Midwest Conservative Journal

5/18/2004 6:25:43 PM

DEPO FIELD TEST
If you're interested in how delegated episcopal pastoral oversight works in practice, David Virtue has a report from the Diocese of Western New York. St. Bartholomew's of Tonawanda got the ball rolling with a DEPO request to Bishop J. Michael Garrison:
In an exchange of letters between Fr. Arthur W. Ward Jr., the rector, wardens and vestry of St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church, Tonawanda and the Buffalo-based bishop, Fr. Ward wrote Garrison on April 6 requesting DEPO – a course of action approved recently by ECUSA’s House of Bishops.

St. Bartholomew’s has the largest parish income in the diocese with a budget of $470,000 and an anticipated parish income of $520,000 in 2004. It is also the numerically largest parish in the diocese with more than 1,100 attending members.
The church was nice about it

In his brief one-page letter Ward wrote, “As you are aware, we are gravely concerned about the direction of this diocese and The Episcopal Church in general. However, we also recognize that we are called by our Lord to work towards reconciliation. We are most willing to meet with you toward that purpose.”

Fr. Ward then wrote that adult candidates and youth confirmands for Holy Confirmation had asked for another bishop to administer Holy Confirmation. “As a result, there will be no candidates available for confirmation during your scheduled May 30th visit to St. Bartholomew’s. The priest said he had scheduled only one service for that day.

Ward concluded his letter saying that he was ready to meet “so that we can work towards achieving some sort of agreement that will satisfy both sides.”
But St. Bartholomew's attempt to follow the ECUSA's rules availed them nothing. Father Ward got this appalling response from Garrison:
On April 23rd, Bishop Garrison wrote a blistering two-page detailed letter with the following demands.

He began with a slap and put down of Fr. Ward saying, “Happily I am not planning to be with you on Sunday morning, May 30, as I have another invitation. Since I made a visitation to St. Bartholomew’s in 2003 for Confirmation, I shall not return for visitation until 2006.”
Then the bishop listed a set of six demands on Fr. Ward, concluding by telling him that he was reassigning his deacon, and that when another priest who served with him, Fr. Clark Hubbard Jr. had found another parish that he would never license another priest to serve with him. Garrison said that an ordinand who was preparing for the ministry would also be removed from his parish.
Garrison seemed to go out of his way to humiliate Ward:

Garrison then demanded that Fr. Ward meet with him and insisted that he bring along the Parish Register and Service Book; financial statements from the first quarter of the year, including a list of beneficiaries of your “alternative” to the Fair Share. “Fair Share” is a voluntary pledge made by the bishop to all parishes. The bishop also demanded the minutes of the vestry meetings for the same period of time.
Even going so far as to assign him homework:

The bishop then demanded that Ward “deliver to my office a copy of three teachings that you will prepare and deliver to the people of St. Bartholomew’s on the Heresy of Donatism and its application in the current crises with reference to Article XXVI of the Articles of Religion.”
It is evident that Garrison considers a DEPO request to be a declaration of independence as well as a personal attack:
The bishop then asked Fr. Ward how he could personally remain connected and in communion with himself during this time of estrangement—including his personal reflection on what it means to be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them – “a question required of you at your ordinations to both the deaconate and priesthood.”

“Thirdly, how do you intend to live out the joint pastoral responsibility you share with me through accepting a “Letter of Institution” from me at your installation as rector of St. Bartholomew’s?”
Garrison told Ward he would reassign his Deacon Ed Kusmierczyk. “I no longer have confidence that you can provide him sufficient guidance in making Christ and his redemptive love known.”
Frank? If you haven't got anything important coming up soon and since you're the chief pastor of the ECUSA, Western New York is in serious need of some of that "reconciliation" of yours:
The bishop then said that an ordinand who is a candidate for the Diaconate, one John Reese, (Reitz, the bishop misspelled his name) would be also transferred to another parish.

Garrison then twisted the knife further issuing a Pastoral Direction to Ward forbidding him to present confirmands from his parish to any other bishop of this Church. “You are forbidden to invite another bishop to preach, teach, or preside at the Sacraments, except as specifically authorized by me.”
Because J. Michael Garrison is a hysterical tyrant:
On April 29, Bishop Garrison wrote another letter, this time to all his diocesan clergy saying that he was forbidding two other orthodox rectors in his diocese because the warden of St. Stephen’s, Niagara Falls told him he would not allow his grandson to be confirmed by him.

Garrison responded by recalling the actions of the five retired bishops acting in the Diocese of Ohio saying that what they did was an “indecent violation of Church order” and then issued the following pastoral directive to Fr. Roger Grist of St. Michael & All Angels Episcopal Church in Buffalo and to Fr. Richard Molison of St. Stephen’s in Niagara Falls, saying “you are forbidden to present confirmands to any other bishop of this church…you are forbidden to invite another bishop to preach, teach, or preside at the Sacraments, except as specifically authorized by me.”
And orthodox Episcopal clergy in Western New York know that DEPO is a bad joke:
Reached at his parish the Rev. Dr. Grist told Virtuosity, “I am surprised, the bishop seems to be trying to keep us from having a bishop who would be in line with the faith once delivered. Furthermore what he is really saying is that he would only allow a bishop of his choice.”

