We deeply regret their unwillingness or inability to live within the historical Anglican understanding of comprehensiveness.

San Joaquin would not have seceded if The Episcopal Church had not been unwilling or unable to live within the historical Anglican understanding of Jesus Christ, Scripture, and the historic faith.

Tobias Haller (link at top) writes, The church is governed by laws, and this lack of a capacity to divorce is all the more clear, constitutionally speaking, in cases such as that of San Joaquin, which began its life as a missionary diocese and was only granted full status in the 1960s. Contrary to the imaginings of former Bishop of San Joaquin John-David Schofield, the canonical silence on the subject of how dioceses become independent does not signify consent, but inconceivability. Anyone familiar with the history of The Episcopal Church should know that, and numerous canons make it clear: the territorial limits of the United States play a definitive role in determining the relationship of a domestic diocese with the only legitimately constituted Anglican presence in our portion of North America, which is to say, The Episcopal Church.

Let's not pretend that there is an historic Anglican understanding of Scripture. Differences on the interpretation of Scripture have existed since (and are enshrined in) the Elizabethan settlement. Schismatics don't even understand Scripture in the same way. Some ordain women, some don't.

To believe that the Episcopal Church understands Jesus differently than the rest of the Communion, I would have to be persuaded that there is only one interpretation of the mission of Jesus that is accepted uniformly by the rest of the Communion and that material in the Book of Common Prayer differed from this standard. In other words, no arguing from magazine clippings.

The Diocese of San Joaquin has done what it has done because the strategist of the schism think that the time is now, and they believe it has the best chance of maintaining its property in a court fight due to the singularity of California law on this issue.

The rest is window dressing.

Folks, if you are a faithful Episcopalian and you see Neela Banerjee of the New York Times coming, run. She's been hyping schism ever since she started covering this story, and today's piece is just the latest example.

She casts Ephraim Radner as the reader's unbaised guide to this story and never points out he is a member of the board of directors of the IRD, which is funded by conservative foundations, staffed by members of Peter Akinola's Church of Nigeria and dedicated to taking apart the mainline Protestant denominations.

She quotes Bishop Schofield, hardly an unbiased source, on the number of diocese that might follow his lead. He exaggerates the number by about half.

Worst of all, she passes on thirdhand and unverified, the notion that Rowan Williams thinks this is a "sensible" solution. This seems highly unlikely, as the last time something like this happened (in the Diocese of Recife in Brazil) the Communion recognized the new bishop appointed by the Church of Brazil, and not the bishop who led the schism. Neither was the schismatic bishop invited to the Lambeth Conference.

Throughout her coverage of this story she's had a knack for presenting the nightmare scenario as the thing most likely to happen next. That probably gets her stories better play, because her editors aren't in a position to understand how gravely she is misleading them. But our Church pays a price for this career boosting kind of coverage. So reader, if Neela Banerjee calls you, be aware that it won't end well.

Movin' right along ---
Click here to see Kermit and Fozzie.

Kermit:
Movin' right along in search of good times and good news,
With good friends, you can't lose,

Fozzie:
This could become a habit.

Kermit:
Opportunity just knocked, let's reach out and grab it,
Together we'll nab it.

Did Bishop-elect Mark Lawrence participate in the San Joaquin secession vote?

Not sure why Banerjee called me up -- surely not because I am "unbiased" -- who is? perhaps because I represent some place on the spectrum that is viewed as interesting ("conservative"). And she somehow got my phone number (journalists are good at that if they want). Even if Naughton doesn't consider me a "faithful Episcopalian", there are those who do (I'm still a member of the Episcopal Church, canonically resident in the Diocese of Colorado, am in good standing, and am paying a pledge to an Episcopal parish) -- and I didn't "run" when Banergee came calling. In fact, I'm willing to talk to most people. I gather Naughton thinks of himself as a journalist -- I'm even willing to talk to him, should he wish at some point to get beyond characterizing people like me on the basis if his uninformed prejudices, as opposed to actual knowledge that comes from the effort of engagement. Indeed, he might learn a thing or two from Banerjee.

Ephraim Radner,

What a peculiar reaction. My complaint here is not with you, but with Neela Banerjee.

Here is all I say about you:

"She casts Ephraim Radner as the reader's unbiased guide to this story and never points out he is a member of the board of directors of the IRD, which is funded by conservative foundations, staffed by members of Peter Akinola's Church of Nigeria and dedicated to taking apart the mainline Protestant denominations."

