« September 2007 | Main | November 2007 »

October 31, 2007

C of E to empower foreign bishops

The Church of England is set to allow foreign archbishops to intervene in its affairs, secret papers reveal ... The proposals are part of a covenant or rule book of beliefs that has been endorsed by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

C of E to empower foreign bishops
Jonathan Wynne-Jones
Last Updated: 1:05am GMT 29/10/2007

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/28/nchurch128.xml

The Church of England is set to allow foreign archbishops to intervene in its affairs, secret papers reveal.

Under controversial plans being drawn up by the Church's bishops, leaders from Africa and South America would be able to take over the care of parishes in this country.

They threaten to end the historic power of bishops to have ultimate control over their dioceses because parishes could ask for overseas prelates to carry out important duties, such as leading ordination services.

The proposals are part of a covenant or rule book of beliefs that has been endorsed by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as a last ditch attempt to prevent the Anglican Church from splitting over gay clergy.

It is designed to stop provinces taking unilateral action and argues that Churches that defy traditional teaching should be asked to repent of their actions or face being expelled from the worldwide Communion. However, liberals have warned that these moves mark the most significant shift in the Anglican Church since the Reformation and could lead to a split in the Church of England.

They fear that the introduction of Papal-style laws would limit their freedom to make their own decisions and would empower traditionalist parishes to rebel against bishops.

The Rt Rev Tom Butler, the Bishop of Southwark, has already been challenged by his own clergy, who invited a South African bishop to perform "irregular" ordinations against his wishes.

In the American Church, which precipitated the current crisis by promoting the openly gay cleric Gene Robinson to be Bishop of New Hampshire, traditionalist parishes have broken with their liberal bishops and turned instead to Nigerian and Ugandan archbishops.

Such moves are not currently permitted in the Church of England, but the confidential document - seen by The Sunday Telegraph - says that "the issue of intervention in the affairs of other Anglican churches" needs to be addressed.

"This needs to maintain the principle that such interventions should not normally take place, whilst allowing for the possibility of properly authorised schemes of pastoral oversight involving bishops from other churches when these are required in extraordinary circumstances."

The House of Bishops paper, which is responding to the idea of an Anglican Covenant for the worldwide Church, also emphasised the need for a means to discipline provinces that refuse to toe the line.

This would ensure that "those who have erred are brought to repentance, healing and restoration", but adds that those who refuse to abide by the rule book will be effectively expelled from the communion. The Rev Rod Thomas, chair of Reform, a traditionalist group that is already preparing to bring in bishops from overseas, welcomed the move.

"This will have an impact in this country," he said. "If the House of Bishops can help to formulate a suitable solution to allow cross-border oversight it would address the problem of a Church that is unravelling. Splits between parishes and their bishops over issues of orthodoxy are likely to increase so this is an important development."

In Chelmsford diocese, the Rt Rev John Gladwin refused to allow Richard Wood, a trainee priest, to be ordained because Mr Wood said that he would not receive communion with the Bishop after ordination. Reform believes that oversight from overseas bishops would help solve this type of dispute.

Parishes that ask for oversight from overseas would need to have their request sanctioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The proposals have been drawn up by the Church’s Theological Group, chaired by the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, as its response to the Anglican Covenant. However, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, Bishop of Hulme, claimed that such a provision for traditionalists would lead to a split in the Church.

"We’ve already played into the hands of those who want oversight with the legislation for flying bishops for opponents of women priests, but the effect would be to create a para-church within the Church of England," he said.

"It would separate them [the traditionalists] off from the rest of the Church."

Posted by latimer at 01:25 PM | Comments (0)

October 26, 2007

A Response to the Joint Standing Committee's Report

In my view, the Joint Standing Committee’s Report has not adequately identified the actual position of the House of Bishops and therefore has underestimated the distance that remains between TEC and the rest of the Communion. Revd Malcolm Falloon

A Response to the Joint Standing Committee’s Report

In my view, the Joint Standing Committee’s Report has not adequately identified the actual position of the House of Bishops and therefore has underestimated the distance that remains between TEC and the rest of the Communion.

Same-sex Blessings
In regard to Same-sex blessings, the Primates were seeking to clear up an ambiguous situation between the authorisation of Public rites and tacit permission at the local level for same-sex blessings to continue. As the Primates wrote, “It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.”

The Report indicates that this request has been met. However, the House of Bishops themselves state that a significant minority of Bishops, while not authorising such rites, do make “allowance” for such blessings. In their words, “the majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessings of same-sex unions.” This clearly implies that while most “do not” a significant minority indicates that there is no new move from the House of Bishops to withdraw permission for such rites or to discipline any fellow bishops who make “allowance” for such blessings.

The Report sees this as acceptable under the provision of “a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.” quoting the Primates own words. However, this is exactly where the House of Bishops needed to clarify their position. Do they see “individual pastoral care” as involving same-sex blessings, or not? In addition, the Primates in no way intended “individual pastoral care” to involve the local provision of same-sex blessings. Instead, along with the Windsor Report, they called for a moratorium on all such public rites.

Consequently, the Report has failed to identity that a most serious division remains between the House of Bishops and the rest of the Communion.

Consecration of Bishops in sexual relationships outside of marriage
In regard to the consecration of Bishops, it is frustrating in the extreme the way in which the House of Bishops first hides behind the constitutional requirements of their General Convention and then, when it suits, to stand on the freedom of their episcopal consciences to follow the truth as they see it. As an example (and perhaps the true source of all our present Communion issues), the Bishops were happy to ignore the General Convention in 1979 when the Convention decided that the ordination of practising homosexuals was “inappropriate”. Instead, the Bishops deliberately flaunted the General Convention declaring that it was their “apostolic leadership and prophetic witness” to do so.

In regard to the present situation, the House of Bishops had plenty of opportunity to consider wording that would have unambiguously complied with the Primates request, but choose not to do so. Instead, they have retained the right to act prophetically should they deem it expedient.

Therefore, I have no confidence that the House of Bishops have responded adequately to the Primates and the Report is wrong in its conclusion that they have “clearly affirmed” the request of the Windsor Report.

