Machiavelli Ritornato

While I was away from blogging, the Episcopal Church (USA) has been busy planning (and financing) its litigation strategy. (Although I have practiced law for almost forty years, and have been an Episcopalian for half again as long as that, I have to say that even as recently as ten years ago, I could never have conceived that I would be writing such an opening sentence---and I'm not talking about "blogging". The idea that a church has to have a national litigation strategy is, frankly, rather bizarre, and calls into question the definition of what a church is about.) And its leaders are so confident of its success that they have all but published it for the whole world to see.

The Presiding Bishop of ECUSA now has so many lawsuits to track that she has hired a "special counsel" to advise her on what is happening. What is unusual about this hiring is not only the fact that the Presiding Bishop needs a "special counsel for property litigation and discipline" beyond her own Chancellor---who otherwise would be expected to advise her on such matters. No, what is even more unusual (to this chancellor, at least) is that the person hired comes from the same law firm as the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor. As the news story which mentions this fact notes, "Mary Kostel [for that is her name] . . . has worked closely with David Beers, who is chancellor to the Presiding Bishop." (The italics are mine. You may read more about Ms. Kostel at BabyBlueOnline.)

Now consider these points objectively for a moment---even (and maybe especially) if you strongly support the Presiding Bishop in her endeavors to reclaim property from, and to impose discipline on, those who depart:

• There is no other major national church in the world who has seen fit to employ such a "special counsel"---not even the Catholic Church, in defending the numerous lawsuits against it, hired such a person.
• For an employer to engage an attorney for such a specialized purpose would normally mean that the employer could not get the necessary advice from their regular attorney, and wanted a second opinion.
• The last person to give such an unbiased second opinion would normally be an attorney who has been "working closely" with the regular attorney. Otherwise, what would be wrong with asking that associate attorney directly for their opinion?

Were I on the Executive Council (thankfully, I am not---and I am sure Father Harris agrees), I would want to inquire very closely into the use of Church funds for the purpose stated. There is more here than is being disclosed, because the story as given superficially by Episcopal Life Online does not make sense. But let us soldier on; the main point is the advice that has been given.

The advice apparently takes the form of an eight-and-half-page memo Ms. Kostel wrote to the Presiding Bishop, and which the Presiding Bishop shared with the Executive Council. Normally such a memo would be stamped all over: "Attorney / Client Privilege - - Confidential". But in another departure from the norm, the ELO story appears to quote from it verbatim. And so we lowly pewsitters are given a small glimpse into how our contributions are being spent.

They apparently are being spent on the devising of a common strategy to deal with the four dioceses whose annual conventions have each voted to leave ECUSA:

While the situations in San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh and Quincy are all different, there are similarities in their experiences and in the way Jefferts Schori has worked with them, Kostel wrote. Those efforts usually begin with the Presiding Bishop encouraging the formation of a steering committee of Episcopalians from across the diocese who are committed to remaining in the church "and who represent a broad spectrum of views in the diocese on issues such as human sexuality and the ordination of women."

Ah, yes---the "formation" of a "steering committee" is necessary, because those cantankerous committees that were elected at the last conventions have all been summarily charged, tried and found guilty of a failure to "well and faithfully perform the duties of that office in accordance with the Constitutions and Canons of this Church", as required by Canon I.17.8. Never mind that half of the members of the typical steering committee are ordained clergy, and that Canon I.17 is entitled "Of Regulations Respecting the Laity"---if a Canon can be brought around to fire, it will be fired, no matter at whom it was aimed from the first. Those steering committees are simply derecognized under this Canon, clergy and all, and that is that. We see precisely in this next sentence of the news story the degree to which the Supreme Executive is calling the shots:

Jefferts Schori's office "has offered extensive guidance to the steering committees on the necessary steps for the reorganization of the diocese," including the protection of diocesan assets.

Yes, once a puppet steering committee has been installed, it receives appropriate instructions for "the protection of diocesan assets." And can you guess what the first such instruction is? (Hint: think Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley . . .):

Calling litigation over church assets "the biggest step," Kostel wrote that the first step taken is to notify financial institutions such as brokerage firms holding "significant diocesan funds" that the Episcopal Church believes the departing bishop and other leaders "have no claim to such funds." The institutions are warned that the church will hold them "accountable for any disposition of the funds to or by those persons." Kostel wrote that the "practical effect" of that communication has been that the institutions "have frozen or nearly frozen the diocesan accounts until a court can decide who is the rightful owner."

