The Rt. Rev. Mark MacDonald has questioned Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s assertion that he must renounce his orders as a bishop of the Episcopal Church because of his ministry in Canada.
The former Bishop of Alaska and Assistant Bishop of Navajoland now serves as the Anglican Church of Canada’s National Indigenous Bishop.
Bishop MacDonald told The Living Church he was “shocked and surprised” by the Presiding Bishop’s remarks on his ministry, adding that he has “written to her asking for clarification.”
“I am on loan to the Anglican Church of Canada under the PB’s supervision. I have an unofficial position, with no set authority or jurisdiction,” he said.
“I was in conversation” with the Presiding Bishop “well before I took the position” in Canada, Bishop MacDonald said. “I had never heard at all that this would be seen as a de facto renunciation of my orders.”
The question of Bishop MacDonald’s orders arose after the Rt. Rev. Keith L. Ackerman, SSC, wrote to Bishop Jefferts Schori that he wished to serve as a bishop in the Diocese of Bolivia. She responded to Bishop Ackerman on Oct. 7, writing that “as you know there is no provision for transferring a bishop to another province,” and releasing him from his orders as a bishop of the Episcopal Church.
Through her press officer, Neva Rae Fox, the Presiding Bishop has declined to answer questions about the orders of Bishop MacDonald and other bishops serving outside the Episcopal Church. On Oct 22, however, she sent an email message to the House of Bishops regarding Bishop Ackerman.
“We have been and will be consistent regarding our canons, which clearly state that The Episcopal Church can accept the ministry of a bishop of The Episcopal Church functioning temporarily in another province of the Anglican Communion, when it is clear that that province does not seek to undermine or replace the ministry of this Church,” she wrote, although she did not cite which canon forbids such an action.
“Such temporary duty requires the full and informed consent of the respective ecclesiastical authorities,” the Presiding Bishop wrote. “The ministry of Mark McDonald is an example, but as his position becomes permanent, his loyalty will have to be to the Anglican Church of Canada, rather than The Episcopal Church, and a recognition of his renunciation of orders in this Church will be necessary.”
Bishop MacDonald sees no such necessity. The Rt. Rev. Edward Leidel, retired Bishop of Eastern Michigan, “is more official than I am,” and is a congregational coach in the Diocese of Huron, Bishop MacDonald said, noting too that the Rt. Rev. Walter Jones, the former Bishop of South Dakota, became Bishop of Rupert’s Land from 1983 to 1993. Neither bishop had to renounce his orders.
“I would like to see clarification from the PB on this issue,” he said. “There has to be a better way. I would like to see our canons embody the understanding of the catholicity of the church.”
The “indelibility of orders is not the issue,” Bishop MacDonald said. The “Christological doctrine of the catholicity of the church is at stake.”
(The Rev.) George Conger
The Living Church has a new look! Get the next 52 weeks of The Living Church Online, plus convenient access to more than a year of archived issues, all for just $25! Click here to start your subscription to the TLC Online Edition today!
8 Comments
I have seldom read such arrogant rubbish on the part of the PB. Is TEC truly no longer part of the Church Catholic? All that is required is a letter dimissory and for most parts of the Anglican Communion not even that is necessary to be received. Welcome to the ever shrinking church of 815.
It's about time another Bishop speaks out on the matter of the so called "renunciation" of orders. The presiding bishop has, in my estimation, overstepped her authority in the subjective re-interpretation of the Canons of the Church, to what in essence seems to be purging the Episcopal Church of dissention and alternative voices. She as traditionally the first among equals, seems to be using her "pastoral" clout as a weapon of self-righteousness in what seems like the "cleansing of the temple" of Anglicanism? As I had said in a published article in TLC, the Canon which the pb is wielding in intimidation was never meant to inpinge upon the inter-relationship of provinces of the Anglican Communion. With "letters dimissory" from Diocesan Bishops, clergy freely moved back and forth between Anglican provinces, be they Canada, England or South Africa. I believe that the only thing which was affected with American clergy, was not a "renunciation" of orders, but a freezing of what was contributed to the Church Pension Fund and subsequent payment, upon retirement...period. The Canon which our poor misguided presiding bishop misunderstands was meant to affect Episcopal clergy who literally left the ministry of the Episcopal Church for another denomination or Church. The intentionality of this Canon did in no way include clergy going to other parts of the Anglican Communion. This being the case, the presiding bishop is creating a serious precedence with regards to the future recognition of Anglican Orders going to and from the Episcopal Church. We think that we have problems now with our fellow Anglican Communion members - just wait to see what other kinds of tricks she will pull from her mitre! I'm sure it will make the front page of the National Enquirer - all the news fit to print.
