wfn.org | Court of Appeals affirms Bishop Dixon in Accokeek case

[ENS@ecunet.org]

2002-133

Court of Appeals affirms Bishop Dixon in Accokeek case

by Jan Nunley

     (ENS) On May 22, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 
unanimously affirmed an earlier decision by the U.S. District Court recognizing 
the authority of Washington bishop pro tempore Jane Holmes Dixon to refuse the 
election of the Rev. Samuel Edwards as rector of Christ Church and St. John's 
Parish in Accokeek, Maryland. 

     The decision stated, in part: 

     "Our examination of this record, and our study of the organization and 
operation of the Episcopal Church, compels the determination that the court was 
correct in both its analysis and in its conclusion: The Episcopal Church is 
hierarchical." 

     "In the Episcopal Church, the priests and the laity of a diocese are subject 
to the authority of their bishop." 

     "Because the highest ecclesiastical authority of the Diocese, Bishop Dixon, 
has determined that the Vestry's interpretation of the Canons is incorrect, this 
challenge to the injunction is without merit." 

     Bishop Dixon's "decision is therefore final and binding, and it must be 
recognized as such by a civil court."

     "I continue to rejoice in the theological and biblical diversity of the 
Diocese of Washington. It has been my privilege to safeguard the doctrine, 
discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church as affirmed in this decision," 
said Dixon in a statement released by the diocese. "My prayer for all the people 
of Christ Church and St. John's Parish, Accokeek is that they can once again come 
together to do the vital work that we are called to do as Christians, to preach 
and live the Gospel of Jesus Christ." 

     Canonical quandaries

     Dixon refused Edwards' call as rector on the grounds that he was not "duly 
qualified" to be rector of the calling parish. She said she based her decision on 
reports of Edwards' teachings while executive director of the group Forward in 
Faith/North America (FIF/NA), including editorials calling ECUSA "the Unchurch," 
saying that ECUSA practices "institutionalized lawlessness," that the "machinery" 
of the Episcopal Church is "hell-bound" and advocating "gumming up the works," 
and another urging clergy and congregations to "sever their connections" with 
ECUSA. She also cited Edwards' "willingness to break certain solemn vows that he 
took at his ordination" as an Episcopal priest; his "unwillingness to guarantee 
his obedience" to Dixon as his bishop; and his "lack of commitment to keeping 
Christ Church and church property" in the Episcopal Church. 

     Edwards, his attorneys and the parish vestry claimed that Dixon's "right of 
advice and objection" to his call as rector was limited to the 30 days following 
notification. Edwards' attorney, Charles Nalls, said that Dixon did not respond 
to the vestry until "more than sixty days after the notification, thirty days 
after notification of the intent to contract and two weeks after the ratification 
of the clergy contract," according to a letter he sent to Dixon. 

     Canon III.17.2 specifies that no election for a rector may be held until the 
name of the priest being proposed is given to the ecclesiastical authority, who 
then has 30 days to respond. But the following section (III.17.3) states that "if 
the Ecclesiastical Authority be satisfied that the person so chosen is a duly 
qualified Priest and that the Priest has accepted the office," the election may 
be recorded as valid. The canon does not specifically state any restriction on 
the amount of time given to the ecclesiastical authority to respond once an 
election for rector is held, although Nalls maintained that another 30-day time 
limit is implied. 

     Nevertheless, Edwards took up residence in the parish rectory and functioned 
as a priest for 60 days without a license from the bishop, which is permitted by 
the canons. That term expired on May 25, 2001, and the following Sunday Edwards 
celebrated the Eucharist. When Dixon arrived for a later service, she was met at 
the door by vestry members who refused to allow her to officiate in the church. 
She was heckled at an alternative service hastily assembled at a nearby pavilion, 
and vestry members summoned county police to have Dixon and her supporters 
removed from the property as trespassers. Police declined to intervene. 

Suits and appeals

     Dixon filed suit June 25, 2001, in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, 
Maryland, asking that a federal judge prohibit Edwards from officiating at Christ 
Church and prohibit the vestry from barring her from "ministering to the 
congregation and performing episcopal acts there." The suit asked the court to 
declare Edwards' contract with the parish invalid, contending that the hiring 
over the objections of the bishop violates the 1798 Maryland Vestry Act, 
requiring that the appointment of rectors be subject to the canon law of the 
Episcopal Church. The suit also asserted that "all parish property is held in 
trust for the Episcopal Church and the diocese," while the vestry claims it holds 
the deed "in fee simple," direct ownership with an unrestricted right to the 
property. 

     In October 2001, Judge Peter J. Messitte declared the contract between the 
vestry of the parish and Edwards "invalid, null and void, unenforceable and 
without effect" and that under the Maryland Vestry Act, Edwards is "unlawfully 
using and occupying buildings and property" of the parish. He ordered Edwards and 
the vestry to "take no actions, directly or indirectly" to hinder Dixon "or her 
delegate" in officiating at services and presiding at meetings of the vestry and 
parish. Edwards was prohibited from officiating "on or near" the grounds of the 
church and from taking any action in the capacity of rector of the parish. 

     Edwards and his family vacated the parish rectory at the end of November 
2001, but he appealed Messitte's decision in January 2002. 

More decisions pending

     Edwards also faces presentment charges filed by a group of Washington clergy 
and partially sustained by the standing committee of the Diocese of Fort Worth. 
The presentment has been given to the Ecclesiastical Trial Court of the Diocese 
of Fort Worth, which is expected to try the case this summer. Presentment charges 
filed against Dixon in connection with the Accokeek case were dismissed in 
September 2001. 

     "With this decision, all parties involved have a tremendous opportunity to 
begin a very hopeful, healing process," said bishop-elect John Bryson Chane, who 
will be consecrated and installed as the eighth bishop of Washington in June, in 
a statement. "This healing will enable not only the members of Christ Church 
Accokeek, but also the Episcopal Church at large, to refocus our energies where 
they should be, affirming the mission of the church. That mission is to live into 
our unity as the body of Jesus Christ. I look forward, as the next Bishop of 
Washington, to this important work and welcome the opportunities for continuing 
this work of healing." 

     Edwards, his attorneys and the parish vestry have not yet announced whether 
they intend to appeal the latest court decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

--The Rev. Jan Nunley is deputy director of Episcopal News Service.