Episcopal Press and News
Federal Judge Hears Arguments in Dixon v. Edwards
Episcopal News Service. August 24, 2001 [2001-228]
Jim Buie, Freelance Writer, Washington D.C.
(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.