Enough of Bishop Martyn Minns.

He was present September 18, 2003 at the meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury where somehow the notion of a Network arose. The Network folk claimed the Archbishop suggested it and gave them the green light to proceed. It took months of questioning to get a response from anyone as to who was at the September meeting and what, if anything the Archbishop said. But there he was - Martyn Minns, Rector of Truro parish.

He was central to the formation of the Network.

He was present at the Global South meetings of 2005 and the Global South Primates and Steering Committees of 2006,

He was notoriously present at the Primates Meetings in Dromantine in 2005 and in Tanzania in 2007. At Dar Es Salaam he and Bishop Duncan and Canon David Anderson were in constant contact with Archbishop Akinola. (See my article The Amazing Hubris of the Three Amigos)

Of late Bishop Minns has been caught doing what some of us have suspected all along: trying to put words in the mouths of others, or if not in their mouths at least on the papers they sign. There have been questions even then as to whether or not all those it is claimed signed off on documents from the Global South meetings actually did.

Some months ago (August 23) The Church Times wrote an article indicating that Bishop Minns wrote much of a letter for the Archbishop of Nigeria written to his clergy and synod but actually for the whole communion and anyone else interested. I pointed out in my note on the matter that the Archbishop no doubt had people who wrote for him, but that the talking points of the letter were part of a longer campaign in which the same ideas were raised over and over. The script was there and the pitch was made.

Now it appears in a report on the meeting of the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa that Bishop Minns also tried to put forward his ideas once again and pass them off as the ideas of the CAPA general assembly. Fr. Jake and Episcopal Cafe have both commented on the CAPA statements and on an article in The Church Times by The Revd Edgar Ruddock,International Relations Director and a Deputy General Secretary of USPG: Anglicans in World Mission.

Mr. Ruddock wrote this:

"How sad that whenever we looked at a document, we found it had been drafted by a Western pen. How sad that paragraphs appeared in the draft communiqué that spoke of matters that had not even been debated. And how encouraging it was that the meeting roundly threw them out, and left the issue of sexuality to the Primates."

"... mood of the meeting was expressed most strongly when the final communiqué, which, it appeared, had been drafted largely by the Rt Revd Martyn Minns, was discussed. Its many references to the sexuality debate, which had simply not been discussed, were voted off."

It would appear that Bishop Minns had his hand in the word mill again, but this time the CAPA Assembly saw fit to throw them out. The CAPA Primates it appears have not yet found themselves able to distance themselves from the guiding hand from Virginia.

All of this makes me wonder again about the then Rector of Truro and the meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury in September 2003.

Minns wrote then " The original suggestion came from a meeting that David Anderson, President of the AAC, and I had with Archbishop Rowan Williams at Lambeth Palace on September 18th, 2003. We had been invited to give a first hand report on the state of the Episcopal Church after Minneapolis. We shared something of our struggles and it was at that conversation that he suggested the need for a Network. He called it a Network of Confessing Dioceses and Parishes. He wanted to be sure that we used a positive name and not be identified as dissenters. He was also very deliberate in using the word “Confessing” because that would connect it with the “Confessing Christian” movement that stood for the orthodox faith in Germany at a time when the official Christian bodies were being manipulated and co-opted by the government of Nazi Germany. The name subsequently became the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (or Anglican Communion Network or ACN)."

At the time I took Martyn's words at face value and considered the matter closed. Things in Anglicanland moved on.

About a year later the Archbishop of Canterbury's office stated the following:

"Amongst those with whom the archbishop met last autumn were those dissenting from the impending consecration of Gene Robinson; those involved wished to discuss the shape that might be taken by groups dissenting from the decision of General Convention but remaining within the structures of ECUSA.

The term 'network' was suggested as offering one appropriate model to provide support for those dissenting from the resolution but intending to remain within ECUSA's structures. The Archbishop felt that this might prove a suitable working concept, but no proposals as to its potential form, structure or outworking were advanced."

This carefully crafted statement, a year after the event, did not say that the Archbishop had suggested the formation of a network. Rather, "the term 'network' was suggested as offering one appropriate model...." Only later was his name interjected into the report.

The hand of Martyn Minns was no doubt in the mix, and while the words may or may not have come from the Archbishop's mouth, I have little doubt the idea was there before hand.

