New Peer-Reviewed Episcopal Journal

(ENS, Prairie City) In a joint statement earlier today, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and House of Deputies President Bonnie Anderson announced the founding of Episcopal Verities, a new peer-reviewed Internet journal dedicated to publishing "only the truth" about The Episcopal Church. "We see a great need, in this world where many Episcopalians are getting daily misinformation about their Church off the Internet, for a reliable and authoritative source of such information," the announcement said. "No article will appear on the Episcopal Verities website which has not first been reviewed and approved for publication by leading academics in the field," the announcement said. "Its Panel of Review has been hand-picked to ensure that only the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth will pass muster on the site."

Asked in a press conference for the names of the academics on the Panel of Review, the Presiding Bishop responded: "Well, President Anderson has a Doctor of Divinity degree, for instance. Ian Douglas, soon to be Bishop of Connecticut, has both a Master's of Divinity degree and a Ph.D. Bishop Stacy Sauls has a law degree. And I myself have both a Master's and a Ph.D., as well." The reporter followed up that question by asking whether there would be any articles about oceanography appearing at Episcopal Verities. "Not oceanography as such, no -- but I know that one author is working on a study of invertebrates and their importance to Church polity. And that, as you may know," she added modestly, "is my specialty."

Asked to give an indication of the site's content, the Presiding Bishop ticked off some of the articles that will appear when the site goes online, probably by St David's Day (March 1):

"We are republishing the classic paper by Stacy Sauls on the "Proper Use of Abandonment Procedures for Bishops", she said. It turns out to be very timely, as we are in the middle of determining how best to apply those procedures in respect to a certain diocese-which-shall-not-be-mentioned-right-now. But just be patient, and you will see how the truth leads to informed action."

"And we are publishing a brand-new study designed to help Episcopal parishes reverse the declining trends in their membership," President Anderson noted. "It is based on our recent discussions in Omaha, and will be called: "Why Are You There? Invitation as a Means of Expressing Your Episcopalness to Others. And I am proud to say that I contributed the section called 'The Top Ten Reasons to Get out of Bed on Sunday Morning'."

At that point, the Presiding Bishop looked at her Chancellor, and smiled as she said, "And I know you will all be delighted to hear that Episcopal Verities has entered into a contract for the exclusive publication rights to The Collected Sermons of David Booth Beers. We are beginning the series with the sermon David gave in the Cathedral in Omaha last Sunday. You will remember that he spoke without a text, but fortunately we recorded it, and it is being transcribed for publication as we speak."

"In sum, we hope to bring a new level of meaning to the term 'peer-reviewed'," the Presiding Bishop concluded. "Episcopalians will finally be able to go to a site on the Web where they can get the unvarnished truth, as vetted by all those who are the very best of peers. I mean --" she went on, "of course, all of us are peers, but you have to admit that some are better peers than others. And it is only the very best who will have the chance to make a splash in the pages of Episcopal Verities."

"So, watch for the site to be up and running by March first," she concluded. "St. David will be our patron saint in this venture, as a teacher known for his humility. (I owe that idea to Rowan, actually -- he suggested we make St. David the patron for our new venture. And by the way, he's offered to contribute an article, too, tentatively called "Keeping Everyone at the Table: Inter-covenantal Relationships in Dostoevsky.") And in the Saint's honor, I am passing out to all of you a recipe for cawl, the traditional dish for his Day, along with a leek to make it yourselves at home."

And on that note, the impromptu conference ended. Everyone took a leek, and departed.

Calvary Syndrome Infects South Carolina

In a previous post I posed the question: What in the world is happening in the Diocese of South Carolina? Now, after a press conference today with the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies, following the conclusion of the meeting of the Executive Council in Omaha, and as reported by Cherie Wetzel of Anglicans United, I think am starting to see the outline of an answer: what is going on is that we see history about to repeat itself. [UPDATE 02/24/2010: I have received a more accurate transcript of what was said during the press conference, and I have updated the quotes below to reflect that transcript. I am keeping the link to Anglicans United above, so that anyone who wishes may compare the two versions.]

