Sweeping up prior to the House of Bishops Meeting.

A few odds and ends of questions and scraps of information swept from dusty corners of the Preludium print shack:

(i) Bishops Beckwith, Duncan and Iker were absent from the March 2008 House of Bishops meeting. We know Bishop Duncan will not attend this time. Will Beckwith or Iker?

(ii) Bishop Duncan, in his letter to the Presiding Bishop on March 14, 2008 stated, "I have been present to all but two meetings of the House of Bishops (out of twenty-four) during the last 12 years. In those meetings I have clearly and openly opposed the theological and moral drift of the Episcopal Church, often in the face of great hostility and sadly, at times, derision." So, in twelve years he has been present for all but two meetings. Assuming three meetings a year that's pretty good, say 40 out of 42. Then again he was only pinch hitting at some of those, only staying for the parts he had to, not taking communion with the regular group, etc. Still, not a bad record. What is his record for this year? Zero for two.

(iii) It's a difficult time for Bishop Duncan, but he is filled with hope. On September 13th he wrote to his clergy and parishes,

"So fear not. It is confidence in our faithful God that will carry us all through to a better day, to the other side of the vote on September 18th and the other side of votes on October 4^th. I expect that God will still grant me many years of service to the people and the place I have come to love so much.

“[Because of the storm] they were frightened. But Jesus said to them: ‘It is I; do not be afraid.’” [John 6:19b-20]"

I was reminded of the prophesy he received at an earlier point, from Mark Stibbe, posted in Trinity Magazine of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.

"2008 is the year of the open gate. Prepare to pass through the gate. There are new beginnings ahead for those who have been waiting patiently for their moment to come. Obstacles are being removed. The Father is breaking his children out of a sense of captivity to past restrictions. The anointing for new beginnings is on many in this year. The time of frustration and exile is coming to an end. This is the Lord’s time for his people to rise up and follow him through the gates of opportunity. New starts are looming. Many are on the point of experiencing the new life that convergence brings. And the true church – even though it will know many trials - is on the point of experiencing new life, a new season of vitality and creativity, a brand new Reformation. A highway is being built, stones are being removed, and a banner is being raised for the nations.

So get ready… and do not be afraid. Do not be anxious. 2008 is the year of the gate… And there is a BREAKER ANOINTING on those who are pushing up to the threshold of their opportunity..."

Does this continue to be Bishop Duncan's source of optimism? Frankly, I hope Bishop Duncan is filled with hope, otherwise this miserable mess is not worth it. I know he has felt exiled in the Episcopal Church. My question is where does he think he is going? We are all in exile here and the the exit lanes are clogged with gas guzzlers and truckers carrying stolen goods. Better he should stay on the main roads with all the rest of us pilgrims. Still, if he is going to exit, best paste the prophetic utterance on the steering wheel.

One question: If he wanted to leave and take the diocese with him, what would have prevented the diocese from petitioning the General Convention to mutually dissolve the union between the diocese and the General Convention. I know....he probably would have lost that vote as well, or it would perhaps have been considered out of order (although Puerto Rico did it). Still, it would have put the issue before the whole Convention. Speeding off the highway and into the supposed bright new day, or perhaps the unlit side streets, is a lot of things, but it ain't mutual.

(iv) Then I found a small posting on Preludium concerning an "Undisclosed Memo" quoted by George Conger in a Living Church article. The memo concerned presenting the Presiding Bishop for deposition on various charges having to do with her disregard of the Constitution and Canons. Who wrote the memo and on behalf of what group I have not yet heard. But then, life moved on.

Indeed. But this week George Conger has written again to opine that there is "legal doubt over Presiding Bishop's move to depose Duncan." There is no mention of any legal opinion save the reading by the author and the opinion of Bishop John Howe that he would disassociate from the vote as it would be an improper vote. So, is the legal doubt that of George Conger? Who else?

Is there out there legal opinion - by a competent canon lawyer - that Mr. Conger is relying on? Surely he is not simply reporting his own opinion. I am sure he is not. But where do these opinions come from? And do they come from people with a stake in the matter?

That was the same question I asked last week of the lawyer, Mr. McCall, who wrote a lengthy opinion posted by the Anglican Communion Institute about the Episcopal Church as a hierarchical church. There was indeed a listing of Mr. McCall's legal credentials given later, but no indication as to why he wrote the opinion, who commissioned it if it was commissioned, and what stake he has in the proceedings.

Perhaps it is time to wonder if these legal opinions are being affirmed from the same source - an individual or a small gathering of lawyers. If so, fine. But what then is their stake? And if they are being paid, by whom?

No wonder that was swept into a corner. Complex and not very interesting, unless of course disclosure is still a valued notion.

(v) We don't have the minutes of the Spring meeting of the House of Bishops, at least I can't easily find them. A question: If an item of business is brought up at one meeting and referred to the next business meeting, and so indicated in the minutes, does that have to be separately announced in the publication of the agenda of a special meeting of the House of Bishops, or does it stand as continuing business? If it stands as continuing business, it seems to me more than enough to say that there will be a business meeting. Also, the vote to act on a piece of business already before the house is not about resolutions, but rather acting as required on matters before the house. I am not at all convinced of the argument in the aforementioned Conger article, no matter the source of its legal opinion. It doesn't mean I can't be convinced. It just means I am not convinced. And clearly I am not a canon lawyer nor do I play one on TV. I do occasionally have drinks with one. The conversations are stimulating and often he pays.

Not that this matters much.

(iv) I notice on another scrap of paper that our Son, Daughter, Daughter-in-Law, and best of all Granddaughter are all arriving here at the end of the month. This is why I am sweeping out the print shop. Indeed there are sometimes better fish to fry.