“He is not trying to bring about reconciliation, and he accuses us of causing division.
He won’t cut us any slack, nor does he seem to be interested in the recent DEPO resolution passed by the House of Bishops. He is determined to have it all his way.”

The Rev. Dr. Grist said that DEPO means nothing to him. “He has also reinterpreted the diocesan canons related to the Fair Share (pledge system). He made it mandatory (it was voluntary) at a March meeting of the Diocesan Council but it has never been brought to a Diocesan Convention. Any parish that does not pay its fair share, he makes into a dependent parish. The bishop can then act unilaterally, and that is what he has done to Fr. Ward.”

Fr. Richard Molison, St. Stephen’s told Virtuosity, “I don’t sense any ministry of reconciliation with my chief shepherd. This is the second of two letters he has written to me both of which have not been very pastoral. Our concern, those of us who are orthodox in this diocese, is to have this tested before Holy Scripture not the canons. I find this difficult to accept.”
Granted, not every Episcopal diocese in this country is run by a megalomaniacal fraud like Garrison. But this report cuts just about all the ground out from under Frank Griswold's feet. If the PrezBish is serious about providing alternate oversight to dissident parishes and if he wants ECUSA's plan to have any credibility at all, let him start proving it by intervening in Western New York.

Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 20 comments

Submitted by Bill (not IB) on 5/18/2004 7:56:42 PM

I realize fully that what I say places my own soul in jeopardy -

But may Bp. Garrison rot in hell.

Submitted by WannabeAnglican on 5/18/2004 8:01:52 PM

To paraphrase an old ad:

WHERE'S THE RECONCILIATION?!?

Yes, +Garrison's behavior is appalling and ++Griswold's inaction equally so.

And if they do not repent, I have no problem desiring God's full justice upon them both.

Submitted by Sasha on 5/18/2004 8:10:58 PM

Father Ward and company can point out to that "bishop" (I agree that Mr. Garrison on the basis of his personality and behaviour merits to rot in Hell!!!) that their vows and other things pertain to "in all things LAWFUL. Since what Mr. Garrison is doing is both unlawful by Biblical authority as well as going against the spirit of the Church, his "edicts" as such can therefore be utterly ignored and rejected.

As to those "liberals/revisionists/etc.": I so wish from the bottom of my heart that they could ALL, without pity or mercy, be deported in this life to suffer 10 years under real Communism (i.e., Viet-Nam, Laos or - best of all! - North Korea). Perhaps after that time they might realise what it really means to be a Christian (so far, all they are is ANTICHRISTS, children of The Devil Himself!!!) - and if they don't, let them DIE over there...

Submitted by Sasha on 5/18/2004 8:14:32 PM

I apologise for having so much of my text bold-typed: yours truly only meant to highlight the word "lawful"... Ja vinovát (I'm guilty)...

Submitted by Sasha on 5/18/2004 8:21:08 PM

One last thing: ít's my understanding that an early Church Council declared that those people who refuse to obey and follow heretical clergy, no matter what punishments the latter try to inflict upon such people, will not be judged as heretics but as righteous and godly Christians. That's what I expect Father Ward and company can do against Mr. Garrison.

Submitted by Greg on 5/18/2004 8:37:32 PM

It is rich - RICH INDEED - to hear Garrison lecturing Ward on violations of church order.

Submitted by rathernot on 5/18/2004 9:32:37 PM

Please God deliver us.

Submitted by Carson on 5/18/2004 9:36:33 PM

Walk away from evil. Stop the money. Don't even talk to this evil bishop. make the evil bishop spend his money on Lawyers. It's better spent there than on the evil programs they promote. If all the churches tie up evil revisionist bishops in legal ramblings it will also tie up the evil bishops money. That is what via media will try to do to orthodox bishops. Watch

Submitted by Ken on 5/18/2004 10:54:23 PM

Carson is correct. Rob them of their ability to make a hell on earth.

Without making a judgement on whether Garrison merits hell, I would say that behavior like this makes hell a logical necessity, if God is truly a loving Father. How could he bring such men as this into heaven, when they would simply turn it into hell?

Submitted by Tired of Hypocrisy on 5/18/2004 10:57:12 PM

I'll bet the orthodox Christians in Western New York are prepared to suffer a small amount (in the grand scheme of things) to live as free men and women of faith and conviction rather than knuckle under to Bp. Garrison. Garrison seems to have little sense of proportion, and alternates between whining and bullying. Meanwhile, I suspect our Christian brothers and sisters in Western New York will have many reasons to rejoice. What a great opportunity to witness for Christ!!

Submitted by Edward on 5/19/2004 12:22:18 AM

Carson has a good point, one that I haven't heard put before: money spent on lawyers can't be spent promoting paganism, apostasy and sexual perversion... and, what's more, there was little chance of its being spent promoting the Gospel anyway, so nothing has been lost and the potential damage has been minimised. This is a new and encouraging way of looking at some of the legal battles of the last few years - how much evil could the Diocese of Washington have done with the million dollars or thereabouts that was instead tied up in their fight to remove a single orthodox priest, for instance?

