Episcopal Church Attempts to Ban Another Bishop

By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

An effort to ban another bishop from his religious duties was not supported by The Episcopal Church's senior bishops.

Diocese of Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan received a letter Tuesday from the head of the national church, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who said she had sought permission from the three senior bishops to inhibit him.

The bishops did not give such consent but certified that Duncan had "abandoned the Communion of this Church."

Duncan received the letter just days after the senior bishops gave their consent to inhibit Bishop John-David Schofield whose San Joaquin, Calif., diocese voted last month to break from the national church.

The Episcopal Church is giving both bishops two months to retract their acts before the House of Bishops meeting in March.

"I would ... welcome a statement by you within the next two months providing evidence that you once more consider yourself fully subject to the doctrine, discipline and worship of this Church," Jefferts Schori wrote in her letter to Duncan.

Duncan and members of his Pittsburgh diocese are currently moving toward a split with The Episcopal Church over its liberal direction on Scripture and homosexuality.

Controversy had heightened when The Episcopal Church consecrated openly gay bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire in 2003.

The diocese took the first step to leave last November when it overwhelmingly voted to remove language in its constitution that states the diocese accedes to The Episcopal Church. A second vote of approval, which is expected later this year, is required to make the decision final.

Several other dioceses are taking similar measures while the Diocese of San Joaquin became the first full diocese to finalize their decision to secede last month.

In response to the Episcopal head, Duncan indicated he will not recant his course, arguing that he has remained faithful to the Church.

"Few bishops have been more loyal to the doctrine, disciple and worship of The Episcopal Church," Duncan said in a brief response Tuesday. "I have not abandoned the Communion of this Church. I will continue to serve and minister as the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh."

The conservative bishops contend that they are breaking from The Episcopal Church to stay faithful to Scripture and traditional Anglicanism within the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of Anglicanism.

Duncan's case will not be brought before the House of Bishops at their upcoming March meeting but will be addressed at the next meeting thereafter, according to Jefferts Schori. Meanwhile, bishops will vote on a final judgment for Schofield in March.

Next Story : Survey: High School Seniors 'Graduating from God'

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

maranatha7593 »

Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:46 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

SJ - one more question: Why do you feel compelled to defend homosexuality, when the Word of God is so clear about it in both Testaments, when EVERY form of immorality is condemned in the entire Bible?

BTW - Yes, Jesus said Moses had allowed divorce 'because of the hardness of men's hearts'.

BUT then He specified that this had NEVER been God's will; IOW, He 'raised the bar' of men's standards from an acceptance of divorce to an acknowlegement that divorce is not God's will.
maranatha7593 »

Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:43 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

SJ, with all due respect, you're not making sense - Biblically, that is. You're confusing the ceremonial laws given to Moses, which were fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, with the moral law of God which is the same from Genesis - Revelation.

If you read the book of Hebrews under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, you will see this clearly.

You have head knowledge of God's Word but you are not comprehending the reality of it in your spirit.
StJohn\'s »

Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:27 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

maranatha7593, the issue at hand is the interpretation of Scripture and the changing of old standards. Matthew 19 shows how Moses allowed Divorce despite the Scriptural warrant against it and how Jesus welcomed in eunuchs where the Law ostracized them. Many now view homosexuality in a similar way where that which was once forbidden is now accepted, like eating kosher food, allowing Gentiles into the Church, denying the Divine Right of Kings, the abolition of slavery, allowing Usury, treating woman as equals. Remember your description of the Pharisees who have 'head knowledge' of God's words but 'did not grasp it in their hearts.' That is an apt description of the debate over slavery, and perhaps over homosexuality.
maranatha7593 »

Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:23 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

SJ, what does this issue have to do with slavery? Or eunuchs?

Have you read Matthew 19:4-6? If so, you know that Jesus affirmed there God's original plan for men and women from the beginning, made it clear that was God's will for our lives.
StJohn\'s »

Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:46 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 4

maranatha7593, I think your description of the Pharisees is an apt warning for many, who have 'head knowledge' of God's word, but 'did not grasp it in their hearts.' Those who opposed the abolition of slavery in the 18th century clearly had God's word on their side, but did not grasp the spirit of the Gospel in their hearts. And your reference to Matthew 19 is interesting, where Moses allows for divorce though the Scriptures did not, and where Jesus embraces eunuchs denied a place in the temple by the Law (Dt 23.1). Or where you just focusing on other verses?
maranatha7593 »

Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:54 pm Agree: 5 Disagree: 1

StJohn\'s: Jesus constantly said to the Pharisees, "Have you not read..."? And then He would go on to quote a truth from the OT/God's Word to them. They had 'head knowledge' of God's Word, but they did not grasp it in their hearts. When the Living Word of God stood before them, they didn't even recognize Him. They thought they were the children of God, but Jesus plainly told them they weren't.