Pastoral Issues and Incursions by Uninvited Bishops
The House of Bishops have refused the Primates offer to provide pastoral support for dissenting congregations and dioceses. Yet they still aggressively pursue congregations through the civil courts. I believe it is highly one-sided on their part to call for an immediate end to such interventions while not adequately making provision for dissenting groups within TEC. This shows an unwillingness to accept any accountability from the wider Communion. The Report looks to downplay the significance of this issue in a way that ignores the reality of the local situation.

Is there common ground?
The most unhelpful statement in the Report is its view that some common ground is emerging throughout the Communion. They quite wrongly conclude,

“The Communion seems to be converging around a position which says that while it is inappropriate to proceed to public Rites of Blessing of same-sex unions and to the consecration of bishops who are living in sexual relationships outside of Christian marriage, we need to take seriously our ministry to gay and lesbian people inside the Church and the ending of discrimination, persecution and violence against them.”

This “position” is not supported at all by the House of Bishops’ statement. For they conclude their statement by declaring,

“We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God’s children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church.”

While the Report speaks of “ministry to”, the House of Bishops proclaims, “participants in”. This is, of course, the very issue that is dividing the Communion! To imply that they are in any way equivalent statements is most unhelpful. It most certainly does not justify the confidence of the Report that the “Communion seems to be converging around a position”. In my view we are as divided as ever.

Conclusion
The House of Bishops continues to insist on governing its life on theological principles that are contested by the rest of the Communion. What the Communion seeks is an opportunity to openly discuss and critique these principles. That cannot happen while TEC proceeds with blessings, ordinations and consecrations of persons in same-sex relationships. The Windsor Report is essentially a call for actions to stop so that dialogue may begin. The Primates have valiantly tried to clarify with TEC whether they are prepared to follow this course. The Report says that they have and that the “Communion should move toward closure on these matters”. However, the statement of the House of Bishops does not support this conclusion. Nor does it support the view of the Report that common ground is emerging between TEC and the rest of the Anglican Communion.

Revd Malcolm Falloon
Warden
Latimer Fellowship

Posted by latimer at 01:58 PM | Comments (0)

October 23, 2007

Responding to the American House of Bishops

'... as Proverbs 18:17 says: ‘The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.’ Archbishop Peter Jensen

We have heard three weighty defences of the Joint Standing Committee’s response to the American House of Bishops’ Statement – from the Primate, from Canon Kearon, from Mr Fordham. These are men we trust as first-hand participants in the making of these documents.

However, as Proverbs 18:17 says: ‘The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.’ My difficulty with the Primate’s summary is that it omitted to account for the many and strong voices on the other side of this debate. Thus, we already have a negative statement on behalf of thirteen African primates. Since we have been invited to join a political process, we need to hear the concerns of those equally weighty witnesses who believe that the House of Bishops has failed to give the assurances for which it was asked. The political forces which are understandably pushing this forward as a decisive reply by the Americans and one which will lead to an outbreak of peace, are bound to be frustrated.

These are complex issues. You can get a sense of what I am saying by reading both the whole of the HOB statement and Bishop Mouneer's dissenting opinion. If it is true that the Americans have failed to deliver, you can see why this is the case. We are confronted with two great passions for a gospel. It is hardly an answer at all to the Primates: it’s really, passionately all about a gospel of inclusion. Most don’t regret what they have done – not for a moment. This is a missionary faith. Far from retreating, they hope that all will come to agree with them and they are making arrangements for this to happen.

Then read the pain and passion of Mouneer – who lives out the life of a Christian in Egypt and the Middle East, in places of difficulty such as we can only half imagine. Do you see why he is so impatient by his constant experience of what he must see as double-speech and fudging? He does not think that the Americans have given a straight answer at all. To him, the American position is the opposite of the Bible which gives him his faith. At its heart this is a contest over the authority and reading of scripture. It takes a brave person to think that the solemn, black-letter, Joint Committee document, is going to succeed in awarding all a prize and making all well again. The contest is too deep, the stakes are too high, and the events which have already occurred are too decisive. We are living in a new order.

Part of the distrust in the Communion at the moment is caused by the sense that we in the west have not been straight with our Communion partners, that we speak with deceptive lips. As I have listened to such significant Christian leaders as Orombi of Uganda and Mouneer of Egypt and Chew of Singapore, I have to say that they have reason to distrust us. We have said one thing and done another, not least in this whole business of the western sexual revolution. Now we are splitting hairs about words like ‘authorise’ and ‘public’ and ‘rite’. What Mouneer wants to know, I think, is whether American bishops have ceased permitting and encouraging the blessing of same sex unions in their diocese, by whatever method this may have come about. It seems clear to me from what has been said in the statement and afterwards that they have not.

The Primates specifically raise the question because of what they see as lack of clarity in American responses. They say that ‘At the heart of our tensions is the belief that The Episcopal Church has departed from the standard of teaching on human sexuality…by permitting Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions (Dar,17). They know that the General Convention has not made any provision for this practice, but they ‘believe that there is a lack of clarity…an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision…we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.’ (Dar, 21)

They knew already that there was no authorised provision for this practice, but there was talk of much local permitted liturgical blessings. This was the point also made by a special Committee of the Joint Standing Committee; ‘it is clear that the authorisation by any one bishop, diocese or Province, of any public Rite of blessing, or permission to develop or use such a rite, would go against the standard of teaching…’ (JSC,4). It is not the fact of permission giving as such, which I suppose all wise bishops do about a range of things. It is what is permitted.

You have Mouneer’s response to the House of Bishops. He is clearly exasperated by the American reply. Like our Primate, he attended. Unfortunately, tragically, his dissenting voice was not incorporated into the document. It came out afterwards. Archbishop Orombi declined even to attend: he thought that the whole process was flawed to start with. It was not what the Primates had wanted when they asked their questions.