Sorry for adding all the italics and bolding, but I think they are necessary in order to pierce through the almost Olympian detachment of the description of what is nothing other than a scorched-earth policy that is being systematically pursued here. The ordinary, non-litigating Christian may be forgiven for any ignorance on this point, but it is not normal for banks to freeze your accounts when you have been sued---and just on someone's say-so, to boot. No, normally in order to freeze a defendant's funds, the Constitution of this country requires what is euphemistically described as "due process of the law." To do that requires 1) notice of an adversary's claim on your assets, 2) an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and 3) a bond be posted to secure against any harm ensuing if the court-ordered freeze (called an "attachment" in the law) should turn out to have been wrongful.

But the Episcopal Church (USA) is not like any other litigant in this country (despite the name ECUSA---which I insist on now using, instead of what it wants to be called, because it is a creature born of America, and sustained only by American courts and laws). No, it is "the Episcopal Church", and the courts pretty much allow it to do as it likes (except, for the time being, in Virginia---which is, appropriately, the cradle of our country's liberties). In fact, ECUSA does not even have to resort to the courts to have diocesan accounts frozen: as the memo discloses, all it has to do is issue a "warning" to the banks and brokerage houses involved, and they stumble all over themselves in their embarrassment at having to be asked.

(Note to self: if you ever needed another good reason to stay away from anyone or anything having to do with Wall Street, ECUSA's current litigation strategy is it.)

But we are by no means done. Take a note, please, of the infinitive used in this next paragraph:

The memo said Jefferts Schori's role in litigation has varied in each diocese but "the approach has been the same: To craft a lawsuit that is trim and focused on the critical claims involving the ownership and possession of diocesan property, both real and personal, including records and objects of current and historical significance."

Let me give some dictionary synonyms for the verb "to craft": "to devise, fashion, or shape". Should a lawsuit be "crafted"? I suppose, as long as it is based on actual facts, that would mean that the lawsuit is well-pled. It is "trim and focused", it deals only with "critical claims", such as those involving "records and objects of current and historical significance." Really? It took three versions of the complaint and almost nine months before the San Joaquin lawsuit was at issue---and now they are asking the court for permission to amend it yet one more time. Ms. Kostel's own name was not on any of those pleadings, but her firm's name was, and she was "working closely" with Mr. Beers at the time. Do you begin to see the objective nature of the second opinion for which the Presiding Bishop is paying her special counsel?

The memo continues to ply the reader with completely unbiased and objective opinion when it says (according to the ELO story):

Kostel added that "allegations regarding the behavior of individuals are avoided." Her memo notes that the Presiding Bishop's office fields "numerous inquiries" about the protection of parish property and other issues. "These inquires have usually resulted from some sort of aggressive behavior by the former bishop regarding parish property," she wrote. "Her (the Presiding Bishop's) legal team has dealt with these concerns on a case-by-case basis, but typically has counseled in favor of forbearance from dramatic or inflammatory action, on the view that the disputes over parish property will ultimately be resolved in court … and although there may be temporary inconveniences if a congregation of loyal Episcopalians is forced to worship in a local home or school, for example, there is little to be gained from bitter fighting over the use of church buildings in the short run."

Let me have that again, please: although "there may be temporary inconveniences if a congregation of loyal Episcopalians is forced to worship in a local home or school . . . there is little to be gained from bitter fighting over the use of church buildings in the short run." In other words: "Hang in there, General Custer. For the short term, just stay away from any skirmishes with the Indians; Major Reno and his troops are on the way."

The objective advice continues, and notes that all information on which 815 is acting comes from those very useful, hand-picked steering committees:

The steering committees serve both as a "single point of contact" for the Presiding Bishop's office and as the organizers of special meetings of diocesan conventions or synods to reorganize the diocese and its leadership. They have also worked with Jefferts Schori's office to "get information about the larger church flowing back to the diocese," the memo said.

Now let me see: how was that committee picked again? Oh, yes---it has to be made up of those people who disagreed with their former bishop, the one who has left. So naturally, this "single point of contact" supplies objective information such as the following:

"In the months and years leading up to the vote in each diocese to 'leave' the church, the atmosphere was one of factionalism and mistrust; this was usually combined with a near blackout of communication from the wider church, chiefly orchestrated by the bishop," Kostel wrote. "The primary, and in some cases only, voice heard in these dioceses has been that of the bishop, who in each diocese has promulgated a largely or entirely negative view of the larger church, and encouraged divisiveness among Episcopalians in the diocese over emotionally-charged issues."

