a HOB (House of Bishops) Junkie.  They appear to be saying that “since this vote must be taken at a meeting by implication Title IV.9.2 must refer to those at the meeting.”  But others who are more familiar with Canon Law still see problems with this, like this viewpoint expressed by the Anglican Communion Institute today.

In the midst of this it is interesting to note one final item in the Anglican controversy at the moment.  Coming up this summer is the Lambeth Conference in England, a once-a-decade gathering of about 800 bishops from the Worldwide Anglican Communion.  The conference is by invitation and participants do not come as specific delegates or representatives of their churches.  At the present time Bishop Schofield is on the invitation list, but Bishop Gene Robinson, the openly gay Bishop of New Hampshire, is not on the list and will probably only attend as an observer.

And after that diversion we now return you to our regular Politics of Presbyterianism.

UPDATE:  At about the same time I finished this up and posted it Virtue Online posted a detailed entry with quotes from several, presumably conservative, cannon lawyers that argue the interpretation of the Canon Law making the vote valid is not reasonable.  In particular one expert cites other places in the Canon Law where there are detailed specifics about which bishops need to vote.  This corroborates the interpretation that “the whole House of Bishops” means everyone eligible, not just those present.

UPDATE 2:  In looking over this polity issue I have found a post on the blog Father Jake Stops the World which takes the position that the vote was valid and tackles the canon law and the math to explain why.  His argument centers on the necessary quorum.  However, he closes with a comment I think a lot of people could affirm at this point: “The wording of that canon certainly needs to be cleaned up. That is quite clear.”