How has the verdict of the Joint Standing Committee been received around the world? The Church of England Evangelical Council headed by Bishop Benn has dissented from it. Those American Bishops and Dioceses who have been planning to leave The Episcopal Church have not been stopped in their tracks. A large group of African Primates – representative of the people who posed the questions – have said, ‘on first reading we find it to be unsatisfactory. The assurances made are without credibility and its preparation is severely compromised by numerous conflicts of interest. The report itself appears to be a determined effort to find a way for the full inclusion of The Episcopal Church with no attempt at discipline or change from their prior position.’

Why this dissent from the Joint Committee? It would of course be best to have the whole Dar Es Salaam communiqué, but, failing that, here are the two questions which were put to the Americans for an answer by September 30th:

‘In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
1.make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their diocese or through General Convention (cf TWR, 143, 144); and
2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, 134);
Unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, 134).’

We only have time to look at the response to the first request. The wording of the reply certainly does not give the assurance that is sought. The Americans were asked to restrain General Convention from authorising a Rite of Blessing; they could do this, I am told, by exercising what amounts to a veto; but they undertake only to refrain ‘until General Convention takes further action’, a different proposition altogether. In fact the Primates used, and stressed the word unless, the Bishops replied with ‘until’. The difference tells us something about the enthusiasm of many Americans to see these developments agreed to. In short the different heart of the Americans and the different heart of their critics is not going to understand these words in the same way even if they were not ambiguous. This is not black-letter dispute over words.

The Primates already knew that no rite has been approved as yet by General Convention; the Americans observe that the majority of bishops ‘do not make allowance for the blessing of same sex unions.’ But that concedes the very point at issue. This is a practice allowed by some Bishops at least; perhaps many. The consequence is, then, if I understand the situation correctly, at least one American Bishop, though a believer in same-sex blessings, has now forbidden them occurring. He understood that even permitting them was not an option. But they will still occur elsewhere. Thus Bishop Chane of Washington is reported in Washington Window, his own newspaper, as saying, that, ‘the Diocese of Washington does not have an authorised rite for blessing same-sex relationships. However, he added that the statement passed by the bishops will allow for such blessings to continue in the Diocese.’

And here are the honest reflections of Bishop Gene Robinson on what has occurred. ‘Let me also state strongly that the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and the Primates misunderstood us when they stated that the HOB in fact “declared a moratorium on all such public Rites.” Neither in our discussions nor in our statement did we agree to or declare such a moratorium on permitting such rites to take place. That may be true in many or most dioceses, but that is certainly not the case in my own diocese and many others. The General Convention has stated that such rites are indeed to be considered within the bounds of the pastoral ministry of this Church to its gay and lesbian members, and that remains the policy of The Episcopal Church.’

I believe that this is what Canon Kearon was referring to when he spoke of the need for some episcopalian bishops to consider their position in the Communion. It already dents the modified rapture of the Joint Committee in saying, ‘The Communion should move towards closure on these matters, at least for the time being,’ It certainly justifies the response of Bishop Mouneer and others. The matter is not resolved.

But none of this is surprising. In the end, the matters at stake are theological, not legal; about the heart, not mere politics. Integral to the discussion is the authority and interpretation of the Bible. Scripture is the way in which God rules his church and we as Anglicans are committed to listening to scripture with unique attentiveness. We have learned from the American experience that the matter of human sexuality is never going to be regarded as a minor one. It goes to the heart of our humanity and God’s authority. I am sure that the American response was well-intentioned. But it has not yet healed the rift which opened as a result of their actions in 2003, because those actions arose from a way of looking at the world which most in the Communion believe to be unbiblical.

Posted by latimer at 12:59 PM | Comments (0)

October 19, 2007

The Next Twenty Years for Anglican Christians

"Crisis’, ‘schism’, ‘division’, ‘break-up’ – this has been the language of the last five years in the Anglican Communion. Again and again we have reached ‘defining moments’, ‘crucial meetings’ and ‘turning points’, only to discover that they simply lead into another period of uncertainty." By Archbishop Peter Jensen.

‘Crisis’, ‘schism’, ‘division’, ‘break-up’ – this has been the language of the last five years in the Anglican Communion. Again and again we have reached ‘defining moments’, ‘crucial meetings’ and ‘turning points’, only to discover that they simply lead into another period of uncertainty.

your.sydneyanglicans.net/senior_clergy/archbishop_jensen/articles/the_next_twenty_years_for_anglican_christians/

Uncertainty is now over. The decisive moments have passed. Irreversible actions have occurred. The time has come for sustained thought about a different future. The Anglican Communion will never be the same again. The Windsor process has failed, largely because it refused to grapple with the key issue of the truth. A new and more biblical vision is required to help biblically faithful Anglican churches survive and grow in the contemporary world.

Some have still set their hopes on the Lambeth Conference. But that is to misunderstand the significance of our time. It can no longer either unify Anglicanism or speak with authority. The invitations have gone to virtually all, and it is likely that some of those not invited will still attend as guests. There are faithful Anglican bishops who are not invited, and there are others who cannot be present in good conscience. The solemn words of the 1998 Conference were ignored by the American Church in 2003, and any authority which we may have ascribed to the deliberations of the Bishops has been lost permanently. Not surprisingly, Lambeth 2008 is not going to attempt a similar exercise in conciliar pronouncements. Why would it? There is no vision here.

The key defining moment on the liberal side was the consecration of Bishop Robinson of New Hampshire. At first it was hoped that this was a mere aberration, that it could be dealt with by returning to where we were. In fact it was a permanent action with permanent consequences. It truly expressed the heart-felt views of the greater part of the leadership of the American Episcopal Church. The only way in which steps can be retraced is by repudiating the action itself, a development impossible to contemplate. That was the year of decision for the American church, and the decision was made in the clear light of day. They knew what they were doing.

The American House of Bishops has now responded to the Primates. Many have seen in their pronouncements sufficient conformity to the request of the Primates to enable the Communion to continue on its way. I do not read their statement like that. I think that they have failed to meet the hopes of the Primates. But the significance of the document at this level hardly matters. The document taken as a whole makes the real issue abundantly clear. Sexual rights are gospel.