Oh, that nasty Bishop! It's a good thing he is gone, so that the former divisiveness can now be unified behind a lawsuit! Isn't litigation just wonderful how it brings people together? (Isn't the root of the word plaintiff from a word meaning "to be happy"? It isn't? Well, never mind.)

First, however, 815 has to see to it that there is a suitable replacement for that mean old father-figure:

The Presiding Bishop also begins to determine "what sort of episcopal oversight will ultimately be needed in the reorganized diocese" and who might provide that assistance. In San Joaquin, that work resulted in the remaining Episcopalians choosing retired Diocese of Northern California Bishop Jerry Lamb as their provisional bishop. In Pittsburgh, Diocese of Virginia Bishop Suffragan David Jones worked with the Standing Committee until it could name an assisting bishop, former Diocese of Western North Carolina Bishop Robert Johnson. In Fort Worth, a special convention on February 7 will consider appointing Diocese of Kentucky Bishop Edwin "Ted" Gulick as provisional bishop.

Note that at this point, even the reporter is having a little trouble keeping the objective message straight. The Presiding Bishop "begins to determine" who would be a suitable bishop, but it is the dioceses that "choose", "name", and "appoint" the ones she nominates. This language is worthy of Machiavelli's advice to his fictional prince.

The snippets from the memorandum to which the article treats us are indeed, in the whole, what a twenty-first century Machiavelli might write in the language and strategy of today. Through its disclosure of that strategy, ECUSA has laid bare its litigious soul. The article ends by quoting what almost amounts to a cynical self-parody:

In addition, Kostel's memo said that many Episcopalians in the dioceses "have questions about the church's theology and mission" and others are "conflicted over their desire to stay in the church while remaining loyal to their bishop, while others struggle with the church's position on the protection of church assets."

"Each of these issues demands a pastoral response," Kostel wrote, explaining that the response begins with Jefferts Schori appointing a priest to provide "interim pastoral assistance." She also recently named former Diocese of Bethlehem Archdeacon Richard Cluett as "pastoral assistant to reorganizing dioceses."

"Demands a pastoral response . . ."---as a litigator, I am not surprised. A strategy that has litigation at its core means that the bridges are burned, the ground is scorched, and there are no prisoners taken. People who are asked to underwrite that kind of strategy will need pastoral counseling. Because, as the Wikipedia article on Machiavelli aptly sums up his greatest work, The Prince:

The Prince is a guide to acquiring and keeping power. In contrast with Plato and Aristotle, the ideal society is not the aim.

From TED 2009: Bill Gates on Rebooting the World

This week, I've been fortunate to be able to attend the TED Conference 2009. There have been many inspiring talks already, but this has to rank as one of the more newsworthy. It's Bill Gates, talking not about Windows or software, but about the experiences he is having running one of the largest foundations ever (over $3 billion given away last year), and dealing with the need to "reboot" things like public health care in the third world (mainly malaria), and public education in this country. He brings the same approach to these problems as he did to writing software code, and it's a very refreshing take on the two situations, made possible with all that money. 

It's a chance to see Bill Gates as you might not have seen him before: as serious and motivated as ever, but having fun and being funny along the way. (After you've watched it, check out the Q&A session here, particularly when he starts talking about the need for diversity.) As the host suggests, I could just as easily have titled this post: "Bill Gates lets loose new bugs into the world . . ." 

Enjoy---I hope you get as much out of it as I did.

Jesus' Warning to Those Perpetuating False Teaching

Recent news from the Diocese of New Hampshire shows that, like many other parts of the Episcopal Church (USA) today, it is suffering from declining numbers---of both kinds, people and contributions. The two are related, of course, but not necessarily in direct proportion.

Some commenters on this news wanted to ascribe the reason to the failure of Bishop Robinson's message of welcome to GLBT persons; apparently they are not exactly flocking in to fill the places of those who have left, or perhaps been driven away. But I think the problem is not so much a "failure of welcome" as it is a case of being too welcoming. If people are made to feel welcome in their lifestyle, no matter how much it may fall short of the standards which Jesus set, then what, exactly, would be the reason for their needing to come to church? As the great Christian writer J. Gresham Machen observed, 

[A]ccording to modern liberalism, there is really no such thing as sin. At the very root of the modern liberal movement is the loss of the consciousness of sin. . . .  [Today's liberal church] is busily engaged in an absolutely impossible task—she is busily engaged in calling the righteous to repentance.