There is considerable movement from "he suggested the need for a Network. He called it a Network of Confessing Dioceses and Parishes. He wanted to be sure that we used a positive name and not be identified as dissenters. He was also very deliberate in using the word “Confessing” because that would connect it with the “Confessing Christian” movement that stood for the orthodox faith in Germany at a time when the official Christian bodies were being manipulated and co-opted by the government of Nazi Germany." (the Minns note) to "The Archbishop felt that this might prove a suitable working concept." (the Lambeth office report)

Interestingly the Minns comment about the Confessing Christian movement was stated more strongly than the Lambeth office would remember later. Lambeth said, "In relation to the discussion of the term 'confessing church'; this concept indicated, in accordance with traditional Protestant usage - that the dissent was understood to be on a matter of conscience that, for the dissenter, touched on the integrity of the church itself. No narrower example or more specific comparison, for instance to the church in Germany in the 1930s, was intended."

It may be that his hand in things then was as formative as it has been since. It is hard to say. But it is reasonably certain that he has been very formative of ideas expressed by others since then. What might have seemed to be helpful now at CAPA seems to be considered a bit more like manipulation.

Bishop Martyn Minns has a long reach, from the meeting in Lambeth in September 2003 to the present. David Anderson, who is about to join him as a bishop in the Church of Nigeria was there that September and was present at the several meetings of the Primates. Perhaps now that Bishop Minns is beginning to fade Bishop Anderson will come in as relief pitcher. Or perhaps others will begin to think that all this borders on manipulation of the agendas elsewhere in the Anglican Communion to feed the fires of dissent in The Episcopal Church.

And perhaps the Anglican Communion, North or South, East or West, will have had enough of Bishop Martyn Minns and he will have to start a new church, more to his liking.

Remembering a Good Friend in Prayer

Bishop Yamoyam of the Episcopal Church in the Philippines suffered a stroke on Sunday afternoon while attending Executive Council in Dearborn, Michigan. On Monday the Living Church reported the following:

"The Rt. Rev. Miguel Paredes Yamoyam, provincial secretary of the Episcopal Church in the Philippines, suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and was expected to undergo surgery Sunday night or today, according to the Most Rev. Ignacio Capuyan Soliba, Prime Bishop and Moderator, who said that Bishop Yamoyam was conscious but unable to speak."

By eight AM on Monday he had returned from surgery and was in intensive care. Members of his family in the Philippines and in the US were called and several were on their way. I visited Bishop Yamoyam with the Prime Bishop on Monday morning. The intensive care team was constant in care and the Prime Bishop was able to call on several Filipino nurses to especially look in on him as well. I have not heard since Wednesday morning, but my sense is his condition is grave.

Bishop Yamoyam has served the ECP with great joy and dignity. He is always welcoming and always quietly perceptive. Sunday before his stroke he spoke to Executive Council, mixing good humor with the remarkable story of the movement from dependence to autonomy in the Episcopal Church in the Philippines. He and the Prime Bishop are justly proud of the way in which the ECP has become fully autonomous and therefore more easily a full partner with the Episcopal Church and other partner churches in the Anglican Communion. He was glad to be at Executive Council telling the story again. In the Philippines he was talked of as a possible candidate for Prime Bishop.

Bishop Soliba remarked that he was told Bishop Yamoyam's chances were only 50/50. Reflecting on that I later said to Bishop Soliba that I thought our chances were only 50/50 to be able to keep him with us. Bishop Yamoyam's chances were 100% sure. If he lived or died, there would be joy in being with God.

Pray for him and his family.

Bishops, accountability and Title IV

There are times when following the story of the Episcopal Church in these difficult times of internal strife and ecclesial invasion from without gets a bit complex. Matters are made all the more difficult when these take place against the background of the slow and painful demise of the American Empire. So it takes a bit of doing to get a grip on what is happening in The Episcopal Church these days.

Reference to "Title IV" of the Canons of the Episcopal Church is not usually newsworthy. In the past week, however, Title IV has come up on several occasions:
(i) At Executive Council the issue of costs related to various legal matters growing out of Title IV concerns was raised.
(ii) Bishop Bennison of Pennsylvania has been inhibited pending the review by the Title IV review committee.
(iii) Bishop Robert Duncan has been warned that if he and the Diocese of Pittsburgh change their constitution so that unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church is assured, he might well be understood to have abandoned the communion of this church, under Title IV.

Title IV of the Canons of the Episocpal Church covers matters of ecclesiastical discipline. In Bishop Bennison's case, matters of conduct in relation to his pastoral responsibilities, in the matter of the clergy and bishops aligning with other provinces or denying their oaths of obedience, their ecclesial responsibilities.

The property issues arise from another canon, Title I 7 4.1. But those issues intersect with Title IV issues when it is by virtue of the abandonment of the communion of this Church that the claim is made by the leaving bishop or clergy that they continue to have the right of use of the facilities they held while part of The Episcopal Church.

The problem is that the keys continue to be in the hands of the now deposed or otherwise absent clergy. Getting the keys back takes place against the background of the rights of the clergy, which arose as a matter of right by their inclusion in the clergy of this church.