Jesus never once rebelled against God - He was always totally obedient to the Father, even to the cross. He delighted in doing whatever the Father wanted Him to do.

Yes, He associated with sinners and tax collectors, BUT He never once sinned with them or condoned sin. Instead, He always confronted sin, in a way that let people know He was not condemning them but was giving them a chance to be forgiven, to have their lives changed.

Jesus never once contradicted God's moral laws; indeed, they are written with consistency from Genesis to Revelation, and He also confirmed them in His teachings. In Matthew 19, He affirmed God's original plan for men and women, and stated plainly that God's plan had not changed. Since you are a priest, I beg of you not to heap judgment on yourself and destroy others' lives by condoning what God condemns, by accepting what God said He hates.
StJohn\'s »

Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:42 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 3

maranatha7593, yes, I am a Christian and a priest, and did not the Pharisees uphold God's Word (as they understood it) against a rebellious Jesus who broke the Sabbath laws and associated with sinners and tax-collectors despite the Scriptures of his day?
maranatha7593 »

Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:53 am Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

quetzal, yes, I am a Christian. Do you think one must necessarily be a 'self-righteous Pharisee' to uphold the truth of God's Word? Because that is not what the Pharisees did.
quetzal »

Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:24 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 7

Maranatha, and are you a Christian? Sadly, you sound very much like one of those self righteous Pharisees that Jesus warned us about.
maranatha7593 »

Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:35 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

StJohn\'s, are you a Christian?
StJohn\'s »

Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:05 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 8

maranatha7593, if anyone in the Episcopal Church believes that their faith necessitates it, they are welcome to remove themselves, as Bishop Steenson did. Duncan should do the same, but he can't have it both ways. Your charge about anyone as being in "rebellion against God" is a judgment I will leave up to God, because I believe that all the parties here are acting in faith, as they interpret it. It is the self-righteousness that is demonic. Conservatives like you once charged the Abolitionists with the same criticisms, because the Bible was so clear on that issue!
maranatha7593 »

Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:54 am Agree: 5 Disagree: 2

StJohn\'s, should Episcopal bishops be faithful to the communion of the Episcopal Church, when its leaders are in rebellion against God?
captainslow »

Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:30 pm Agree: 5 Disagree: 1

It's a travesty to think that people like Katharine Jefferts Schori and Gene Robinson will decide on the future ministry of men of proven character and integrity like John-David Schofield and Robert Duncan. These men have given their lives in service to the Lord and His people - and they will soon be kicked to the curb. What a sad state of affairs for the ECUSA.
Online4Him »

Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:12 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

correction: There would be no schism within the ECUSA had it not strayed from the clear teachings of "THE" Scriptures.
Online4Him »

Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:07 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

"I would ... welcome a statement by you within the next two months providing evidence that you once more consider yourself fully subject to the doctrine, discipline and worship of this Church," Jefferts Schori wrote in her letter to Duncan.

There would be no schism within the ECUSA had it not strayed from the clear teachings of Scriptures.

I am sure the Lord would welcome a statement from the ECUSA to the effect that they would be willing to subject themselves to the doctrine, discipline, and true biblical worship as stated by his Word (the Bible).
pburwell »

Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:14 pm Agree: 4 Disagree: 0

It is Schori who has broken communion by teaching what is in conflict and downright opposition to the Scripture. She should be ex-communicated POST HASTE.
Brother Walt »

Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:50 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

My most ardent prayers are for those who desire to be true to the word of God. Our Holy Father has repeatedly brought hard times on wicked authorities who call evil good and good evil. There is no doubt whose side he is on in this unhappy affair.
Topekan »

Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:04 am Agree: 5 Disagree: 1

There is no place for unity when a denomination chooses to fall away from the clear teachings of scripture. It is the ECUSA, not the so-called "conservative bishops" who have gone astray.
StJohn\'s »

Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:22 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 5

If these conservative bishops admit they are 'breaking away from the Episcopal Church to stay faithful to Scripture" (or at least their interpretation of it) are they not also admitting the charges against them that they 'have abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church'?
gavulav »

Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:45 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

Yes, let us pray to God for unity in the Body of Christ. Let us also pray for the church leaders who are under so much pressure from the world to compromise the Word of God. Let us also pray for holiness and truth to be restored to the Body of Christ.
FullGospel »

Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:44 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Perhaps we could join our prayers with theirs to God for unity. It must be tougher than ever to be in church leadership these days.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story