wfn.org | Federal judge hears arguments in Dixon v. Edwards

[ENS@ecunet.org]

2001-228

Federal judge hears arguments in Dixon v. Edwards

by Jim Buie

     (ENS) The conflict between bishop pro tempore Jane Holmes Dixon of the 
Diocese of Washington and the Rev. Sam Edwards over who is to be the rector of 
Christ Church, Accokeek, Maryland, moved into federal court August 23. US 
District Judge Peter Messitte heard arguments in the case filed by Dixon in June.

     Dixon's rights as bishop were violated by Edwards and the church vestry when 
they refused to let her preside over services at the church and threatened her 
with charges of "trespassing," diocesan attorney David M. Schnorrenberg argued. 
He asked Messite to provide "immediate injunctive relief" so that Dixon can 
perform her "duties to minister to the congregation and perform episcopal rites 
there." 

     But after the hearing, attorneys for both parties said they did not expect 
Messite to make an immediate decision-probably not for at least two weeks. 
Attorneys for both parties also acknowledged they have been engaged in mediation 
for several weeks under the auspices of the court, with the possibility of a 
negotiated settlement prior to the court issuing a ruling. 

     Dixon has asked Messite to take four immediate actions: prohibit Edwards 
from officiating at Christ Church; prohibit the vestry from barring Dixon from 
officiating at the church; declare Edwards' contract invalid, because he was 
hired over Dixon's objections; and declare that the Episcopal Church owns the 
parish property. 

     The judge's questions suggested he was attempting to separate the issues of 
Dixon's access to the parish from the issue of the removal of Edwards as rector. 
"Could the court defer ruling on the removal [of Edwards]?" Messite asked 
repeatedly. "If Bishop Dixon wants to visit [Christ Church, Accokeek] as bishop, 
isn't she suffering an immediate injury if she is denied visitation?"

     Charles Nalls, attorney for Edwards and the parish vestry, conceded the 
bishop's right of visitation, but pointed out that she was allowed to speak at a 
congregational meeting on April 1. On May 27, however, she was not allowed to 
preside at the church. Nalls asserted that on that date she was clearly "coming 
in to take control of the church in the absence of a rector." The purpose of that 
visitation was to take "corporate control" of the church against the wishes of 
the vestry, he said. "It wasn't just a visitation."

Church-state separation

     Attorneys for both sides said the First Amendment's guarantee of separation 
of church and state made them somewhat uneasy about secular court involvement in 
the case. Nalls argued that "this case should not be here today, it should not be 
in the secular courts. It's a matter for the church to consider." The conflict 
should be investigated and settled by the ecclesiastical bodies of the Episcopal 
Church, not by a secular governmental entity, even if the church takes 15 months 
or more to resolve the dispute, he said. "If the court were to take action in 
this case, it would put itself ahead of the ecclesiastical tribunal." 

     Schnorrenberg, on the other hand, argued that the issue is "the immediate 
rule of law," and Dixon had no recourse but to appeal to a secular court for 
relief. But he expressed concern that "if the judge rules in favor of Edwards, it 
would be completely unprecedented. It would change the Episcopal Church into a 
congregational church." The Episcopal Church, by its canons and bylaws, is 
clearly a hierarchical church, with the bishop as its highest authority, he said.

Women's ordination 'not a doctrine of the church'

     Edwards was present at the hearing, and in a brief interview with reporters, 
discussed the charge that he had violated the canons of the church, made by a 
group of Washington clergy. "One of the counts against me is that I violated 
church canons by 'publicly teaching doctrine contrary to that held by the 
church.' The unspoken a priori assumption is that the ordination of women is a 
doctrine of the church. It is not," he said.

     Edwards does not expect church authorities to move quickly. Even if he is 
eventually judged to have violated the canons, he would have the right of appeal. 
He believes time is on his side-the longer he's allowed to stay at Christ Church, 
Accokeek, the more difficult it will be to remove him. "A lawfully elected vestry 
went through the canonical process to call a priest," Nalls stated in court. 
"He's visiting the sick, conducting Bible study, conducting Eucharist, day in and 
day out." 

     Edwards asserts that Dixon needed to object formally to his appointment at 
Accokeek within the first 30 days. Because she didn't, he claims the right of the 
vestry to call him supersedes her objections. He also questions how much of a 
hierarchical church the Episcopal Church actually is, since it has no pope and 
parishes have more authority than in the Roman Catholic church.

     Diocesan attorney Schnorrenberg contends that Edwards is asserting 
"squatter's rights. Even though he was never approved by Bishop Dixon, he 
continues to defy her authority and the authority of the church. "They [the 
vestry of Christ Church and its corporation] say they are part of the Episcopal 
Church, and part of the diocese of Washington. Good. Then they have to obey the 
rules of the Episcopal Church." 

Christ Church parishioners supporting Dixon

     During the hearing, the question was raised as to how divided Christ Church, 
Accokeek is over the Edwards-Dixon dispute. Vestry members asserted for the court 
that of the 135 members, only 20 active members have left the church over the 
conflict. Average attendance in the summer is approximately 60. 

     After the hearing, however, the Rev. Carter Echols of the Diocese of 
Washington showed reporters a petition signed by 83 members of the church and 
sent to Dixon, supporting her role.

     Echols was asked, if Edwards believes he is acting according to his 
interpretation of scripture-that women should not serve as bishop or in other top 
leadership roles--why shouldn't his conscience and that of his parishioners 
prevail? "Anglican tradition is rooted in three things," Echols replied. 
"Scripture, tradition, and reason. The way we hold all three of these together is 
through canon law. The canons have been prayerfully created by the church.

     "We welcome different theological perspectives in the Episcopal Church, but 
the issue here is whether we live by canon law."

Partial victory

     If Messite declines to rule on all four of Dixon's requests, in favor of 
letting church procedures run their course, "it would be a partial victory," 
Schnorrenberg said. He acknowledged that the judge may rule only on the issue of 
allowing the bishop access to the church, and push for a negotiated settlement on 
the other issues. "We've never been opposed to talking, but never at the expense 
of the Episcopal Church," Schnorrenberg said. 

     Edwards and the vestry had inflamed the situation by threatening to charge 
Dixon with trespassing when she arrived on church property to conduct services, 
Schnorrenberg said. Three law enforcement officers were called to the church by 
the vestry, but they left without removing Dixon from the property.

     Edwards and the vestry, in claiming she had no right to be on church 
property , were unlawfully challenging her authority, Schnorrenberg said. "She 
made a decision. She's the bishop of the Diocese of Washington with the power to 
make that decision as the highest ecclesiastical authority in the church. There's 
no dispute that she's the highest authority."

     "She has the right to go to [Christ Church, Accokeek ] as often as she 
pleases. She doesn't need to announce it in advance, although she did."

     Messite asked that if Dixon comes to the parish as often as she wants, does 
that in effect remove Edwards? 

     Schnorrenberg replied that until and unless Dixon is found guilty of an 
offense by two-thirds of an ecclesiastical court, she has the right to do what 
she thinks is right. "Bishop Dixon is here to seek a peaceful resolution" of the 
conflict, and has no intention of conducting services herself at the church on a 
weekly basis, he said.

     Messite asked if Dixon's authority is less because she is a suffragan, not 
the elected diocesan bishop-she assumed the position upon the retirement of 
Bishop Ronald Haynes. No, Schnorrenberg replied. She has the same authority as a 
vice president who assumes the presidency when a president resigns. A new bishop 
of the Diocese of Washington will be elected next year. 

--Jim Buie is a freelance writer based in Washington, DC.