The Americans are firmly committed to the view that the practice of homosexual sex in a long term relationship is morally acceptable. Not only is it acceptable, it is demanded by the gospel itself that we endorse this lifestyle as Christian. They are prepared to wait for a short time while the rest of the Communion catches up. But they do not intend to reverse their decisions about this and they do intend to proclaim this message wherever possible. They want to persuade us that they are right, and that the rest of us should embrace this development. Here is a missionary faith.

The biblical conservatives and their allies in Africa and Asia knew this. They did not need to wait for the House of Bishops. They took irreversible steps to secure the future of some of the biblical Anglicans in North America. I say ‘some’, because it is often forgotten that faithful Canadian Anglicans are living in a Diocese where the blessing of same sex unions is diocesan policy. What if TEC has been judged to conform to the Primates wishes? The Diocese of New Westminster certainly has not. What is to be done for the orthodox in that Diocese? What will happen if British Anglicans follow this route? This sort of question shows why a new vision and further action will be needed.

The response of the Primates has involved the provision of episcopal oversight. This, too, has changed the nature of the Anglican Communion. From now on there will inevitably be boundary crossing and the days of sacrosanct diocesan boundaries are over. Anglican episcopacy now includes overlapping jurisdictions and personal rather than merely geographical oversight. If the sexual revolution becomes more broadly accepted elsewhere, so other Bishops will be appointed as they have been in the USA. This is the new fact of Anglican polity. How are these developments going to be incorporated into world-Anglicanism? What future should we be thinking of? Where is our vision for them? Hand-wringing is not the answer.

The aim of the Archbishop of Canterbury was to retain the highest level of fellowship in the Communion. He believed that truth will be found in communion, in inclusion rather than exclusion. From his point of view, an extended passage of time is vital. What matters for the Archbishop is not this Lambeth, but the next one and the one after that. Will those who have initiated this novelty relent and give up their commitments? Or will the objectors tire of their fuss and concede the point? Since the likelihood of the American church repenting of its action is remote, the hope must be that those who now protest will eventually weary of their protest and learn to live with the novelty of active gay bishops.

The Archbishop has revealed his hopes through a lecture on biblical interpretation, ‘The Bible Today: Reading and Hearing’. delivered in Canada in April 2007. In this lecture he addresses the very heart of the controversy, by challenging conservative interpretations of Romans 1 www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201 and John 14,
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014 and thus raising the issues of interpretation, human sexuality and the uniqueness of Christ as Mediator. He has signalled the importance of hermeneutics for our future. His lecture shows that there is an unavoidable contest about the meaning of the Bible in these crucial areas ahead of us. It is a challenge which must be met at a theological level. We may think that this whole business is about politics and border-crossing and ultimatums and conferences, but in fact it is about theology and especially the authority and interpretation of Scripture.

That leads to this fundamental conclusion. Those who believe that the American development is wrong must also plan for the next decades, not the next few months. There is every reason to think that the Western view of sexuality will eventually permeate other parts of the world. After all, it has done so spectacularly in the West, and the modern communication revolution has opened the way for everyone to be aware of what happens in New York, London, San Francisco and Brighton.

Thus the question before the biblically orthodox in the Communion is this: what new vision of the Anglican Communion should we embrace? Where should it be in the next twenty years? How can we ensure that the word of God rules our lives? How are we going to guard ourselves effectively against the sexual agenda of the West and begin to turn back the tide of Western liberalism? What theological education must we have? How can we now best network with each other? Who is going to care for Episcopalians in other western provinces who are going to be objecting to the official acceptance of non-biblical practices? The need for high level discussion of these issues is urgent.

As an initial step I look to the Global South leadership to call for another ‘Blast of the Trumpet.’ The ensuing consultation must start with the reality of where we are now, and look steadfastly to a future in which the bonds of Communion have been permanently loosened. It has to strengthen the fellowship by which churches will help each other to guard their theological good health while engaging together with the task of preaching the gospel to an unbelieving world.

In any case, the basic issue is no longer how can the communion be kept together. It is, within the Communion as it has now become, how can biblical Anglicans help each other survive and mission effectively in the contemporary world? The Africans have shown a commendable concern for this very issue and taken steps to assist the western church. They have recognised that the gospel sometimes divides and sometimes requires new and startling initatives. We must now all take the actions and do the thinking required to safeguard biblical truth, not merely in the West but throughout the Anglican world. To fail here, will be to waste the time and effort which has brought us to this fateful hour.

END

RichardKew writes:

I don’t think Abp. Jensen is asserting the need for looser ties within the Communion, what I think he is saying is that there has been such a radical change in the manner in which the Communion coheres that we now need to start asking and answering some significant questions of what we have traditionally taken for granted. When he asks what a “new vision” for the Communion should look like over the next 20 years he is, I think, inviting a creative and constructive debate.

So far there has been very little debate of this kind and a lot more finger-pointing than probably allows for any such debate. The bonds of affection that once held the Communion together are no longer there, and we are feeling around for alternatives. Electronic communications have allowed for global networks to develop that were unheard of just 12-15 years ago, and that raises all sorts of questions about how connection today reshapes catholic order. This is something I was thinking and writing about before it actually happened.

The Archbishop also raises vital theological issues, for behind his question “How are we going to guard ourselves effectively against the sexual agenda of the West and begin to turn back the tide of Western liberalism?” is the reality that our received theology and ecclesiology are the product of a milliennia-long era in which Christianity ruled the cultural roost in the West. We no longer do, so how do we create a biblical theology for an age in which we have either been sidelined or, worse, are being sent back to the catacombs?

Hurling abuse at one another is not going to engage the conversation that needs to take place, so I hope that we can get beyond this stage of the conflict and into the rebuilding necessary.