Mark was my former bishop. He is a very generous man - a true liberal in that respect. He allowed our church alternative oversight and was truly sympathetic to the views of those with whom he disagreed. What PB Schori did is really quite unbelievable. My guess is that she is using him as a scapegoat to justify her actions toward Bp Ackerman.
Regarding catholicity, there will have to be a distinction made - perhaps a clarification, as Bp MacDonald has asked - between the RECOGNITON of orders by The Episcopal Church of those not ordained in or for The Episcopal Church, and by those other Churches of Episcopalian clergy.
For instance, Episcopalian clergy should not have any delusion that the Roman Catholic Church would unconditionally accept their ordination as valid and could administer the sacraments either as "guest clergy" or as new converts.
The Episcopal Church canons are also clear of the same for those Roman Catholic clergy coming our way.
So Bp MacDonald's complaint of lack of catholicity might be accepted in regard to the Roman Catholic Church in theory - and in ecumenical hope - but not in practice.
As such, we are limited to a conditional catholicity regarding holy orders. But that limit has never been applied to a practicable catholicity regarding holy orders within and by those understanding themselves to be in fellowship with others in what is called the Anglican Communion. Now the bishop has an argument to be made, and to be made forcefully.
There are actually two issues here, and each must be made separately: first, the matter of catholicity of orders within the Anglican Communion (setting aside recognition with non-Anglican bodies for the sake of this argument); and second, the presumption of powers, or perhaps the assumption of power, by the current office-holder of TEC Presiding Bishop.
In Bp MacDonald's case, he is clearly questioning both. He must be careful, though, to be clear about the matter of catholicity or else be drowned in a response that is overloaded with generalities as I have noted, and thus risk the blaring silence of fellow bishops who might otherwise stand to his defense.
The solution seems simple enough for any who have been ordained making use of the language of Anglican catholicity. The term "renunciation" must be set aside, only to be used in the case of clergy removing themselves to a non-Anglican Christian body. This leaves open the possibility of being "licensed" to serve within The Episcopal Church, whether as a formality, or by the invitation or permission of a local diocesan bishop, and yet maintaining a distinction which is usually made clear by introduction.
In Bp MacDonald's situation, once formally "received" into position as a bishop in the Anglican Church of Canada (with no other strings attached), he is OBVIOUSLY no longer acting as a bishop in TEC, and thus no longer a listed member of the House of Bishops. He is in practice no longer an Episcopal (TEC) bishop. However, by invitation, say, by the bishop of North Dakota, he could still be asked to assist with a confirmation, or an ordination, etc., because he is still recognized as a bishop in fellowship and communion.
Regarding the PB, should +North Dakota invite +MacDonald to act sacramentally, is +North Dakota required to ask of and receive the PB's permission for that sacramental action to take place? Would that not be the case, however, logically, if the PB has declared +MacDonald to have renounced his orders and the PB has concurred? Indelibility of orders takes a beating when renunciation is introduced, at the least semantically.
And the logic begins to deteriorate.
Just to add to it, regarding renunciation, would not Canada be required to find language that would allow the justification of a bishop "renouncing his or her orders" in another part of the Communion with enough spin on it to accept their ordination without re-ordination? Read that again.
Up to this point in our Communion, if a clergy person renounces their orders in one "Province" of the Anglican Communion it was understood to considered thus in other Provinces. This is why Letters Dimissory was created for transfers within and without TEC.
Within? Yes. Whenever I am asked to minister sacramentally or to officiate or preach within a diocese other than the one in which I am canonically resident, I take it upon myself to receive that bishop's permission, as required by canon. That is, although I have been ordained a priest for the whole Church, my understanding of catholicity is going to be limited by the allowance or disallowance of a bishop in another TEC diocese. In fact, if I were to take a job as a priest in another diocese, I just can't move there and start right in. My selection must be approved by the local bishop, and I must request a "transfer", or Letters Dimissory, officially giving permission for me to depart one diocese, and move to another. Here's the point: without such action dimissory, I would need to renounce my orders under that bishop once I made it clear I was moving to be under the authority of another bishop elsewhere.
