Dixon meets Christ Church
. . . nothing happens

Auburn V.F. Traycik and
Robert Stowe England for The Christian Challenge | 1 April 2001

ACCOKEEK, MD - A special congregational meeting at Christ Church has now heard from Washington D.C. "Bishop Pro Tempore" Jane Dixon, about why she rejects the parish's choice of an orthodox priest as its rector, and the gathering was as tense as might be expected.

But at the end of the April 1 meeting, nothing had really changed: Fr. Samuel Edwards remained what parish leaders say is the legally-called rector of Christ Church, and Dixon held to what has become her mantra: that Edwards is "not the rector and will not be the rector" of Christ Church.

The parish hall was packed -- standing room only -- with nearly 200 persons present. They included most of the church's 50-70 regularly-attending worshippers, and at least 50 persons who one member said "have not been here in three to five years" -- their presence apparently prompted by four letters sent by the diocese to current and inactive parishioners in the last month. Also present were persons from elsewhere in the diocese and beyond, and media representatives.

Listeners heard Senior Warden Barbara Sturman's heartfelt defense of the careful, canonically sensitive procedures the parish followed in calling Edwards. She reiterated that at no time, not just within the canonical 30-day limit for a bishop's objection, but in 91 days, did Dixon ever indicate to parish leaders any concerns about Fr. Edwards -- even after the bishop said she began hearing from troubled parishioners back in December. She accused Dixon of "ripping this family apart," and begged her to "leave us alone." Sturman received a standing ovation from most present.

Dixon gave her own, rapid-fire review of her now familiar reasons for rejecting Fr. Edwards, asserting in part that, while she was aware of Edwards' positions and writings in December and began hearing from some parishioners then, she wanted to talk further with the priest about his views before rendering an opinion. Her conclusions about his views remain unchanged by the clarifications Edwards has provided.

Asked by TCC afterward if she felt that this dispute was essentially theological in nature, though, Dixon answered, "It's canonical."

Though he only spoke a few times during the meeting, Edwards answered questions in a forthright, learned, calm and calming manner.

The meeting heard a number of comments and challenges from the upset and bewildered, as well as stunning appeals for Dixon and others opposed to Edwards to give him a chance. Edwards was praised as a "godly man," "a healer," "a superior priest" who "preaches the Gospel" and "has only one thing on his mind, Jesus Christ..."

Dixon appeared unmoved by entreaties on Edwards' behalf, or even a call by Brad Hutt of the American Anglican Council of Washington for a 60-day cooling-off period. Instead, she said would continue weekly letters to members and sending bishops to the parish every Sunday.

But while the meeting did not result in a donnybrook, or ouster of the vestry, as some had speculated, there did appear to be movement of another sort. The first-ever appearance of Dixon and Edwards on the same stage allowed congregants to compare their marked differences in style and substance. While the dispute goes on, they seemed less intense since opponents met with Dixon on March 18. Only the bishop and one or two others registered any direct complaints about Edwards at the congregational meeting.

So while the conflict seems far from over, some think that -- in the battle for the hearts and minds of the parish -- Dixon may have lost ground at the April 1 meeting, and Edwards gained it.C