Posted by latimer at 12:53 PM | Comments (0)

Response to the New Orleans House of Bishops Statement

An answer, signed by amongst others, Archbisop Drexel Wellington Gomez, to the statement issued by the New Orleans HOB Statement
Anglican communion Institute Inc

Response to the New Orleans House of Bishops Statement

Written by Anglican Communion Institute
Friday, 05 October 2007
anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/116/1/

Response to the New Orleans House of Bishops Statement
With brief reflections on the report of the Joint Standing Committee

Introduction and Context
In July 2006, following the response of General Convention to the requests of the Windsor Report, the Archbishop of Canterbury said, "There is no way in which the Anglican Communion can remain unchanged by what is happening at the moment". In February 2007, the Primates at Dar concluded that "the response of The Episcopal Church to the requests made at Dromantine has not persuaded this meeting that we are yet in a position to recognise that The Episcopal Church has mended its broken relationships" and sought a further response with the warning that "if the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion". It is therefore unsurprising that last week, after the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church had met to seek to respond to the Primates, the Secretary General of the Communion wrote that "The Joint Standing Committee is also conscious that the very life of the Communion is standing at a crossroads at present".

The origins of this crisis can be traced back to the fact that, though overwhelmingly supported by the Communion's bishops at the 1998 Lambeth Conference (and subsequently repeatedly reaffirmed by the other Instruments of Communion) , Resolution I.10 on Human Sexuality has not been welcomed and indeed is widely ignored by a significant part of The Episcopal Church (USA) and, to a lesser extent, the Anglican Church of Canada. The Communion's rejection of "the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions" and the "ordaining those involved in same gender unions" represented a major call for restraint in TEC given its practice over almost two decades and the convictions of many of its leaders. The failure to heed the Conference's call led to increased tensions and the consecration of bishops for conservative American Anglicans (as part of AMiA) by two Anglican Primates in January 2000 which was strongly criticised by the then Archbishop of Canterbury and by the Primates at their Porto meeting of March 2000. It was, however, the actions of General Convention 2003 - in confirming the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire and recognising that "local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions" - that precipitated the current crisis, still far from resolution four years later.

The Primates met in an emergency meeting at Lambeth in October 2003, warned of the consequences of proceeding with the consecration and created the Lambeth Commission on Communion. This produced The Windsor Report a year later and its specific discussions and requests in relation to the American church focused on the past (an expression of regret), the present (provision for those opposed to General Convention's actions) and the future (a moratorium on same-sex blessings and further election and consecration of same-sex partnered bishops). These were received by the Primates at Dromantine in February 2005 (though with concern that more needed to be done to oversee protection of the orthodox minority, some of whom had formed the Anglican Communion Network, some of whom were leaving the American church to come under other Anglican jurisdictions) and by the ACC later that year.

The response of General Convention 2006 was considered by the Primates' Meeting in Tanzania in February 2007 and, though the apology for past actions was accepted, it was concluded that the provision for those faithful to Communion teaching was proving inadequate and a Pastoral Council and Pastoral Scheme was proposed in order to meet this deficiency and to bring greater order through an end to the increasing number of foreign interventions. The Primates were also dis-satisfied with GC's response in relation to the two moratoria and so sought further clarification from the House of Bishops of TEC by the end of September. The Bishops' response has now been published and is being considered by the wider Communion.

The House of Bishops' Response

The heart of the response relates to the three areas that have been central since at least the Windsor Report was published three years ago:

· present and future provision for those unable to continue their current relationship with TEC
· the request for a moratorium on same-sex blessings
· the request for a moratorium on same-sex partnered bishops

Taken in this order, and comparing with what has been asked for by the Communion through Windsor, the Primates (Dromantine-Dar) and ACC Nottingham, the most plausible reading is that the response moves from totally inadequate to barely adequate.

Pastoral Scheme and Pastoral Council
The bishops have clearly reaffirmed their earlier rejection of the Primates' proposals for an internal solution focussed on the Windsor Bishops and in co-operation with a Council involving representatives of the Primates. In its place they appear to be offering the long-standing DEPO proposal for parishes (which has proved unacceptable to the many who have left TEC since 2003 to come under foreign jurisdictions) and an extension of this for whole dioceses that now wish to distance themselves from the Presiding Bishop and General Convention's actions.

This alternative - unlike the Pastoral Scheme and Council - is in fact unacceptable to those most desirous of relief and, in consequence, has no hope of bringing an orderly end to the departures from and interventions in the province nor of enabling the return of those who have already left for oversight from other provinces to within a TEC recognised structure.

The report of the Joint Standing Committee, just published, identifies more specific dimensions of the proposed plan than have been made public thus far. If wider communion representation; consultation with and approval of the Primates; and other key features can be worked out, then there could be some way to make what has been referred to in vague ways in the New Orleans report come closer to what the Primates designed, after much hard work, at Dar es Salaam. Only something like this would be workable for the present and longer term. (See below).

Same-sex blessings

The bishops were asked by the Primates to make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention

The main reason for this (para 21) was the current confused state on the ground in TEC:

There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.

In response the bishops have pledged

not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action

The key differences here are that the pledge according to its plain sense:

1. is limited to authorisation and allows bishops to give permission as part of ‘local pastoral provision'
2. is limited to ‘public rites'
3. is able to be overturned by General Convention even without a new Communion consensus
The pledge represents, in fact, simply a renewal of that in the covenant that the bishops made back in March 2005 after the Dromantine Primates' Meeting.

Furthermore, rather than addressing their ‘ambiguous stance', the bishops confirm this is the reality - "the majority (emphasis added) of bishops do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions" - and appear, thereby, to justify exceptions on the grounds of the permitted "breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care".

Bishops in a same-sex union

Here the bishops have made the most significant clarification in acknowledging that the wording of the GC resolution (B033) included "non-celibate gay and lesbian persons" in its description of those whose "manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion".

There remains, however, a major weakness. They have simply stated that GC has called on them as bishops with jurisdiction to "exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate". The Primates asked them (emphasis added) to

confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent

Analysis of the various wordings considered by the bishops reveals they were aware of this distinction and had before them various wordings that would have given such a firm commitment. Their decision not to do so will not engender confidence that they have properly responded to the Primates in this area.