Not only that, but it will apparently repeat itself with no lessons having been learned. This is all so unnecessary -- and the facts demonstrate, more than anything I could say or write, how severe is the crisis that engulfs the leadership of the Episcopal Church.

Let me first stick to just the facts, since as you will see, the essence of 815's rationale for taking the actions they have taken -- and apparently are further planning to take -- is that "facts are being distorted, and Episcopalians in South Carolina are not getting the truth." Here is a verbatim quote from the press conference:

Doug LeBlanc, The Living Church: The Episcopal News Service reported on Friday that the Presiding bishop spoke about tensions in the Diocese of South Carolina. She asked members of Executive Council to pray for the people of the Diocese. I would like to ask both presiding officers what sort of breakthroughs do you hope for as people pray about the conflict.

PB [the Presiding Bishop]: I would certainly hope that Episcopalians in South Carolina have a clear understanding of the realities of the Episcopal Church and they don't depend on erroneous information.

ANDERSON [President, House of Deputies]: I would agree with that. I am also in contact with some of the deputies from the Diocese of South Carolina, and the continued struggle for clear and accurate information for prayerful decision making for support all across the church is needed and asked for on a continuing basis.

And just in case you did not receive the message loud and clear, here is another exchange:

George Conger, reporter at large [and Church of England Newspaper] to the PB and President: Both of you spoke about erroneous information at work in South Carolina. Could you speak to what exactly this erroneous information is? Are you speaking of the work of the Anglican Communion Institute or of other parties? What is this erroneous information?

PB: Episcopalians, like many others who use the Internet, often seek information in places where information is not peer reviewed. They rely on opinions rather than factual information. I think there is a lot of fear and anxiety at work within the Diocese of South Carolina. There are representations of the theology of the Church was a whole that I think are inaccurate. There are representations of processes within the Church that are often inaccurate. And I would simply encourage people who have questions to look more broadly, to ask the bodies of the Episcopal Church for more information if they are uncertain.

ANDERSON: Yes, I would agree with that. As you know there have been situations in which information across dioceses where there are been disagreement there have been an influx of information coming from sources one way or the other and I think it is really important, as Bishop Katharine has stated, for people who are going to be voting on something make sure they have accurate information on anything that is before them. Anything as simple as -- and this is just an example and I am not saying this will come up in particular instance -- can a diocese leave The Episcopal Church? What is the process for those kinds of concerns and making sure that we know and everyone knows what we have agreed to in terms of General Convention over the years when we were all carefully walking this path together. And I hopefully we can continue to do that.

Now, just what is this misinformation and ill-informed opinion that is being broadcast to Episcopalians in South Carolina? Here is a third exchange from the conference, which provides a clue:

Mary Ann Mueller for VirtueOnline: The Episcopal Church has gone after traditionalists with a vengeance and now you are zeroing in on South Carolina, the same God-fearing Episcopalians who have been the backbone of the Church since the its colonial foundation in 1706, more than 300 years ago. Apparently, Presiding Bishop, you have retained an attorney to deal with local matters. What are those local matters and how are you going to deal with them?

PB: My understanding is that Episcopalians in South Carolina have expressed concern about some who have departed The Episcopal Church and attempted to maintain control of Episcopal Church assets. They have asked for some assistance because the Church as whole has some responsibility.

"Those who have departed"?? The fact is that the only parish to have left the Diocese of South Carolina to date is All Saints Waccamaw, on Pawley's Island -- and it did so in 2003 -- some seven years ago. Its right to do so was recently affirmed by South Carolina's highest court (although certain vestry and parish members who disagree with that decision have asked the United States Supreme Court to review it). This is hardly -- how shall this Westerner put it? -- a stampede.

