Via email:

My Dearly Beloved Brothers and Sisters,

Most of this letter was written two weeks ago, but I did not believe it was timely to send it. I think that the Protocol has now been adopted by the Diocesan Board it may be right to do so.

Not a single one of you has asked the question: "Bishop, why are you allowing these rectors who want to 'disaffiliate' the space to pursue their objectives? They are clearly in the process of abandoning the communion of this Church. Why are you not moving against them by inhibition and deposition?"

Here is my answer to the unspoken question: I am deeply sympathetic to any who believe that the current leadership of The Episcopal Church has greatly compromised the "doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received them." And I am extremely reluctant to discipline those who, for conscience sake, are finding they MUST "disaffiliate."

I believe that many of our clergy and lay leaders have attempted to be completely loyal to our received heritage, and have tried to reform a Church that is in many ways errant. And they have finally concluded that such reformation is not going to be successful. They want to "protect" the members of The Episcopal Church entrusted to them from any further spiritual incursions against them.

I am not convinced we have come to a point of no return. But I understand why they may believe we have done so. I believe it is still possible to be a faithful parish, or a faithful diocese, within The Episcopal Church. And I am still eager to hear what the Archbishop of Canterbury has to say about all of this.

Some of our people have expected and hoped that I would attempt to "lead the Diocese out of The Episcopal Church." (They are, frankly, deeply disappointed in me!)

I do not believe that is possible, though I recognize that some of our Bishops are attempting to do precisely that. I do not think they will be successful. They can leave, and they can take any number of clergy and laity with them. They can affiliate with some foreign jurisdiction such as the Southern Cone.

But there will be a remnant who will NOT want to leave, and that remnant will constitute the continuing Diocese of Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, Fort Worth, etc.

I expect that millions of dollars will be spent in lawsuits that will ultimately fail as far as those who wish to leave are concerned. And I cannot be part of that.

Nor can I be part of litigation against those who, for conscience sake, believe they must leave The Episcopal Church. These are faithful brothers and sisters who only want to remain true to what we have always been: orthodox Anglican Catholic Christians.

We have spent two months (four meetings, approximately twelve hours) attempting to craft a Protocol (a page and a half) which is finally in place - to deal with those who wish to "disaffiliate." This Protocol does not spell out the whole process. It merely brings to the threshold of being able to deal with those congregations. I want to state again my gratitude for the prayers of so many, and my particular gratitude for the members of the Board, the Standing Committee, the Special Task Force, and especially our Chancellors. We could not pay them for the time they have invested on our behalf!

The Protocol does not guarantee success. If the leaders of some congregations offer unreasonable proposals, and we cannot possibly accept them, and if I and the Board offer counter proposals that these leaders cannot accept...there is no guarantee whatsoever that somebody may not do something that the other side will find litigious. I believe that nobody wants to go there. But we may not be able to avoid it.

The Church of the New Covenant attempted to transfer title to a separate non-profit 501 (c)(3) corporation, and forced our hand four years ago. We had to file suit, and we did so. Something like that could occur again. I pray it does not.

On one level, I think the honorable thing those who wish to "disaffiliate" would be to simply walk away.

That is what happened at St. John's, Melbourne, and Shepherd of the Hills, Lecanto. And it appears that is what is about to happen at St. Edward's, Mount Dora.

But, on another level, I believe that there is a validity to the argument of some who wish to 'disaffiliate" that it is they who have been faithful, while the national leadership of The Episcopal Church has increasingly abandoned the very heritage we have all sworn to protect.

So, I want to try to work with these brothers and sisters if it is at all possible. (It may not be.) We have received proposals from three of these congregations so far. In all honesty, I do not think any of the three are realistic. But now that the Protocol is in place, we can begin to discuss these proposals.

Each church's situation is unique, and each will have to be dealt with on its own merits. My life, since October 18, has been totally consumed with all of this, and I can tell you there is not a shred of joy in any of it. (Ernie [Bennett]'s, too.)

I will attempt to keep you apprised of where we are as this process unfolds.

My warmest regards in our Lord,

(And yes, you may post off the list so long as you post the whole thing.)

--(The Right Rev.) John W. Howe is Bishop of Central Florida

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal • Episcopal Church (TEC) • TEC Bishops • TEC Conflicts • TEC Conflicts: Central Florida

1. MotherViolet wrote: You can read about the history of the protocol which the diocese of Virginia authored in 2006 and how they ultimately missed an opportunity to show the wider church a graceful way forward at:- http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw/tec_to_nigeria.html December 17, 6:01 am | [comment link]

2. Abu Daoud wrote: This seems like a reasonable and Christian way forward given the Dennis canon… December 17, 10:58 am | [comment link]

3. robroy wrote: The Dennis canon states that property is held in trust for the diocese AND the national church. Suppose one was in a state like Florida that gave all deference to the hierarchal church, how would the courts decide if those two parties disagreed. The courts would look to who is “inhabiting” the property and whose names are on the deeds. December 17, 12:19 pm | [comment link]

4. Dale Rye wrote: Re #3: Maybe, but the courts would look to the internal dispute-resolution mechanisms of the hierarchical church for guidance in determining just who the diocese is and what it has authority to decide. The whole point of the doctrine of deference is to keep the secular courts out of the business of deciding religious questions. If the final authorities at the top of the hierarchy settle a question in a particular way, the courts are not (or should not be) free to second-guess them just because somebody lower down the hierarchy (whether in a parish or a diocese) disagrees. To some extent, the Dennis Canon is a red herring. In states that defer to hierarchical church decisions, it did not add anything new to the preexisting law, because the courts already treated church property as being under denominational control. In states that apply “neutral principles,” it did not change anything either, because the courts ignored it just like all the previous canons and precedents. December 17, 1:14 pm | [comment link]

5. Athanasius Returns wrote: In these dark days in the Dio of CFL I encourage all parisioners within this diocese and, for that matter, in all dioceses to remain extremely alert to communications from vestries, clergy, standing committees, and so on.  It is up to us to be well-informed.  No detail is too small or insignificant to notice and catalog. Prayer must be our watchword, orthodoxy our armor, and information at all levels our ammunition.  Act in concert with others, not as loose cannons.  When it comes to legal matters, don’t assume the answers are apparent.  All this talk about the Dennis Canon and red herrings makes me wish there was a legal defense fund we could draw on.  Can’t we all get organized, or are we doomed to fragmentation? December 17, 3:29 pm | [comment link]

6. libraryjim wrote: I wonder if/when Bp Howe will get his letter from KJS or Beers stating that he must institute lawsuits against those parishes who wish to ‘disaffiliate’? December 17, 4:08 pm | [comment link]

Registered members must log in to comment.