I imagine conservatives would have made the same complaint if I were the person in this story allowed to seem as though I were above the fray, and therefore more trustworthy than the advocates on either side. I have written enough of these stories to know that the position you occupied in this piece is the most advantageous position to hold.

But to get back to your complaint, I don't say you are not a "faithful Episcopalian." Indeed, I don't think you are not a faithful Episcopalian.

I didn't say you "ran" when Banerjee came calling. I imagine what you did was pick up the phone. That's what most of us who get quoted in newspapers do.

In fact, I don't characertize you in any way other than by a factual statement about your affiliation with the IRD. You put words in my mouth and then accuse me on the basis of those words of being prejudiced against you.

Why would I want to engage in a conversation with someone who restorts to these sort of tactics?

My disagreement with you about the morality of monogomous same sex relationships is not a judgment of your character. I do find it extremely odd, however, that you see no conflict of interest in serving on the board of the IRD and the Communion's covenant team. My sense is that you have been looking for an opportunity to get the grievance you air here off your chest since I expressed this opinion some months ago.

Now that you have done so, I hope you feel better. Happy Festivus.

Nothing "peculiar" about my reaction at all. "Faithful Episcopalians", you say, would not want to have anything to do with Banerjee, because she "hypes schism". To be sure: you don't say that I am hyping schism; but the context of your remarks clearly links me to such an interest. And in this you are barking up the wrong tree. Indeed, you take Banerjee to task for failing to point out my affiliation with an organization which you characterize as anti-TEC. Why would you point this out, except because you believe the association to be important and thereby to imply that I too share these commitments (rightly or wrongly attributed to IRD)? You also seem to think I have a "conflict of interest" -- which, after all, is an ethical matter --in sitting on the Covenant Design Group. The fact of the matter is, however, that you have never talked to me about any of these things. You do not actually know what I think of the IRD, of its stated goals, of my role there or with the Covenant Design Group. I have no real "grievance" over this matter, and don't particularly care. Rather, I had a little free time this morning, and decided to do some blog-reading. Since your comment was about purported "bias" in reporting, I thought I'd clear up some misapprehensions that you are sharing with your readers.

Do you, in all seriousness, believe that you don't have a conflict of interest in the IRD/Covenant matter?

In all seriousness. And if you can show me how this has affected my judgment, my transparency, my trustworthiness, and so on, please do. (You cannot, of course, because you do not know me, have never talked to me, nor attempted to understand anything I have written and published that might have a bearing on this.) Either you are impugning my character on this matter or you are not. You say you are not, but you think I have an ethical problem of "conflict of interest" here, and cannot be "serious" in denying it. Go figure.

But none of this goes to my point: you want to present yourself as a serious journalist on behalf of the church, criticize other journalists for their "bias", and you still can't bring yourself actually to bother getting your story straight with the people you berate and sneer at on your blog. Conservative blogs are filled with ranting and unpleasantness; that I will affirm (as anybody who reads them can do for themselves); but this one isn't any improvement.

Perhaps we could have avoided this conversation if you had a stronger sense of what constitutes a conflict of interest.

One doesn't need to know a person's heart to notice that he plays a leading role in two bodies with conflicting aims, and that in some instances it will not be possible to serve both organizations fairly.

If you belonged to a group that was negotiating a labor settlement while simultaneously serving on the board of an organization that was attempting to decertify the union involved, I'd say you had a conflict of interest whether I knew the slightest thing about you or not.

It is certainly true, as you write, that I can't demonstrate any way in which your overlapping IRD/Covenant membership has affected your judgment, etc., but that is the point. The person with the conflict is the only one who knows whether he's shortchanged one side or the other, and if so which one. The rest of us have only his word on it. That is precisely why people object to such conflicts.

Most people in public life who find themselves in this sort of bind end up resigning from one of the organizations, if only for the duration of the assignment at issue. You have chosen not to do that. I think you have exercised poor judgment, and that, given the importance of the Covenant Design Team to the future of the Communion, it is fair to point that out.

Against Father Radner's comments let it be noted that formally, one's inward passion or cognition is not necessarily relevant to establishing conflict of interest--a term, by the way, whose context is already well captured legally and politically.

I think Jim is suggesting that mere disclosure of the conflict--say by admitting membership in the IRD openly--is insufficient, as is a profession of personal good intent and a plea for trust. Please note that conflict of interest can exist regardless of what one has done or intends to do.

I think Jim is suggesting Removal or better Recusal from at least one of the organizations is called for without question, and that continuing in an open conflict of interest seems to invite censure, inasmuch as it seems to ignore the imperative to minimize such conflicts.