Assessment

Leaving aside the areas where the bishops are silent (e.g., recourse to law in property disputes and the importance of affirming "the Windsor Report as the standard of teaching commanding respect across the Communion (most recently expressed in Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference)"), the response, though showing some signs of progress, in our view falls short of what the Primates were seeking and for which many have hoped and prayed in recent months. It would appear that this most recent meeting of the House of Bishops had its most serious engagement yet with the reality of TEC's actions on the wider Communion and the gulf both within itself and between TEC and the mind of the Communion expressed through its Instruments. The bishops clearly made a valiant effort to find a form of words that would be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of its own members and also to the wider Communion. We commend the efforts of those at New Orleans to stop the drift of TEC away from the larger communion.

However, the flaws in its final response signal that when faced with a clear choice, the local audience was ultimately still more determinative than the global one and the demands of being an American denomination triumphed over the disciplines of belonging to the Church Catholic. Either a majority of bishops did not wish to do as they were clearly requested to by the Communion in order to repair the tear in the fabric of the Communion (the Windsor Bishops presented motions that would have enabled this) or, if they did, they did not wish to do so in a manner that would lead to dissent from those many bishops, clergy and laity in TEC who are conscientiously convinced that the demands of the gospel prevent acceptance of any moratorium on same-sex blessings or the ordination and consecration of those in such unions.

We completed this analysis and assessment before the appearance of that made by the Joint Standing Committee. Their assessment is far more generous than ours, and it certainly is more generous than that of the dissenting member of the Joint Standing Committee, Archbishop Mouneer Hanna Anis (see Ruth Gledhill, Times on Line, October 03, 2007). There are aspects of the assessment of the Joint Standing Committee that give cause for hope if in fact they are accurate accounts of the meaning of the response of the House of Bishops of TEC; indeed, in its more generous account of TEC's intentions it might serve to remind TEC of what the JSC (including the Presiding Bishop of TEC) identified as the standard accepted by the Bishops, when in future that standard is questioned, more clearly diminished, or ignored . The Joint Standing Committee report appears to hold, for example, that "exercise restraint" in approving persons for Episcopal Orders who are involved in a non-celibate relation with a person of the same sex means the same thing as a moratorium on such actions. They also believe, it seems, that the pledge not to approve public rites of blessing for same gender couples implies that blessings are not part of an appropriate pastoral response to gay and lesbian people. If such is the meaning of the House of Bishops of TEC then one must say that a great step forward has been taken. We will not know if indeed the response of the House of Bishops of TEC is as the Joint Standing Committee claims until there has been time to examine the report carefully and we see evidence that these positions are in fact those the bishops hold, and that they are being prosecuted in the various dioceses of TEC.

We also believe that there is some promise in the suggestions of the Joint Standing Committee about the provision of oversight for parishes and dioceses that feel a strong need to differentiate themselves from the actions and positions taken by the agents of governance of TEC and many of its Bishops, Priests, and Dioceses. The Archbishop of Canterbury; bishops from intervening dioceses; bishops in whose dioceses interventions have taken place; and Camp Allen Bishops all need to pursue the development of a pastoral scheme that meets the needs of those who feel a need for differentiation holds promise if the project is pursued diligently and with all possible speed. The issue that must be addressed is that significant numbers of Episcopalians feel a need for differentiation, and many of these do not want to leave TEC. We regard provision of an adequate pastoral scheme to be a matter of utmost importance and extreme urgency.

Having pointed to certain aspects of the report of the Joint Standing Committee that might provide a way to move ahead, we must close by saying that the more likely reading of the response of the House of Bishops of TEC suggests that, even if there are some steps in the right direction, a great distance remains between them and the wider Communion. The actions of TEC over several years now have created and confirmed that distance although, in God's providence, after each decision, the Communion has re-gathered at yet another crossroads to discern whether and how it can walk together. That task of discernment is now urgently required once more with the Lambeth Conference less than a year away and the covenant process (through which, all acknowledge, decisive decisions will have to be taken) still some way from fruition.

Unless those entrusted with oversight in the Communion are somehow enabled to discern the mind of Christ together, preferably through a gathering of the Primates with the Joint Standing Committee, there is now an even greater danger than before that this particular crossroads may lead to a large number of quite different paths being taken by provinces, dioceses and parishes. The tragic consequence of such a development would be that it may be many years before another crossroads is provided at which all those who have traditionally gathered together as constituent members of the Anglican Communion are able to meet in order to nurture their common mission, strengthen the bonds of affection and seek to find a common mind for our common life together as Anglican Christians.

The Anglican Communion Institute
Archbishop Drexel Wellington Gomez, Bishop Michael Scott-Joynt, Bishop N.T. Wright, Bishop Edward L. Salmon, Bishop John W. Howe, Bishop James Stanton, Christopher Seitz, Philip Turner, Ephraim Radner, Andrew Goddard

Posted by latimer at 11:20 AM | Comments (0)

October 18, 2007

UK Evangelical rebuff for US Bishops

THE LEADING evangelical umbrella group in the Church of England has given the thumbsdown to the recent statement from the US House of Bishops, and they have invited English dioceses to consider boycotting next year’s Lambeth Conference

www.churchnewspaper.com

CHURCH OF ENGLAND NEWSPAPER - DAILY DOWNLOAD EDITION - 15.10.07
Www.churchnewspaper.com/Get-CEN-Online.aspx

THE LEADING evangelical umbrella group in the Church of England has given the thumbsdown to the recent statement from the US House of Bishops, and they have invited English dioceses to consider boycotting next year’s Lambeth Conference.

The Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) emphasised
that they are committed both to the Church of England and the
Anglican Communion. However, they judged that the recent statement
from the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans fell short of the demands made on it by the Primates. In a statement they said: “We
believe TEC’s response does not meet the requests of the Primates
from Dar es Salaam, not merely for clarification but for repentance
and turning back from their clear intention to affirm same-sex blessings and the consecration of practising homosexuals to the
episcopate.”

They said that the American bishops had ‘continued to widen a
gap of their own making’. As a result the fabric of the Communion
is torn ‘almost beyond repair’. While they supported the proposed
Anglican Covenant, they said that the reaction from the American bishops showed that ‘this covenant may not hold’. And they went further. The contents of their statement showed, they claimed, that the US Church ‘has placed itself outside the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the Catholic Creeds’.