And how can the Presiding Bishop describe Waccamaw's victory in the South Carolina Supreme Court as an attempt to maintain "control over Episcopal assets"? My goodness and sakes alive, as my sainted grandmother was fond of saying. To think that there would be current Episcopalians in South Carolina who might actually choose to accept and follow the ruling by the highest Court of that State -- which held, just so that we stick to the facts, now -- that the Dennis Canon was legally insufficient to create on its own any beneficial interest in a parish's property and in favor of the Diocese or the national Church.

Do I have this right?? The Presiding Bishop of the House of Bishops and the President of the House of Deputies are concerned that Episcopalians in South Carolina are not being told "the truth" about the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision? That despite what the Supreme Court ruled, Episcopalians in South Carolina are entitled to retain control over the assets of those who elect to leave the Diocese? And that the President of the House of Deputies believes "that is [w]hat we have agreed to in the General Convention over the years"??

Were I not absolutely convinced of the faithfulness with which Cherie Wetzel transcribed these words, I would find myself doubting my own sanity. For -- let it now be said -- this is unsound; this makes no sense whatsoever. If the current leadership of the Episcopal Church believes so strongly that they are right and the Supreme Court of South Carolina is wrong, then why did not ECUSA itself ask the Supreme Court to review the case? Why did it expect a few dissident Waccamaw parishioners to carry that burden?

What we see happening right now in South Carolina is the kind of craziness that began in the Diocese of Pittsburgh in 2003 -- long before the terms of either of the current presiding officers of the Church began. As I have recounted in a series of posts dealing with the litigation in that Diocese, everything began with a suspicion on the part of certain clergy and parishioners associated with Calvary Church that Bishop Duncan was preparing to allow other parishes who disagreed with the impending consecration of V. Gene Robinson to leave the Diocese and to keep their parish property. So they filed suit against Bishop Duncan to prevent him from doing just that.

And the result, five years later, was not that any individual parishes left the Church, but that the entire Diocese voted to leave the Church -- after the (current) leadership at 815 had broken the canons multiple times to "depose" the Right Rev. Robert Duncan, its bishop.

But Bishop Duncan did not have any binding precedent of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on his side -- in fact, what precedent there was had held in favor of the Dennis Canon. Here we have the exact opposite.

"[Mis]information", my eye. This is not about misinformation at all, but about power -- absolute and unchecked power (because the House of Bishops is too cowardly to insist as a group that the canons of the Church be strictly followed when it comes to deposition of their colleagues), which corrupts absolutely, as Lord Acton famously reminded us.

If the leadership at 815 embarks on a Calvary-inspired harassment of the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence and the Standing Committee, then I repeat what I said in my earlier post:

This is a watershed moment for both those at 815 Second Avenue and their supporters, as well as for all those who are trying to hold on to a presence in the Episcopal Church despite its current tyrannical ways. Fortunately, their very arguments based on a "trust" in favor of the national Church may be turned against them -- if each parish owes perpetual allegiance to the national Church, then the leadership of that Church owes fiduciary duties to each and every diocese and parish. Those fiduciary duties are very clear, and do not admit of any waffling or tergiversation. Depending on how this all plays out, there will either be a very clear case for breach of fiduciary duties, or not.

If ECUSA did not learn from the current debacle in Pittsburgh -- where the law ostensibly was in its favor -- then it is doomed to repeat in South Carolina the mistakes it made there. And if no other dioceses will stand behind South Carolina in its travails, then I miss my guess, and the Episcopal Church is truly not worth the paper its constitution was written on. All that will then remain will be a metropolitical Church under an arbitrary figurehead. After some 220 years, judgment will then fall on the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.


Ah, well -- someday, it will all make a great book. Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.

The Decline of a Once Great Democracy

Greece, which gave birth to democracy, is now enduring its greatest test. Long ago, no less than four of its greatest philosophers traced out the historical kyklos, or cycle, through which forms of government evolve. They differed in particulars, but Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Polybius all agreed on the progression: people organize first under a strong leader, and make him a king. As power corrupts, the king becomes a tyrant, and on his death, power passes to his children, who may share in a form of government known as oligarchy. As the children pass on privileges to their children and grandchildren, government by aristocracy emerges. Over time, the qualifications to vote and participate in government broaden, until every citizen is included, and there is now a democracy. But when the majority discovers that it is able to vote itself special privileges, this starts a self-destructive process which can end only in mob rule, and anarchy. Out of the chaos emerges a strong ruler; the people make him a king, and the cycle begins anew. (If you have Flash installed in your browser, you may watch the cycle illustrated at this link; the text is based on Polybius.)

Polybius, in particular (followed by Machiavelli in the Renaissance), traced the sequence of events by which a democracy gradually deteriorates, in Book VI of his Histories:

That all existing things are subject to decay and change is a truth that scarcely needs proof; for the course of nature is sufficient to force this conviction on us. 2 There being two agencies by which every kind of state is liable to decay, the one external and the other a growth of the state itself, we can lay down no fixed rule about the former, but the latter is a regular process. 3 I have already stated what kind of state is the first to come into being, and what the next, and how the one is transformed into the other; so that those who are capable of connecting the opening propositions of this inquiry with its conclusion will now be able to foretell the future unaided. And what will happen is, I think, evident. 5 When a state has weathered many great perils and subsequently attains to supremacy and uncontested sovereignty, it is evident that under p399the influence of long established prosperity, life will become more extravagant and the citizens more fierce in their rivalry regarding office and other objects than they ought to be. 6 As these defects go on increasing, the beginning of the change for the worse will be due to love of office and the disgrace entailed by obscurity, as well as to extravagance and purse-proud display; 7 and for this change the populace will be responsible when on the one hand they think they have a grievance against certain people who have shown themselves grasping, and when, on the other hand, they are puffed up by the flattery of others who aspire to office. 8 For now, stirred to fury and swayed by passion in all their counsels, they will no longer consent to obey or even to be the equals of the ruling caste, but will demand the lion's share for themselves. 9 When this happens, the state will change its name to the finest sounding of all, freedom and democracy, but will change its nature to the worst thing of all, mob-rule.

I was reminded of the kyklos, and of the problems to which a democracy is susceptible, on reading this article by Anita Acavalos at The Cobden Centre: "I Predict a Riot." A native of Greece, Ms. Acavalos is the daughter of Andreas Acavalos, a longtime management and organization specialist with PricewaterhouseCoopers in Athens who now serves on the Advisory Board of the Cobden Centre. She astutely traces and analyzes the multiple sources and factors in Greece's current economic woes, which threaten to bring down the Euro. She begins by making this key point:

In recent years, Greece has found itself at the centre of international news and public debate, albeit for reasons that are hardly worth bragging about. Soaring budget deficits coupled with the unreliable statistics provided by the government mean there is no financial newspaper out there without at least one piece on Greece’s fiscal profligacy.

Although at first glance the situation Greece faces may seem as simply the result of gross incompetence on behalf of the government, a closer assessment of the country’s social structure and people’s deep rooted political beliefs will show that this outcome could not have been avoided even if more skill was involved in the country’s economic and financial management.

And what are these "deep rooted political beliefs"? Listen to her explain:

The population has a deep rooted suspicion of and disrespect for business and private initiative and there is a widespread belief that “big money” is earned by exploitation of the poor or underhand dealings and reflects no display of virtue or merit. Thus people feel that they are entitled to manipulate the system in a way that enables them to use the wealth of others as it is a widely held belief that there is nothing immoral with milking the rich because they are commonly perceived to be everything that is wrong with Greek society. In fact, the money the rich seem to have access to, is the cause of much discontent among people of all social backgrounds for example farmers and students. The reason for this is that the government for decades has run continuous campaigns promising people that it has not only the will but also the ABILITY to solve their problems and has established a system of patronages and hand-outs to this end.

Anything can be done in Greece provided someone has political connections, from securing a job to navigating the complexities of the Greek bureaucracy. The government routinely promises handouts to farmers after harsh winters and free education to all; every time there is a display of discontent they rush to appease the people by offering them more “solutions.” What they neglect to say is that these solutions cost money. Now that the money has run out, nobody can reason with an angry mob.

Do you hear echoes of the passage from Polybius which I quoted above? Having voted itself the benefits of a free university education, the masses no longer appreciate or value those benefits, with the result that few are truly educated any more:

A closer examination of Greek universities can be used as a good illustration of why and HOW the government has driven itself to a crossroad where running the country into even deeper debt is the only politically feasible path to follow. University education is free. However, classroom attendance is appalling and there are students in their late twenties that still have not passed classes they attended in their first year. Moreover, these universities are almost entirely run by party- political youth groups which, like the country’s politicians, claim to have solutions to all problems affecting students. To make matters worse, these groups often include a minority of opportunists who are not interested in academia at all but are simply there to use universities as political platforms, usually ones promoting views against the wealthy and the capitalist system as a whole even though they have no intellectual background or understanding of the capitalist structure.

The divide between factions favoring "big business" and those favoring "big government" is really no divide at all, because both factions believe that the business of government is to bring benefits to the masses:

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that there is no genuine free market opposition seeing as in Greece, right wing political parties also favour statist solutions but in their case those solutions are criticised as favouring big business as opposed to increasing government provision for the care of the people, which is the role of the left. The mere idea that the government should be reduced in size and not try to have its hand in everything is completely inconceivable for Greek politicians of all parties. The government promises their people a better life in exchange for votes so when it fails to deliver, the people naturally think they have the right or even the obligation to start riots to ‘punish’ them for failing to do what they have promised.
. . .
Moreover, in line with conventional political theory on patronage networks, in regions that are liable to sway either way politicians have a built-in incentive to promise the constituents more than everyone else. The result is almost like a race for the person able to promise more and thus the system seems by its very nature to weed out politicians that tell people the honest and unpalatable truth or disapprove of handouts. This has led people to think that if they are in a miserable situation it is because the government is not trying hard enough to satisfy their needs or is favouring someone else instead of them. When the farmers protest it is not just because they want more money, it is because they are convinced (sometimes even rightly so) that the reason why they are being denied handouts is that they have been given to someone else instead. It is the combination therefore of endless government pandering and patronages that has led to the population’s irresponsible attitude towards money and public finance. They believe that the government having the power to legislate need not be prudent and when the government says it needs to cut back, they point to the rich and expect the government to tax them more heavily or blame the capitalist system for their woes.

Ms. Acavalos then quotes Greece's current political leader, and shows how he is clueless as to the source of all the problems:

After a meeting in Brussels, current Prime Minister George Papandreou said:

Salaried workers will not pay for this situation: we will not proceed with wage freezes or cuts. We did not come to power to tear down the social state.

It is not out of the kindness of his heart that he initially did not want to impose a pay freeze. It was because doing so would mean that the country may never escape the ensuing state of chaos and anarchy that would inevitably occur. Eventually he did come to the realisation that in the absence of pay freezes he would have to plunge the country into even further debt and increase taxes and had to impose it anyway causing much discontent. Does it not seem silly that he is still trying to persuade the people that they will not pay for this situation when the enormous debts that will inevitably ensue will mean that taxes will have to increase in perpetuity until even our children’s children will be paying for this? This minor glitch does not matter though because nobody can reason with a mob that is fighting for handouts they believe are rightfully theirs.

What is particularly troubling about all this are the parallels I begin to see emerging in our own democracy. As you read her next paragraph, compare what she is describing to the current proposals in Congress to spend our way out of a depression -- an approach that entails ever more borrowing, and ever more taxation:

Greece is the perfect example of a country where the government attempted to create a utopia in which it serves as the all- providing overlord offering people amazing job prospects, free health care and education, personal security and public order and has failed miserably to provide on any of these. In the place of this promised utopian mansion lies a small shack built at an exorbitant cost to the taxpayer, leaking from every nook and cranny due to insufficient funds which demands ever higher maintenance costs just to keep it from collapsing altogether. The architects of this shack, in a desperate attempt to repair what is left are borrowing all the money they can from their neighbours, even at exorbitant costs promising that this time they will be prudent. All that is left for the people living inside this leaking shack is to protest for all the promises that the government failed to fulfil; but, sadly for the government, promises will neither pay its debts nor appease the angry mob any longer. Greece has lost any credibility it had within the EU as it has achieved notoriety for the way government accountants seem to be cooking up numbers they present to EU officials.

In that description of Greece's economic woes I see also America's future if our politicians continue to think that the way to create new jobs and to boost the economy is by higher taxes and increased borrowing so that government can pump more money into the system. This solution robs our most productive sectors of their ability to invest and grow, and doles out money to those with political connections who simply use it to fatten their compensation packages. And it saddles our government with an ever-mounting interest burden, which the politicians are passing on to future generations.

Ms. Acavalos has not lost all hope; she sees in Prime Minister Papandreou a man who has the fortitude to face down the masses, if he will only realize that time is running out:

There are no magic wands, no bail-outs, no quick and easy fixes. The choice is between doing what it takes to put our house in order ourselves, or watching it collapse around us. This can only come about if Prime Minister George Papandreou uses the guts he has displayed in the past when his political stature and authority had been challenged and channels them towards making the changes the country so desperately needs. Only if he emerges as a truly inspired statesman who will choose the difficult as opposed to the populist solution will Greece be up again and on a path towards prosperity. He needs to display a willingness to clean up the mess made after years of bad government and get society to a point where they are willing to accept hard economic truths. One can only hope…

I see no one in current government in this country who has the ability, or the will, to turn us aside from the destructive path we are on. One has to hope that the choices we will be offered in 2012 are better than those offered in 2008. And one has to hope that the voters will be wiser in 2012, as well. For if neither of those hopes materializes, then America will become another textbook illustration of what Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Polybius described for us so long ago.

[UPDATE 02/27/2009: Don't miss Mark Steyn's take on the situation -- written in his inimitable style. Here's a sample, but be sure to read the whole piece:

The United States has a fertility rate of around 2.1 — or just over two kids per couple. Greece has a fertility rate of about 1.3: Ten grandparents have six kids have four grandkids — ie, the family tree is upside down. Demographers call 1.3 “lowest-low” fertility — the point from which no society has ever recovered. And, compared to Spain and Italy, Greece has the least worst fertility rate in Mediterranean Europe.

So you can’t borrow against the future because, in the most basic sense, you don’t have one. Greeks in the public sector retire at 58, which sounds great. But, when ten grandparents have four grandchildren, who pays for you to spend the last third of your adult life loafing around?
. . .

Think of Greece as California: Every year an irresponsible and corrupt bureaucracy awards itself higher pay and better benefits paid for by an ever-shrinking wealth-generating class. And think of Germany as one of the less profligate, still-just-about-functioning corners of America such as my own state of New Hampshire: Responsibility doesn’t pay. You’ll wind up bailing out anyway. The problem is there are never enough of “the rich” to fund the entitlement state, because in the end it disincentivizes everything from wealth creation to self-reliance to the basic survival instinct, as represented by the fertility rate. In Greece, they’ve run out Greeks, so they’ll stick it to the Germans, like French farmers do. In Germany, the Germans have only been able to afford to subsidize French farming because they stick their defense tab to the Americans. And in America, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are saying we need to paddle faster to catch up with the Greeks and Germans. What could go wrong?