Now, to be sure, Ephraim might be exercising a teleological suspension of the ethical--in effect, he discerns in fear and trembling that God has called him to enter with love into what seems ethically to be a conflict of interest. But then, why invite observation and dialogue, as he does, when no outward appearance accessible de re could possibly suffice to establish the fact of the faith necessary for such a suspension in an individual?

Still, it is possible he is suspending the ethical for the religious. That kind of spirituality--surely laudable in itself--seems oddly enough evident in Bishop Schofield as well.

Todd Bates

I’m afraid I can’t follow how this is particularly relevant. You have already stated that you believe I am a “faithful Episcopalian” (I’m grateful at least for that!); and I presume that, since you have never met me, spoken to me, do not know me or know what is “in my heart”, you can say this on the basis of the public record. That is really all that is relevant. As an Episcopal priest, I have vowed to “take [my] share in the councils of the church”, and the Covenant Design Group is one to which I was called, just as I take part in diocesan conventions, national conventions, committees, fund-raising taskforces, and the rest.

I have also vowed before God to be “loyal” to the “doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them” and have signed a “solemn” declaration committing myself to the same, with respect, more explicitly, to the Episcopal Church. If I am a “faithful Episcopalian”, I take it that I have not violated these vows as a priest. No one, in fact, has ever questioned whether I have. You too, you claim, have not questioned this.

Now you assert, however, that I have an ethical “conflict of interest” over being a member of the Covenant Design Group and being a board member of the IRD (there is another Episcopal priest, Graham Smith, who is also on the Board – also a “faithful Epsicopalian”, as you can determine for yourself, devotedly serving in the Diocese of Chicago). I can only conclude that you believe there is a “conflict of interest”, then, between my being an Episcopal priest and serving for IRD’s Board, because, as I have pointed out, I serve the Covenant Design Group in my capacity as a “faithful Episcopalian” who is a priest. (Actually, I was not officially nominated by the Presiding Bishop to the Design Group, but was nominated – I don’t know by whom – from elsewhere in the Communion, but that is not the point.) Are you suggesting that someone serving on the Board of the IRD cannot faithfully fulfill their vows as an Episcopal priest, or at least should not be trusted to do so? Since I have no intention of resigning from the IRD Board, it would appear that you believe I am threatening the integrity of my vows. Should you speak to my bishop in Colorado? Send a letter to my diocesan Standing Committee? Contact the Bishop of Toronto who is hosting me? This is all very absurd and actually slightly malicious.

Obviously, you dislike the IRD, and I can understand why: its understanding of the Christian Church’s moral imperatives are, in some significant respects, contrary to your own. You might well be concerned to have someone like me on the Covenant Design Group; just as there are those who are concerned to have various more “liberal” Anglicans serving as members of the Group. However, we both know that the Communion is made up of people with vying views about some rather important things, and that is precisely what we are trying to sort out. Having us all on one Design Group may prove difficult, but it is hardly contrary to the Communion’s own attempt to resolve destructive conflict. Indeed, it is part of what we are about.

But it seems you also believe that the IRD is somehow committed to destroying the very thing the Covenant Design Group is committed to upholding (the Communion?). If this is so, it is a belief without foundation. (Indeed, a far better argument could be made regarding the Communion-destroying work of “liberal” Anglicans than anything you can offer here. But that is beside the point, since differing views, as I said, are part and parcel of the discussion.) The IRD is committed to “reform” and “transformation” and “renewal” of various represented American churches. It has no particular stand regarding the Communion itself, or its current or future shape. It has not committed itself to dismantling the Episcopal Church. Some of its members have “left” the Episcopal Church. Some, like myself and Graham Smith, have not. Some, like myself, believe the Episcopal Church needs to be “disciplined” in terms of its Communion membership (hardly close to “decertification”, an analogy you draw which is frankly either simply rhetorical overkill and misleading at that or ignorance about what terms actually mean); some believe otherwise. Board members themselves, just as supporters of the IRD, have differing views about matters affecting the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. We are all “conservative” in various ways, but these ways vary greatly (as you might discover if you bothered to talk to any of us). Funding sources themselves vary in terms of the political posture of the donors; no doubt some of us would disagree with this or that aspect of this or that viewpoint represented by this or that donor (but that is most evidently and even more prominently true of the donors who support our congregations and churches!). And so on.

The whole idea of a “conflict of interest” is a canard, driven by political ideology on your part. Which is why your worries over “bias” in reporting seem deeply disingenuous.