The real problem, however, is even greater. For the attitude, or mindset, of which I speak prevails not only in New Hampshire; it pervades the Episcopal Church. Take, for just one small instance, this recent example, which I owe to A Blog-Spotting Episcopalian. It is a "Letter to the Editor" of the Beaufort Gazette in South Carolina, written by a retired minister:

By the Rev. Roger William Smith

Thank you for publishing the article Dec. 13 about divisions in the Episcopal Church.

Let me begin by saying there are large numbers of us in this church who believe the actions taken by our General Conventions in 2003 and 2006 were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and not at all in violation of the authority of the scriptures. To that end, a group of us holding to this belief have organized ourselves into St. Mark's Chapel in Beaufort. If the Diocese of South Carolina or the people of St. Helena's Parish decide to separate themselves from the church, we're staying home.

A number of people and parishes in this diocese share our view.  Some of us are members of the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina, calling ourselves "Episcopalians for a United Church."

From your article, one might get the impression a majority of South Carolina Episcopalians are in favor of leaving the Episcopal Church. I doubt that. I am grateful for my friend and colleague, the Rev. Jeffrey Miller, rector of St. Helena's Parish, who stated if the diocese makes any decisions on these matters, "we'll bring them back, and we'll talk with the parish about those." My experience as rector of St. Helena's Episcopal Church for 10 years tells me the majority of the parishioners, if given a voice in the matter, will opt for staying home.

Miller is right when he says the rift in the Episcopal Church is not just about the consecration of openly gay bishops. The primary disagreement we have is over biblical authority -- whether or not the Bible is authoritative for our lives, period. Absolutely!

But how we interpret the scriptures and what we regard to be their authority is -- and always has been -- a divisive issue in the Christian Church.

The Rev. Smith has put his finger squarely on the problem. Just what is the "authority" of "the scriptures"? Surely it can be none other than the Lord Jesus? It is indeed, says Fr. Smith---but only "for some of us"!!

For some of us, the supreme authority is to be found in the inclusive teachings of Jesus.

He ate with street walkers, tax thieves and other rejects, declaring it is the infirm, not the well folks, who need a physician. When a woman found to have committed adultery was about to be stoned by religious leaders, Jesus ran them off. When they were gone, he asked the woman, "Where are your accusers? Has no one condemned you?" The woman said, "No one, Lord." Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you: go and sin no more."

If we are going to focus on the authority of the Bible, the highest authority of all is that which commands us to live in a manner that reveals the unconditional love of God.

If I were trying to "represent Jesus in the world", Fr. Smith, I would be careful about picking and choosing just the parts of His message that I liked, and glossing over the rest. For example, you cite the sinful "tax thieves," and then quote what Jesus said to the adulterous woman, as reported in the Gospel of John. But what was that advice? Was it just to say "I do not condemn you?" No, it ended with this: "Go and sin no more." So Jesus' forgiveness was not unconditional---it was given on the expectation that the sinner repent, and not continue with his sinful ways. (Jesus laid exactly the same condition on the sinful tax collectors, as I have discussed in this post.)

Thus I submit your bishop is more correct than you are, Father Smith, when you go on to say:

As for the matter of openly gay bishops, the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence, the Bishop of South Carolina, believes the Holy Scripture is "pretty clear" on the matter.

"While everyone is welcome to come to Christ and into His kingdom, there are certain standards," said Lawrence. "A gay person who is in a partnered relationship does not meet those standards."

Who is doing the better job of "representing Jesus" here? The one who asserts that His love is simply "unconditional", and is yours to claim regardless, or the one who says that yes, Jesus loves all sinners, but calls on them to repent of their sins, and to live up to higher standards?

Fr. Smith, however, is not done with his interpretation of the Gospels yet. For you see, that remark about what Bishop Lawrence saw as "pretty clear" was a set-up:

If because of certain "standards" a person is welcome to receive the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and communion but not the sacrament of ordination, such a person is only partially welcome. Where is the unconditional love? We have a considerable number of bishops and other ministers who are divorced and remarried; certainly the teachings of Jesus are "pretty clear" on that subject.

Why are these church leaders dispensed from "certain standards?"

I have been ordained in the Episcopal Church for 54 years. I am sure that in that time there have been occasions when I have fallen short of certain "standards." But never once have I given thought to leaving my beloved church, nor has anyone asked me to.