In an appeal to English dioceses, they said that those dioceses that
are linked with dioceses and provinces overseas should consult
with their companion dioceses about whether to attend the Lambeth
Conference. A number of dioceses, largely in Africa, have said that they may not attend the 10-yearly meeting of Anglican bishops. And last week the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali (pictured), revealed that if current arrangements stand, he might not be able to attend himself.

Sources have told The Church of England Newspaper that representatives from almost all the African Provinces have responded positively to their invitations to Lambeth, with the one exception being Uganda.

In their statement the CEEC said: “We prayerfully counsel Church of England bishops to consider whether in the light of TEC’s response they may wish to absent themselves.”

They added that the inclusive Gospel preached by Jesus was based on repentance, faith and the gift of the Spirit. “In effect TEC’s
approach to inclusiveness excludes the majority of Anglicans
from other provinces who are faithful to Biblical teaching. We
affirm as the will of God the biblical teaching that we are called
either to heterosexual marriage or celibacy.”

Posted by latimer at 10:43 AM | Comments (0)

October 16, 2007

Canada diocese backs gay blessing

A diocese of the Anglican Church in Canada has voted for the blessing of same-sex relationships in church. BBC News 15.10.07

"Bit by bit, we're going to end up having it without any of us knowing how it came about," he said. "By the time of the next national synod, it will be a fait accompli." The Star.com

Canada diocese backs gay blessing

By Robert Pigott
Religious affairs correspondent, BBC News
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7044569.stm

A diocese of the Anglican Church in Canada has voted for the blessing of same-sex relationships in church.

The vote, by a wide majority, sets back efforts to stem the disintegration of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

The Ottawa diocese was the first in Canada to consider the issue of gay blessing since June.

Then the governing body of the Canadian church decided to refuse dioceses the authority to offer such blessings for the sake of preserving church unity.

Even before the American Anglican church controversially ordained an openly gay bishop in 2003, a Canadian diocese, Vancouver, had sparked a crisis in the Communion by allowing church blessings for homosexual couples.

Since then the Communion has begun painfully to split apart, as traditionalists, who believe active homosexuality to be sinful, have tried to expel liberal churches.

Now the Ottawa diocese has voted to approve same-sex blessings, by 177 to 97 votes.

The decision is not binding, but it is further evidence that the liberal North American churches will not fundamentally change their approach to homosexuality, even if that were necessary to keep the Communion intact.

Synod Backs Gay Rights
Anglican church leaders in Ottawa vote to allow clergy to bless same-sex marriage, inflaming debate

Oct 14, 2007 04:30 AM
Stuart Laidlaw
Faith and Ethics Reporter
www.thestar.com/News/article/266657

The Ottawa diocese of the Anglican Church of Canada yesterday approved same-sex marriage blessings in a move sure to inflame a debate over gay rights that has pushed the communion to the brink of schism.

By a margin of 177 to 97, delegates to the diocese's annual synod in Cornwall approved a motion asking the local bishop to allow clergy "whose conscience permits" to bless same-sex unions.

Conservative church leaders immediately condemned the move.

"It goes to the very opposite direction to what the international church is calling for," retired Newfoundland bishop Donald Harvey, moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada, told the Star.

The worldwide Anglican Communion has been bitterly divided on the issue of same-sex marriage blessings since the appointment of the openly gay Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire in 2004.

The majority of Anglicans worldwide belong to conservative churches in developing countries, which have been pushing for a more orthodox approach to policy.

Harvey said yesterday's vote makes it more likely the Anglican Network will go ahead with a plan to join forces with several conservative U.S. Anglican groups trying to set up a new church along orthodox theological lines. The Anglican Network meets next month in Burlington to discuss the plan.

"This is a far deeper dispute than same-sex blessings," Harvey said.

Ron Chaplin, who introduced the motion at yesterday's vote, said he hopes the move does not inflame the debate around the issue.

"We in Canada and the United States need to do a better job of explaining what we are doing and why we are doing it," said Chaplin, people's warden at Ottawa's St. John the Evangelist Church.

At a press conference after the vote, Ottawa Bishop John Chapman said the final decision on whether to bless same-sex marriages rests with him. Chapman said he plans to consult with other bishops across Canada and internationally before deciding what to do.

The Ottawa diocese covers most of eastern Ontario and western Quebec, and has 142 congregations.

The Montreal diocese is scheduled to vote on a motion similar to Ottawa's next weekend. The actions of both dioceses will then be discussed at a meeting of the Canadian House of Bishops later this month in London, Ont.

Chaplin said he expects to see several dioceses across the country introduce similar motions at their annual synods over the coming year, and he expects most to pass.

Such votes, however, fly in the face of a vote at the national church's synod last June, where delegates voted down a plan to let local churches decide for themselves whether to bless same-sex marriages, Harvey said.

Despite that vote, he said, the Canadian church is clearly moving toward blessing same-sex marriages.

"Bit by bit, we're going to end up having it without any of us knowing how it came about," he said. "By the time of the next national synod, it will be a fait accompli."

Posted by latimer at 02:47 PM | Comments (0)

UGANDAN ARCHBISHOP: Episcopal Church Has Tossed The Faith Overboard

"The report is severely compromised, and the gross conflicts of interest it represents utterly undermine its credibility."
Archbishop of Uganda, Henry Luke Orombi

UGANDAN ARCHBISHOP: Episcopal Church Has Tossed The Faith Overboard
TEC has decided to walk apart. Dr. Williams is trying to wallpaper a cracked wall

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
10/8/2007
www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6858

The Archbishop of Uganda, Henry Luke Orombi told parishioners at the Church of the Apostles in Daphne, Alabama, recently that the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops behaved in New Orleans "arrogantly and with no repentance" and had squandered its last chance. "The House of Bishops has tossed the faith overboard," he told the Anglican congregation.

"Dr. Williams efforts to fix the crisis in the communion was like trying to wall paper a cracked wall," he told the former Episcopal congregation.

