"The matter will immediately be appealed," said the bishop. Of course it will. "Although we are disappointed in the court's conclusion, this is simply an initial step in a long process," said John R. Shiner, chancellor of the diocese and its lead attorney in the property matter. "We believe the court's order was clearly in error, and indeed takes the law to a new level not supported by precedent. We are entitled, under these unique circumstances, to an immediate appeal, which we intend to vigorously pursue."

Notice the language; "immediately appeal," "vigorously pursue" and "a long process". In other words you will stay behind the barbed wire fence of our revisionist diocesan concentration camps, learn to imbibe our pansexual 'gospel', practice inclusion rather than conversion, and to make our point, no amount of diocesan money will be spared in order to make sure the parish and its buildings stay even if you personally don't. (And we will pay whatever it takes to keep them open even with 10 people and a revisionist priest.)

To do this the diocese and its bishop will beg for more money from revisionist parishes and, if need be, obtain money from the National Church which, from one report, they have already shelled out over $500,000 to date. That figure will be close to one million before the end of the year you can be sure. Open up another Trust Fund please.

Said Mr. Shiner, diocesan chancellor, "We are confident on appeal that the court will correct this error and instruct the parties on how to proceed with the balance of the case." Bishop J. Jon Bruno of Los Angeles concurred. "Along with the National Church, we have committed ourselves to these proceedings," he said, "to ensure compliance with our canons and to preserve property rightfully belonging to the national Church and the diocese."

"Compliance" is the nice word for it. A better word would be coercion with the heavy cudgel of the canons.

And then Bishop Bruno put his own spin on things. Here is what he said: "As anyone familiar with the circumstances understands, this is not an issue concerning freedom of speech, but simply one that addresses who is the rightful owner of the property in question."

Jesus had nowhere to lay his head, the Early Church had no buildings, the first Christians met in the Catacombs before cathedral buildings or high-priced suburban churches were heard of, and thousands of African Anglicans today meet together in situations so primitive that a building of any sort is often out of the question. Many congregations meet under trees. So Bishop Bruno and the national church have committed themselves "to preserve property" they rightfully say belongs to the national Church and the diocese. And Jesus weeps.

But it is not only in California that this mean-spirited attack goes on. Consider what is about to take place to six North Florida Episcopal congregations who want to negotiate their futures with Bishop John Howard and who have appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Panel of Reference for help.

A Florida-Times report said that a spokesman for the bishop welcomed the churches' willingness to talk but regretted to hear they appealed their case to the archbishop of Canterbury, spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

"It's disappointing that political tactics are being used -- real disappointing," said the Rev. Canon Kurt Dunkle, the bishop's chief of staff.

So a diocesan official accuses these faithful godly priests of using "political tactics" when the world leader of Anglicanism personally recommended at Dromantine that such a panel be set up to deal precisely with these situations!

And when it comes to "political tactics" there have been few so adroit at political maneuvering than Bishop John Howard himself. Witness what he did at his first diocesan convention. His actions were a study in diocesan political tactics and strategy! See my story: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2499

Howard rejected the congregations' June request that he temporarily assign them another bishop, saying it amounted to a "divorce" between the churches and the diocese. But Howard said he was open to discussing a less comprehensive form of alternative oversight for them, he told the Times.

The congregations responded with a letter to Howard explaining that they are "open to considering other forms of oversight with you."

The group sent a letter to the archbishop of Canterbury in London, informing him they were "in serious theological dispute" with Howard and therefore found it impossible to remain under his leadership.

Howard's letter said he was willing to negotiate with the four parishes but that he would soon call in the mission priests, called vicars, "to discuss the future of their ministries." What this amounts to is a threat. Howard can directly control the missions and fire the vicars at will because he is their rector.

Dunkle told the Times that he did not know if the two vicars -- who are the priests at Calvary Church and St. Luke's Community of Life -- would be removed from the missions.

Then Dunkle said something quite extraordinary to the Times reporter: "I suppose it would depend on how they can craft an effective ministry representing him [Bishop Howard] while not being in constant estrangement from him."

Fascinating. So they have to "craft a ministry representing...Howard" not Jesus, not the apostolic message, but the bishop. And if they don't "represent Howard" they are gone. The heavy hand of a theologically conflicted bishop strikes again.

Dunkle predicted the congregations' appeal to Canterbury would be referred back to the local and national level. Then he made a public confession to the Times, "Even if the archbishop made a ruling on the appeal, it would amount to a suggestion because he cannot dictate policies to Howard or other bishops."

The truth is, there is no universal canon law in the Anglican Communion and Dunkle is on safe ground that the Panel is really impotent to do anything other than make suggestions and recommendations until a universal canon is in place. The reality is that, for the moment, (there being no such canon), there is not much anybody can do.

Up till recently there was a gentleman's agreement that there existed among Anglicans a common body of truth that everyone adhered to. When the Western churches pulled away and started making separate and different theological claims, no mechanism has been found to pull them back. We have had one statement on the Doctrine of God and Resolution 1.10, but little else.

So the Anglican Communion is breaking apart and all the commissions, statements and panels won't put the humpty of Anglicanism back together again. If the 'faith once delivered to the saints' won't hold us together, it is unlikely that a universal canon would or could either.

The Episcopal Church USA will never, in a thousand years, give up its autonomy, not even for the much bally-hoed and oft-repeated "bonds of affection", bonds that have frayed to the breaking point and many now believe have irretrievably broken.

END