Your quotes around the term "pretty clear" reveal the subterfuge behind your analogy, Father Smith. Shall we see just how clear the Gospels are on the subject of divorce?

According to Matthew, Jesus said:

5:31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a legal document.’ 5:32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

There is an exception in Matthew for a spouse's immorality, is there not? But you must be taking Jesus' word according to Mark, who reports no such exception at all:

10:2 Then some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 10:3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 10:4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” 10:5 But Jesus said to them, “He wrote this commandment for you because of your hard hearts. 10:6 But from the beginning of creation he made them male and female. 10:7 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, 10:8 and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 10:9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

10:10 In the house once again, the disciples asked him about this. 10:11 So he told them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 10:12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Now, Luke must help resolve this contradiction. Let's look at what he reports:

20:27 Now some Sadducees (who contend that there is no resurrection) came to him. 20:28 They asked him, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies leaving a wife but no children, that man must marry the widow and father children for his brother. 20:29 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died without children. 20:30 The second 20:31 and then the third married her, and in this same way all seven died, leaving no children. 20:32 Finally the woman died too. 20:33 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For all seven had married her.”

20:34 So Jesus said to them, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 20:35 But those who are regarded as worthy to share in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. 20:36 In fact, they can no longer die, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, since they are sons of the resurrection. 20:37 But even Moses revealed that the dead are raised in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. 20:38 Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live before him.” 20:39 Then some of the experts in the law answered, “Teacher, you have spoken well!”

Well, that certainly clears things up, does it not? Finally, please consider the case of the Samaritan woman at the well, who had been married no less than five times. We have John's account of how Jesus received her:

4:4 But he had to pass through Samaria. 4:5 Now he came to a Samaritan town called Sychar, near the plot of land that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 4:6 Jacob’s well was there, so Jesus, since he was tired from the journey, sat right down beside the well. It was about noon.

4:7 A Samaritan woman came to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give me some water to drink.” 4:8 (For his disciples had gone off into the town to buy supplies.) 4:9 So the Samaritan woman said to him, “How can you – a Jew – ask me, a Samaritan woman, for water to drink?” (For Jews use nothing in common with Samaritans.)

4:10 Jesus answered her, “If you had known the gift of God and who it is who said to you, ‘Give me some water to drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” 4:11 “Sir,” the woman said to him, “you have no bucket and the well is deep; where then do you get this living water? 4:12 Surely you’re not greater than our ancestor Jacob, are you? For he gave us this well and drank from it himself, along with his sons and his livestock.”

4:13 Jesus replied, “Everyone who drinks some of this water will be thirsty again. 4:14 But whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life.” 4:15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.” 4:16 He said to her, “Go call your husband and come back here.” 4:17 The woman replied, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “Right you are when you said, ‘I have no husband,’ 4:18 for you have had five husbands, and the man you are living with now is not your husband. This you said truthfully!”

. . .
4:39 Now many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the report of the woman who testified, “He told me everything I ever did.” 4:40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they began asking him to stay with them. He stayed there two days, 4:41 and because of his word many more believed. 4:42 They said to the woman, “No longer do we believe because of your words, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this one really is the Savior of the world.”

So it's all "pretty clear", isn't it, Father Smith? Jesus obviously disapproved of divorce; that much is clear. At the same time, He recognized that divorce was a fact of Jewish life, recognized since the time of Moses. (That churches in recent times have seen fit to relax the standards for allowing people to remain communicants after divorce, and even to serve as clergy or bishops, is no argument to relax the standards still further; the churches have done enough to undermine marriage and family life as is.) But as far as Jesus' reception of divorced people is concerned, I would say that John's account lets us conclude that He regarded them as He did tax collectors: they should repent of their sinning, and sin (i.e., divorce) no more. As He put it in Luke 17:3-4:

17:1 Jesus said to his disciples, “Stumbling blocks are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! 17:2 It would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 17:3 Watch yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him. If he repents, forgive him. 17:4 Even if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times returns to you saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”

Thus, to those who, like Bishop Robinson and Father Smith, want to read the sin out of Scripture, I would say this: Be very careful how you interpret the Gospel of Our Lord to those who harken to you. (Especially, please note verse 17:2 immediately above.) Yes, Jesus excluded no one from his company. But by the same token, He excluded no one from his call to "repent, and sin no more."