Submitted by KC on 5/19/2004 1:27:43 PM

the simple truth is that the Bishop and his fellow travelers truly mean that "reconcilitation" occurs only when we are reconciled to fact that they have taken over the church and there's nothing we can do about it

Submitted by Philip on 5/19/2004 5:54:45 PM

Carson is right "on the money".

Starve the apostates of their revenue, leave them to twist in the wind, howling in the empty night.

If orthodox congregations simply withhold all revenue from the diocese, how then will these social engineers ECUSA has hired to be bishops, advance their engineering? Let the ECUSA Engineers throw their money into the legal system, in a vain pursuit of mammon.

At the end of the day, every parishioner can "designate" their pledge, so that it goes in directions total apart from the diocese and their pet projects. There is not a thing that the bishops can do to change that designation.

Well, I suppose the bishops, as Corp Sole,(Corp Soles?, Corpi Soli?) could mortgage the property of orthodox parishes who refuse to pay the diocese, in order to get some money out of them. However, in that case, the parishioners can simply move on to a store front to worship while the bishop is left holding the note and the payments and an empty building.

Philip

Submitted by jj on 5/19/2004 9:18:03 PM

Holy Crap!!! I just read this nightmare. Seems the "good" (that would be sarcasm) Bishop is one the side of: "Look we won, you lost, get the hell out of our church." Whatever happened to the good "social gopsel" liberals who understood that not all Episcopalians had to agree with them; they existed as a witness to the church. I'm thinking of the old "comprehensiveness". Oh yeah, it died in Minneapolis last August.

Submitted by William Tighe on 5/20/2004 12:58:41 PM

From the Council of Constantinople (879 AD):

"They who separate themselves from communion with their bishop on account of any heresy condemned by the Holy Synods of the Fathers, while he evidently proclaims the heresy publicly, and teaches it with a brave front in the Church -- such persons, in excluding themselves from communion with their so-called bishop before Synodal cognizance (action), not only shall not be subject to canonical censure, but shall be deemed worthy, by the orthodox, of becoming honor; for they condemn as teachers, not bishops but pseudo-bishops; and they do not cut up the unity of the Church by schism, but hasten to deliver her from schisms and divisions."

What happens, though, when the bishops of one's denomination or "church province" would themselves support or acclaim doctrinal heresy or moral error?

Submitted by William Tighe on 5/20/2004 1:01:08 PM

I don't understand the point of Philip's posting three postings back, since no Episcopalian is a corporation sole for the assets and real estate of his diocese (and parishes) in the way thatb most Roman Catholic bishops in the USA (and perhaps elsewhere) are.

Submitted by William Tighe on 5/20/2004 1:02:31 PM

I meant in the preceding to write "no Episcopalian bishop is a corporation sole."

Submitted by William Tighe on 5/20/2004 1:04:18 PM

And, in my first posting, I meant to write "What happens, though, when the majority of the bishops of one's denomination ..."

Submitted by SAD from WNY on 5/23/2004 4:59:38 PM

I was a member of one of the above orthodox churches. It was exciting to see the amount of committed Christians ready and willing to do what it took to preserve a branch of Chrisitanity that we were dedicated to. Up to and right after the National decision people got motivated to do what it took to abolish this apostasy, even separate.

However, as the time went on, and we were told by the conservatives at the national level, that the strategy was to stick it out as long as possible and not make waves, because..."help was coming" as there were numerous negotiations going on at 'high levels'.

So, we played by the rules. We did nothing, except that most either with held their monies or gave with the specific restrictions that no monies go to the diocese or National. We stopped meeting and started listening.

Then came DEPO. This was not new, nor was it anything close to what we needed to continue as episcopalians. Though our rectors sound strong, and they are, never the less, they CANNOT stand against the Bishop in this case. They will be dismissed and replaced with a revisionist priest, as will their vestrys.

So, we in WNY are back to where we were in August. We have no other choice but to leave; however, now the will to leave is seeping away by the day. Real people with check books and children have already left. Most of those left are older and don't have the will or the resources.

We stayed as long as we could, but could not tolerate the Bishop confirming our children. We are leaving the Episcopal tradition behind and miss it, but God is still with us and short of any intervention, leading us away from the Episcopal church.

Ours is but a microcosm of what will happen nation wide if a. there is not intervention and b. orthodox are exhorted to wait too much longer. God will prune this branch at some point, and in WNY, the pruning has begun.

Submitted by Anonymous on 5/24/2004 9:44:52 AM

SAD in WNY--

I couldn't agree more. The orthodox national leadership completely misunderstood and underestimated the plight of the orthodox laity and clergy at the local level.

I do believe that the network/AAC people are intending to separate from the revisionists in ECUSA, however slowly, but the people and resources will all have evaporated by the time it happens--people are heading to Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Eastern Orthodoxy, independent evangelical churches, etc., and there won't be anyone left by the time they have a structure to offer us. It's very frustrating, because people have tried and tried to communicate the problem to them, without success. In fairness, I think they were caught by surprise, but I also think they should have known what was coming and been better prepared.

Name: