Fr. Edwards defends his stand at Accokeek

Robert Stowe England and
V.F. Traycik for the Christian Challenge | 20 March 2001

ACCOKEEK, MD - Controversial Washington Bishop Jane Dixon came, saw, but did not conquer at 4 p.m. on Sunday March 18 at the rural, historic parish of Christ Church St. John's Parish, founded 303 years ago.

The visit was preceded by a week of anxious anticipation that focused almost entirely on her pending arrival at Christ Church to address the parish concerning her rejection of the call of Fr. Sam Edwards as rector of the parish.

While he attended the 9 a.m. service, Fr. Edwards sat in the pews while the priest-in-charge Fr. Robert Stephenson preached and celebrated mass. Fr. Edwards began as rector March 15 but will first preach and celebrate mass April 1. He is moving into the rectory this week with his wife, Kay, and two children.

Fr. Edwards, who noted at one point during the forum that he was "on trial for his life," answered the charges against him by Bishop Dixon and questions parishioners had posed about his call in the prior week's forum.

He also took new questions from those at the forum, some of them quite hostile, and, in answering them, took much of the steam out of those opposing his call and won over some of those who were wavering on whether to support or oppose him.

Following the nearly two-hour adult forum in the morning, a number of parishioners who had been opposed to his call confided that they had been won over and now supported Fr. Edwards and the vestry's decision to call him.

Dixon rejected the call of Fr. Edwards to the parish in a March 8 letter to Senior Warden Barbara Sturman based largely on statements she claims Fr. Edwards made in an interview on March 6. Most of the issues revolved around theological positions held by Fr. Edwards, including his opposition to women's ordination and his support of the Biblical standard that sex be confined to marriage between a man and a woman.

The Diocese of Washington is aggressively pro-homosexual in supporting the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals and their placement as rectors in the parish.

Bishop Dixon's rejection of the call is widely seen among Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals within the church as an effort to usurp new authority for bishops to reject candidates based on their theological positions.

This approach appears to be designed, they say, to further the campaign of aggressive revisionists like Dixon to eradicate traditionalists, especially Forward in Faith congregations and rectors, entirely from within their dioceses, and ultimately from the Episcopal Church. The revisionists are, the argument goes, pressing a "final solution" against traditionalists in ECUSA. "May only truth be spoken here and may only truth be heard," Fr. Edwards told the parishioners and visitors at the start of the adult forum.

Fr. Edwards made it clear he did not seek the notoriety and attention that has befallen him. "I did not come to the diocese with an agenda to change the direction of the diocese. I don't have the kind of energy," Fr. Edwards said. It was, in fact, his intention to leave the public limelight as Executive Director of Forward in Faith / North America in Forth Worth, Texas, to enjoy a time of quiet as the rector of a country parish like Accokeek. "I've learned instead that God has different plans for me," he said in an interview after the forum.

Fr. Edwards further noted that the vestry of Christ Church Accokeek found him and that he did not go looking for a position in the Washington diocese.

He said he decided to come and fight Dixon's rejection of his call because he felt obligated to uphold the solemn promise he made to the vestry to be the rector of the parish.

Fr. Edwards sees his role as a combatant in a larger conflict that pervades current American society, which, he says, is engaged in a "massive cultural conflict between the rule of law and the law of the ruler."

Fr. Edwards said that Americans "prefer the rule of law and not men," and not just against such tyrants as Britain's King George during the Revolutionary War, but also against "majoritarian tyranny," a reference at least partially to the situation of traditionalist within this diocese and within the Episcopal Church.

In this instance the diocese is violating the rule of law in rejecting a lawful call of a rector, according to Fr. Edwards. It is his duty to resist such encroachment on the rule of law. "You defend your liberties or your lose them, not just for yourself but for others," he said. For this reason "very often it becomes incumbent on a small unit to make sure the larger unit follows the rules," Fr. Edwards says.

Fr. Edwards noted that the canon law is neither ambiguous nor unclear on the issue of the 30-day deadline for a bishop's review. It is "the most specific part of the canons on the call of a rector - there is no provision for an extension," he said. When asked why he would want to stay in the Episcopal Church, Fr. Edwards replied that he felt God had called him to work in this small parish to be part of an effort by others to call the Episcopal Church to renewal. "When renewal is needed, it is always done by calling us back to our roots," he said.

Fr. Edwards also made a distinction between the larger "church of Jesus Christ" that encompasses all believers - and various institutions like the Episcopal Church. The Anglican faith originated in the 16th century because "we decided there was a difference between being in The Church and being in the Catholic church," he said.

The Episcopal Church was also founded to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but "has declined from that time in a serious way as the church of Jesus Christ," Fr. Edwards said.

During his interview with Bishop Dixon, Fr. Edwards says that he was asked why someone of his convictions would come into the diocese where over half the rectors are women. He says he told Bishop Dixon that he could find issues on which to cooperate with women clerics. "What we can do together, we do together. And what we cannot, we cannot. That is a more uncomfortable position than [one that says] we'll not have anything to do with you," he said, but, he felt it was a more principled and appropriate approach to the issue of women's ordination.

One questioner cited a quote he claimed came from the web site of Forward in Faith / North America from last October in which Fr. Edwards stated that "dioceses, congregations and clergy who can sever [their ties to the Episcopal Church] should be prepared to do this, if they haven't begun to do so already. For us, the time for the dusting of feet is upon us." He asked if Fr. Edwards plans to take Christ Church Accokeek out of the Diocese of Washington. Fr. Edwards replied: "I think we need to make a great effort to avoid making the mistake of particularizing from the general." He said that any decision on leaving a diocese ultimately depends on the "specifics" of a given case. "Maybe a congregation feels called to stay where they are."

In the case of Christ Church Accookeek, Fr. Edwards said that ultimately that decision was one to be made by the entire congregation and not by him or the vestry.

Charles Nalls of the Canon Law Institute, attorney for the parish, noted that parishes that have voted to leave the Episcopal Church have decided to do so only with the approval of the congregation, even when the power lay within the vestry. "No vestry worth its salt in the Biblical sense would ever make a decision without its congregation behind it," Nalls said.

He cited the situation at Mount Calvary in Baltimore, where the vestry wanted to leave the diocese, but the congregation was not prepared to do that, so they are staying in the Diocese of Maryland as a Forward in Faith parish.

In the case of St. Paul's in Brockton, Massachusetts, the vestry left the decision on whether to leave the diocese to the congregation, which ultimately decided to do so.

Fr. Edwards indicated he is fully aware of the gravity of his situation. "There is a profound and serious cost" to the stand he is taking. He indicated he expects to deposed 60 days after taking up his priestly duties, which suggests legal action would occur sometime after July 1. Canons provide that vestries can hire a priest who does not have a license to practice in a diocese for up to 60 days. After that Fr. Edwards must be licensed to continue holding services.

A successful deposition from Holy Orders would mean that Fr. Edwards would not be allowed to be a priest in the Episcopal Church. He's willing to take on the risk, he says. "The priesthood is not mine. It's Christ's. He's shared it with me. If we are not able to put it at hazard for Him, we shouldn't have it anyhow." In an interview after morning forum, Fr. Edwards said that the diocese is operating mainly by "force and fear." He said it was "awful" that the parish might have to resort to taking the diocese to court to obey its own rules.

Potential legal landmine lies also ahead for Bishop Dixon. Fr. Edwards indicated he had requested his letters dimissory be transferred from the Diocese of Forth Worth to the Diocese of Washington.

Dixon herself has said that Fr. Edwards' record is "squeaky clean," possibly leaving her in the position of having to admit that she simply does not like his theology when she rejects his letters dimissory. Such a stand might subject Dixon legal action, including possibly a presentment.

"No parish in this diocese is safe if this is allowed to go forward," Edwards said of the bishop's rejection of his call. "If she can exclude me because of my views, she can exclude others." It also seems possible that Bishop Dixon, if she continues to pursue her campaign against Fr. Edwards, could drive the parish to leave the diocese even when it would prefer otherwise. The parish appears to have a fairly strong claim to its property and may thus more easily successfully sever its ties to the diocese.

Fr. Edwards told the gathering that because the parish predates the diocese, the rights of the vestry to the property are the most secure legally possible. "Under Maryland law the parish personified by the vestry owns the property in fee simple, which means it owns it absolutely," he said.

At the end of Fr. Edwards' presentation at the adult forum, nearly all the people present applauded him.

Senior Warden Barbara Sturman estimates that 70% of the parish supports the call, while 20% oppose it and 10% are undecided. This is based partly on a parish profile and survey of the views of the parish on key issues made during the three-year process of searching for a rector.

The opposition's ranks may, however, be swollen by the return of some former parishioners since Bishop Dixon wrote to them, while the ranks of supporters may have been increased by some of the undecided who may now be more favorable inclined to support Fr. Edwards.

Even so, some remained unconvinced. Kay Powell, who said she had been a parishioner for 30 years stated, "I don't think there are any winners in holy wars. And I don't think we're in a position to start one. We need to open our hearts to all positions and we need to hear both sides."

The diocese has campaigned hard to stir up opposition within the parish to the call, sending two letters to all current and former members. This effort appears to have created a determined dissident group in opposition to the vestry and Fr. Edwards.

The divide-and-conquer tactic has been used before in the diocese to undermine traditionalist parishes, including St. Luke's 15th Street, where the tactics were successful and St. Paul's K Street, where they were not.

Nearly 150 people came to Christ Church for the 9 a.m. service. Many came to both service and the adult forum to show solidarity for the parish, the vestry and the call of Fr. Edwards, including parishioners from Ascension & St. Agnes and St. Paul's K Street in Washington, D.C., St. Luke's in Bladensburg, Md., Christ Church in Clinton and the Falls Church in Virginia.

Some outsiders came who opposed the call, including several members of the diocesan staff, the Standing Committee and the Executive Council (which was not unanimous in its support of Dixon's rejection of the call).

The diocese sent two emissaries to defend Dixon's rejection of the call of Fr. Edwards at the adult forum: Fr. Ken Howard of St. Nicholas mission in Darnestown, Md., and retired Chicago Bishop James Montgomery. Fr. Howard read a statement by Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold supporting Dixon and criticizing Fr. Edwards for views that are "beyond comment and critique" and characterized by "marked and publicly stated antipathy . . . toward the church in which he was ordained." (Dixon read the same statement again in the afternoon, taking obvious delight in this support, which she claimed came after an hour of consultation with Griswold at the House of Bishops meeting in Kanuga, N.C.).

Presiding Bishop Griswold has been asked to clarify this statement and he has not yet responded. He was asked, among other things, whether he was advocating a position that bishops could reject candidates for differences of opinion, even though those opinions are allowed in the Episcopal church, and whether he now thinks such reviews trump the canons. He was also asked if he made his determination to support Dixon without his own independent investigation, and whether his pledge of complete support meant he would be joining any lawsuits or helping to fund them.

Senior Warden Barbara Sturman announced at the 9 a.m. service that the 4 p.m. meeting had been canceled because there had not been a 10-day notice of the meeting, as required by the parish's by-laws. Also, at the 10:30 a.m. adult forum she said that only the rector, vestry or a group of parishioners could call a business meeting of the parish.

During the forum Mrs. Sturman recounted the history of the search for a rector and call of Fr. Edwards. She noted that she had spoken with Dixon last fall and notified her that the vestry intended to call a traditionalist rector on the basis of their own parish profile and that Dixon had told her that she would be helpful in that process. The diocese provided no candidates to the parish. The parish found all three candidates on its own. The forum was at times boisterous and interrupted by sharp criticisms from some former members of the parish. One former parishioner derided the vestry for having half its members as relatives - although Mrs. Sturman noted that half the congregation is related because many had descended from families who lived in the area for hundreds of years.

There were a series of hostile questions from Junior Warden Dwayne Jenkins of St. John's, Broad Creek, Md., which Fr. Edwards answered patiently. A parishioner objected to Jenkins' "trick lawyer questions," at which point Jenkins ceased his queries. At the conclusion of the morning session Mrs. Sturman indicated that the vestry would try to arrange a meeting with Dixon at the parish at a time convenient for all and with enough time to give all parishioners sufficient notice so they could attend.

Despite the strong show of support Sunday morning, there was heated opposition against the call of Fr. Edwards among some of the 50 parishioners who showed up for the 4 p.m. meeting along with another 15 people who were mostly observers from the diocese and elsewhere.

The people gathered outside the entrance to the church behind some tall boxwoods to avoid the chilly wind. The church and adjacent buildings were locked, as Mrs. Sturman had indicated they would be that morning. There was a notice on the door that there would be no meeting at 4 p.m. The notice was ripped off the door by Fr. Ted Karpf, development officer for the diocese.

Bishop Dixon promised to devote top priority to the issue of resolving the impasse of Fr. Edwards' call. "You'll see a lot of me. I'll be back often," Bishop Dixon told the gathering. She was conciliatory in tone and avoided the heated attacks on the vestry and Fr. Edwards that she had made in previous two weeks. "First and foremost, I'm here to work with this congregation. You are in my prayers. It is my desire to help you move ahead because quite frankly the Diocese of Washington needs you. The community around you needs you to be preaching and living the Gospel, as you have done for these many years here."

Her omission of any discussion of her criticisms of Fr. Edwards may reflect an unstated recognition that Fr. Edwards has, in fact, answered Dixon's objections, both through his attorney in a letter to the diocese and earlier that morning at the forum.

Among the group hearing Dixon there appeared to be 20 to 30 seriously opposed to the call of Fr. Edwards, some of whom were not present at the 10:30 forum and did not hear Fr. Edwards defend himself. A delegation from the tiny congregation at St. John's Chapel in Pomonkey, which is affiliated with Accokeek and served by its rector, said they stood with the diocese.

Looking across the two meetings held Sunday, it appeared that opposition to the call seemed to be heavier among the older members of the parish, while support for Fr. Edwards was stronger among the middle-aged and younger members.

The afternoon gathering seemed to have a larger portion of elderly parishioners. Some of them were baffled both by the vestry's defiance of the bishop, as well as the bishop's reasons for finding Fr. Edwards not qualified. They were frightened at the prospect of a conflict and anxious that it would somehow go away. Only a few seemed to base their opposition to Fr. Edwards on a rejection of his traditionalist views or to show solidarity with the aggressively revisionist views of the diocese.

Don Taylor, an elderly parishioner who wanted to fire the vestry, asked Dixon if that could be done by the gathering. Diocesan chancellor JoAnn Macbeth, who was also presented, said the group could not take such an action since a business meeting required 10 days notice.

Bishop Dixon contradicted the claims about property ownership made that morning by the vestry and Fr. Edwards. "The property is owned by the Diocese of Washington, as is every other property within the Diocese of Washington," Dixon said.

Diocesan chancellor JoAnn Macbeth clarified this point by saying the parish holds its real and financial assets in trust for the diocese.

When asked if the vestry could dispose of the property or take steps to take the parish out of the Episcopal Church, Macbeth stated, "One of the wonderful things about America is that people can have lawyers and try anything. We think very clearly they would not have the authority to do that."

Bishop Dixon was stumped a few times by the questions, including one by a woman who complained about the uncomfortable position she faced in both opposing the call of Fr. Edwards and the prospect of having to attend service and take communion from him. "At some point you have to do something or we'll go insane," she told the bishop.

Dixon had no remedy for the woman's predicament. When she suggested that people take their concerns on this matter to the vestry, many in the gathering laughed.

One elderly man pleaded with Dixon, "Help us understand why the 30-day notice is of no importance." Her reply: "My lawyers have assured me that I acted within the duties of a bishop and that I had the canonical authority to do what I did."

Macbeth tried to expand on Dixon's response and found herself sailing into unchartered legal waters. "There is a 30-day period within which, after a vestry has notified the bishop of their intent to call a rector, a 30-day period where the bishop can communicate with the vestry about that," she said.

At this point she disputed the near-universal understanding of the canon: "It is only after 30 days have elapsed that the vestry can go forward and actually elect a rector. And it is only after the election that the requirement that the bishop can have a finding that the person is duly qualified as a priest. Then there's no limitation at all on that time period."

The novel and unprecedented claim of no time limitation on making a decision on whether a priest is duly qualified is likely to face intense scrutiny by any court, ecclesiastical or civil - and ridicule in some quarters within the Episcopal Church.

One woman was not satisfied with Macbeth's explanation. "What is the purpose of the 30-day period if not for the purpose for determining qualifications of individuals?" she asked.

Macbeth explained further: "I wasn't there when the canon was adopted, and I'm sure there's some history about that, so I can't say with any authority. Looking at it, what I thought is they wanted to give a period, a sort-of informal period where the bishop - was there anything thing bishop wanted them to know, they [could] communicate [to the vestry] before they make a decision. This is pre-decision we're talking about," she said.

Macbeth continued: "But they don't want to hold up the process. If there isn't any information the bishop wants to bring to their attention, they want to say 'Then, let's move forward and make the decision and we'll go through the steps.'"

Macbeth's views were castigated by Nalls, the parish's attorney, after he was informed of what she had said. "These statements are relativistic nonsense," he said, with the chancellor redefining the meaning of words to change the intent and meaning of the canons.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Dixon agreed to take further questions from parishioners sent to her to prepare her for her next meeting with the parish. She asked that questions be sent to her e-mail address. She set Sunday, April 1 at 4 p.m. for a congregational meeting with a fall-back date of Wednesday, April 4 at 7 p.m. When it was noted that Mrs. Sturman had indicated she would set up a meeting, Dixon acknowledge she had been told this in a fax sent to her that morning and promised to call her to arrange the meeting. However, the vestry may set a time of its own choosing for Dixon's next visit.

Most of the objections by Bishop Dixon to Fr. Edwards centered around whether he would recognize her authority over him. When asked at the morning about the accuracy of bishop's charges, Fr. Edwards said it was more "an interpretation rather than an accuracy problem." He says that Dixon distorted his positions and that he is not sure whether that was because "she misunderstood or misheard" what he had said.

Fr. Edwards says he told Bishop Dixon during the interview that he would recognize her as the Ecclesiastical Authority but could not take communion from her, since he did not recognize her as a bishop in apostolic succession. He faulted her for failing to mention that in her various letters to the parish. "This is not a crank conviction," Fr. Edwards said of his opposition to women's ordination. "It is based my reading of the Holy Scriptures."

Fr. Edwards also challenged Bishop Dixon's claim that he expressed doubts about some points in his ordination vows. He said that Bishop Dixon's letter contained "tendentious italicization" of the word "his" in the phrase "his understanding of the ordination vows." Fr. Edwards, as his attorney had already done, noted that the liturgy places the various vows in a certain order for theological reasons. "The order is deliberate. I don't have to defend that," Fr. Edwards said.

The vow "to be loyal to the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received them" precedes the vow to be obedient to the ecclesiastical authority, Fr. Edwards says. Both also follow an affirmation of the Holy Scriptures as containing "all things necessary to salvation."

The order suggest that if a bishop issues an order that is contrary to the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as the church has received them and contrary to Holy Scripture, then those orders could be disobeyed.

Fr. Edwards compared the ordination vows to the military oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to obey the lawful orders of superiors. "You hope there is never a conflict," he said. And you begin with the assumption that the orders are lawful, he added.

Fr. Edwards also made it clear that he would receive Bishop Dixon on official visits and be present during the service, although Dixon in her letters had stated he refused to do this. Fr. Edwards took exception to Dixon's suggestion he would "cleanse" the parish after a visit, as occurred a few years ago by Fr. Edward Raffeto at St. Luke's Bladensburg, after a forced visitation by Bishop Dixon. He attributed this to a misunderstanding about a reference he made to the response of both St. Luke's Bladensburg and Ascension & St. Agnes, two parishes that left the church open for Dixon's forced visitations.

Fr. Edwards also says that he has "no recollection" of being asked whether he would agree to be installed by Bishop Dixon. Fr. Edwards says he told Bishop Dixon that the parish custom was not to have the bishop install the rector and that there is no canonical requirement that it occur. "This could be a misunderstanding based on a pre-conception of what I would say," he says.

During the morning forum Mrs. Sturman detailed the careful steps taken by the vestry to assure they were conducting the search and call in a lawful manner. "We are governed by our by-laws not the bishop," she said.

Since the rejection of the call by Bishop Dixon came nearly 90 days after that deadline, it is not valid, Mrs. Sturman said. Furthermore, the parish's attorney, Charles Nalls, has argued that Dixon in her letters to the parish has failed to make an argument or a case that Fr. Edwards is not a duly qualified priest.

The senior warden said that a letter was sent to Dixon on January 22 stating that the 30 days were up, and that they intended to call Fr. Edwards. Mrs. Sturman points out that Fr. Edwards has extensive writings and his positions are well known due to the fact he was Executive Director of Forward in Faith.

The diocese has known of the vestry's choices since December 13, but failed to find a problem with Fr. Edwards until March 6, Mrs. Sturman said. Dixon became involved as early as December 17, when she called to say she would be handling the matter because Bishop Haines was retiring December 31, she said.

While Dixon has focused her complaints on Fr. Edwards' comments from her interview with him, both Mrs. Sturman and Fr. Edwards have noted that an interview is not canonically required in the process of calling a rector.

In an interview after the morning forum, the parish's attorney Chuck Nalls made it quite clear that the parish would remain firm in its opposition to Dixon's rejection. "These people are not going to back down. The call is correct and in accordance with canon and civil law."

Nalls also noted that there is another Forward in Faith parish and priest within the diocese. "This is nothing unseal," he said. He was referring to Fr. Michael Heidt at St. Luke's Bladensburg. Additionally, at least two other priests in the diocese oppose women's ordination: Fr. Andrew Sloane at St. Paul's K Street and Fr. Lane Davenport at Ascension & St. Agnes, both in Washington, D.C.

The call of Fr. Edwards to the parish is not based on any widespread opposition to women's ordination among its members. According to vestryman Frank McDonough, a 43-year member of the parish, about 90 percent of parishioners are not opposed to women's ordination. However, there is considerable opposition to calling a woman priest in the parish, including about half the parish's female members, he says.

About 70% of the parish opposes the pro-homosexual views of the diocese, McDonough says, down from 85% a few years ago. Some traditionalist members left after a former rector indicated his support of ordaining non-celibate homosexuals and same-sex blessings. These views sparked a movement against those views in the parish and the diocese by a group called Save Our Church.