Now that might seem absurd. From a catholicity point of view. And it is, because the question is not about my ordination as a priest. The question is WHERE I will act as a priest. When I moved from Oregon to San Joaquin I stopped being a priest in or of the Diocese of Oregon, and became a priest in or of the Diocese of San Joaquin.
To apply back to Anglican Communion bishops, bishops of other Provinces are welcome to be bishops in another Province with permission or by invitation. That's because ordination is recognized. And IT IS ENOUGH to issue Letters Dimissary, recognizing permission to withdraw or depart, when one goes from one Province to another permanently (or temporarily full-time). But to renounce one's orders cuts off the intention of ministry as an ordained person within that Province, and logically discards the same ordained status with every other Province in Communion.
Yes, it is dizzying. Bottom line, I am not willing to allow the Presiding Bishop to unilaterally establish a limited definition for me of the term "renounce" without critical challenge. This challenge will most likely be required to originate from with the House of Bishops. Whatever liberal associates Bp MacDonald has will be of no avail privately.
Some valid points are made, especially comparing Bishop McDonald's situation with that of Walter Jones who had no such problems, either when he came to the US from Canada or when he returned to Canada. Then again, I saw him as one of the reasons TEC is in trouble now, and I foresaw the current situation when he was still in South Dakota.
Would the fact that such a question is raised perhaps indicate that someone (or a few someones) in the TEC leadership are preparing for TEC's departure from The Anglican Communion?
I don't quite understand Lippitt's comment "Then again, I saw him as one of the reasons TEC is in trouble now, and I foresaw the current situation when he was still in South Dakota."
As one who has known Archbishop Jones my whole life, I don't understand how he would have anything to do with the mess that we have today in TEC. Walter Jones is as conservative and orthodox as any bishop in TEC today.
Archbishop Jones is truly missed in the diocese of South Dakota for his presence, his wisdom, and his orthodox views. May he rest in peace.
I find this whole situation to be a reflection on the times, where the mission and ministry of the our Lord and Saviour takes a backseat to worldly powers that strive to corrupt and control. This to me is a clear case of the PB throwning Bishop MacDonald under the bus to deal with Bishop Ackerman. Reagardless of your theological stripes, in my mind the PB's goal is power. Our Lord had a lot to say to those that presented Religion at the expense of faith and truth.
My own situation is such that I have been asked to voluntary reliquish my holy orders. I beleive it, in some ways, parralels Bishop MacDonald's situation, if we are to believe that God is the one that does the calling. That the local church body's purpose is for the mission and ministry of the Gospel and NOT the structures and politics of the worldly church. Enclosed is part a letter that was my response to this request:
I fully accept that this change in ministry means that my license is no longer valid, I have enclosed a document whereby I relinquish my license. I do not voluntarily relinquish my Holy Orders. I have done nothing morally or ethically warranting the removal of my Holy Orders. I have not accepted Holy orders in another religious institution, which is the collective understanding of how Canon XIX [ACoC] could possibly be applied. Farringdon Independent Church is a completely independent Church; it is not denominationally affiliated with any wider church. It is not an ANiC (Anglican Network in Canada) church. It is a Christian church, which acknowledges Christ as the head and cornerstone, where the beliefs and worship are focused on the Trinity, where the Bible is affirmed as authoritative and inspirational and where people believe and practice traditional Christian values.
The rational for not voluntarily relinquishing my Holy Orders is as follows. If I were to leave my position and minister in a different capacity: as a teacher or missionary or chaplain or retire, within the diocese or out of it, or remain a priest in a different diocese, I would not relinquish my orders. There are legions of examples to this matter. When someone is ordained, it is into the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church, ordination transcends the immediate local application; that is the purpose of the license. To many Anglicans, ordination is viewed as a sacrament, it is often said that once someone is ordained a deacon they are always a Deacon. Similar to baptism and confirmation, we in the church do not perform the sacrament twice; the orders transcend local geographical boundaries. Some think of these 'done once' sacraments as possessing an ontological change and as such I could no more relinquish my Holy Orders as I could change the colour of my skin.
Finally I will say as one that is no longer serving in an Anglican church, I hear from those faithful Christians outside the Anglcian tradition and see their opinions in a different light. They view the polictics of the Anglican process at great odds with the commision that Jesus the Christ has called us into, each one of us (as the priesthood of all believers).
Yours in Christ - The Rev Paul Tinker
I am generally supportive of ++KJS but on this issue of Bp. McDonald, she is clearly out to lunch.