In Bishop Bennison's case he has had the keys taken away from him by inhibition. In Bishop Duncan's case it appears the Church is saying that if it is shown that he has abandoned the communion of this Church, the Church will demand the keys back.

Regrettably there is considerable history concerning the need for inhibition. Bishop Bennison may or may not finally be cleared or convicted; for the moment he is inhibited.

There are some instances of the interplay between property issues and clerical abandonment of the communion of this Church, some involving bishops. Most notable in recent years has been the case of the now deposed bishop of Central Ecuador. Bishop Neptali Larrea was deposed following his abandonment of the church amidst charges of financial mismanagement. He subsequently took with him much of the real property of the Diocese and over the past several years the Diocese has recovered much of what was taken.

As with all clergy, Bishops are to be held to account both for their pastoral and managerial actions and for their ecclesial oaths taken at the time of their ordination. The actions by the Episcopal Church in both these cases is a matter of attending to accountability.

Attending to these matters is expensive and church members have every reason to want to know just what it costs to follow through with the litigation related to bringing people to account. Some of this is spoken to in a recent posting of The Episcopal News Service. But we must at the same time realize that the cost of not holding people accountable would lead to an abandonment by the Church of pastoral, ecclesial, managerial and fiduciary responsibility .

The matter most important, of course, is the accountability we have to the Lord Jesus Christ, one which is beyond the purview of any canon. At one time or another those held accountable on other matters have laid claim to this greater accountability. When the church has none the less demanded the person cease functioning as a member of the clergy (inhibition) or has asserted that the person has abandoned the communion of this Church, the only recourse has been to leave, claiming the higher ground.

Which is why all temporal judgment is subject to divine judgment. But that is, indeed, a matter for another day. Suffice to say that on that day the judgment of the comparative silence of the Church on matters of accountability in the last days of the American Empire will make judgment of the Church's actions re Title IV seems pale by comparison. Still, there is reason to suppose that if we are persistent in small matters we might also be persistent in great ones.

December 9th, CANA crossing the line.

Under the heading of dates on which significant damage to the Anglican Communion is done, we note the following:

On September 13, 2007 the CANA website posted this news:

"...the Primate, the Most Rev’d Peter J. Akinola, announced the election of four suffragan bishops and appointed them to serve in the USA. The bishops-elect are the Rev’d Canon Roger Ames (Akron, OH), the Rev’d Canon David Anderson (Atlanta, GA), the Ven. Amos Fagbamiye (Indianapolis, IN), and the Rev’d Canon Nathan Kanu (Oklahoma City, OK). The consecrations will take place in the USA before the end of 2007, at a date and place yet to be determined. These four bishops-elect will join Missionary Bishop Martyn Minns and Suffragan Bishop David Bena in providing an indigenous ecclesiastical structure for faithful Anglicans in this country."

On September 25, 2007 CANA issued the following notice:

With the election of four new bishops to advance the work of the Church, we look forward to a historic consecration in the US during Advent. To be sure that the CANA Council meeting and the consecration of bishops could be accomplished on the same trip for the entire CANA family, the dates for the Council meeting had to be changed from November 1-3 to December 6-8, 2007. Immediately following the Council (December 6-8), the consecration will be performed on Second Advent, December 9, 2007. Both events will be held in the northern Virginia region. The Council (December 6-8) will be hosted at Church of the Epiphany in Herndon, near Dulles Airport; stay tuned for an announcement regarding the site for the consecration (December 9)."

As yet there is no notice of the venue for the consecration, save that it will be in Virginia.

We note the following:

(i) The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) has not heretofore consecrated bishops in the US for the US. Doing so violates Anglican practice in a way even more serious than even the ordination of Bishop Minns in Nigeria. Now there is no question that the Church of Nigeria is not in communion with The Episcopal Church and ready to establish an alternative Anglican presence in North America.
(ii) The consecration is contrary to the spirit of the efforts to hold the Communion together and a confirmation of recent comments from a high official of the Church of Nigeria that, ""We must forget about Britain and forget about the US."
(iii) CANA members might well rejoice at the selection of these four candidates, but it cannot have escaped them that they were elected and appointed in Nigeria for them, and not in any open way by them. It is, of course, perfectly within their rights to do so. However we might note that several congregational groups within CANA derived from churches with a proud history of participation in the formation of the church structures and leadership.

It is imperative that the Archbishop of Canterbury state unequivocal opposition to these ordinations. That of course assumes that communication still exists between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primate of Nigeria. Failure by the Church of Nigeria to reconsider its actions gives notice that indeed Nigeria has forgotten about Britian and the US.