Recently, a dear friend asked me why I would not simply answer Bishop Lamb’s inhibition letter once it arrives, since I no longer want to remain in The Episcopal Church? In other words, if Bishop Lamb is simply taking action to remove clergy from the roles and we no longer want to serve as Episcopal clergy, what’s the problem?
What follows is my response to that question – it is strictly my own opinion.
If Bishop Lamb were merely tidying up his records, I doubt if anyone would be the least bit bothered. However, that is not the situation. Bishop Lamb is using a disciplinary canon (law) to respond to an administrative issue. The administrative procedure would be to identify which clergy belong to which bishop, and then everyone goes on about their business. Since we are all still members of the same denomination, it should be that simple.
However, Bishop Lamb has used a disciplinary procedure, which has severe implications. This particular canon is based on the charge of abandoning “the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church” which would be appropriately applied to (1) someone who has either left the Anglican Communion or who is teaching/preaching in a manner contrary to Holy Scripture and the Creeds, or (2) someone who is not submitting to their ecclesiastical authority, or defying canon law, or other notorious misconduct, or (3) someone who is deviating from the practices of worship as outlined in the approved liturgies and/or unworthy administration of the sacraments. The purpose of the abandonment canon is to provide the means for a bishop to remove a priest or deacon who is no longer serving faithfully as a priest or deacon within the Anglican Communion. In other words, they have either abandoned their calling as clergy, or they have abandoned the Faith as received through the Anglican Church.
The preamble of The Episcopal Church states that it is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion. Until recently, it was common practice for priests to move about from diocese to diocese and province to province within the Anglican Communion without punitive action. A simple notice from one bishop to another was sufficient. Please note that there is no canonical (legal) restriction prohibiting Episcopal/Anglican clergy from moving about within the Anglican Communion, apart from their bishop’s permission and the receiving bishop’s acceptance. In effect, this inhibition is proposing to say that all Anglicans and Episcopalians may move about the Anglican Communion, with the exception of San Joaquin's clergy (and others who have made similar decisions).
Therefore, cooperating with the charge of inhibition is inappropriate for two reasons: (1) Bishop Lamb is not our diocesan bishop, and has no ecclesiastical authority to bring disciplinary charges against another bishop’s clergy, (2) we have not abandoned the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church. Actually, we have stood against a number of bishops who
have abandoned the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church, because they were unwilling to discipline one another, nor were they willing to heed the discipline from Anglican bishops outside of North America.
It is
because we have resolved to be faithful to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church that we are being accused of abandonment.