Orombi, leader of more than nine million Ugandan Anglicans, called for "unity" among those seeking a more faithful and orthodox expression of the Anglican tradition in North America. He urged those present to pray constantly for present and future leaders of the new reborn church.

Speaking for a number of overseas archbishops, Orombi said there was no need to be concerned about the possibility of Africa, Asian and South American archbishops setting up permanent enclaves in North America. "We regarded you as refugees, and brought you into our homes, but when you no longer need this shelter we shall send you home."

In a statement issued by the archbishop's office, Orombi ripped The Episcopal Church saying that it was "severely compromised" and that it had clarified its commitment to continue on their path to abandon the Biblical and historic faith of Anglicanism.

"They, in fact, have decided to walk apart, and we are distressed that they are trying to take the rest of the Anglican Communion with them.

"We cannot take seriously a statement from TEC that merely pledges 'as a body' to not do something. TEC betrayed the Anglican Communion when it elected and confirmed as bishop a divorced man living in a same-sex relationship. We were further betrayed when its Presiding Bishop [Frank Griswold] agreed to the Communique from the 2003 emergency Primates' Meeting that he deeply regretted the 'actions of the...Episcopal Church (USA),' and immediately proceeded to assert at a press conference that he would preside at that consecration." He then explained that the Primates believed their statement "as a body," but individual primates were free to disagree.

"Now, TEC has told us that they pledge 'as a body' not to 'authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.' We have every reason to believe that individual bishops will feel free to disagree and continue to permit blessings of same-sex unions in their dioceses, rationalizing it as part of the breadth of their pastoral response, and all the while denying their complicity. This is unacceptable.

"TEC has lost the right to give assurances of their direction as a church through more words and statements. They write one thing and do another. We, therefore, cannot know what they mean by their words until we see their meaning demonstrated by their actions.

"The report of the Joint Standing Committee to the TEC House of Bishops meeting represents precisely the reason I declined to attend. The report is severely compromised and further tears the existing tear in the fabric of our beloved Anglican Communion. It is gravely lamentable that our Instruments of Communion have missed the opportunity in this moment to begin the healing that is so necessary for our future.

"Our Dar es Salaam communique did not envision interference from the Communion in the American House of Bishops while they were considering our requests. Yet, members of the Joint Standing Committee met with Presiding Bishop Schori in the course of the preparation of their House of Bishops' statement in order to suggest certain words, which, if included in the statement, would assure endorsement by the Joint Standing Committee. Presiding Bishop Schori's participation in the evaluation of the response requested of her province is a gross conflict of interest. We wonder why she did not recuse herself.

"The report is severely compromised, and the gross conflicts of interest it represents utterly undermine its credibility."

Posted by latimer at 02:37 PM | Comments (0)

CAPA Bishops Communique Call for Covenant and Postponement of Lambeth

Thirteen CAPA Primates who make up the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA), meeting in Mauritius recently, concluded that an Anglican Communion Covenant was the only way to hold the Anglican Communion together and to guide it into the future. Lay and clergy delegates were also present.
VirtueonLine

CAPA Bishops Communique Call for Covenant and Postponement of LambethNews Analysis

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
10/12/2007
www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6893

Thirteen CAPA Primates who make up the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA), meeting in Mauritius recently, concluded that an Anglican Communion Covenant was the only way to hold the Anglican Communion together and to guide it into the future. Lay and clergy delegates were also present.

They also described the report of the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council delivered at the American House of Bishops in New Orleans recently as "unsatisfactory" concluding that that the assurances made were without credibility and its preparation severely compromised by numerous conflicts of interest. "The report itself appears to be a determined effort to find a way for the full inclusion of The Episcopal Church with no attempt at discipline or change from their prior position."

"We are convinced that what is at stake in this crisis is the very nature of Anglicanism - to understand it simply in terms of the need for greater inclusivity in the face of changing sexual ethics is a grave mistake. It is not just about sexuality but also about the nature of Christ, the truth of the Gospel and the authority of the Bible. We see a trend that seems to ignore the careful balance of reformed catholicity and missionary endeavor that is our true heritage and replace it with a religion of cultural conformity that offers no transforming power and no eternal hope."

The current situation is a twofold crisis for the Anglican Communion: a crisis of doctrine and a crisis of leadership, in which the failure of the "Instruments" of the Communion to exercise discipline has called into question the viability of the Anglican Communion as a united Christian body under a common foundation of faith, as is supposed by the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. Due to this breakdown of discipline, we are not sure that we can in good conscience continue to spend our time, our money and our prayers on behalf of a body that proclaims two Gospels, the Gospel of Christ and the Gospel of Sexuality.

They said the current situation is a twofold crisis for the Anglican Communion: a crisis of doctrine and a crisis of leadership, in which the failure of the "Instruments" of the Communion to exercise discipline has called into question the viability of the Anglican Communion as a united Christian body under a common foundation of faith, as is supposed by the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. Due to this breakdown of discipline, we are not sure that we can in good conscience continue to spend our time, our money and our prayers on behalf of a body that proclaims two Gospels, the Gospel of Christ and the Gospel of Sexuality.

The Anglican leaders urged a postponement of the Lambeth Conference next year, a position that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams refused to consider when confronted by this reporter with that question at the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans. Preparations were too far advanced for Lambeth to be postponed he said, acknowledging that Archbishop Peter Akinola (Nigeria) and other voices had called for such a postponement. The two-page statement released by the CAPA primates called for a special primates' meeting and a postponement of next year's Lambeth Conference.

"We believe that meeting together is essential if we are prayerfully to allow the Holy Spirit to work through our interactions and bring us to a common mind," the primates said.

Such a delay would allow them to review the actual response made by The Episcopal Church and to "finalize the Covenant proposal and set a timetable for ratification by individual provinces."

However there has been significant criticism that such a "covenant" would not offer a way forward for the communion largely because if it pleased conservatives, liberals would not endorse it and vise versa. Many orthodox Episcopalians and Anglican have expressed the view that the Articles of Religion written in 1801 by the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, are adequate as a basis for unity for the whole Anglican Communion.

The newly elected chairman of CAPA, the Most Rev. Ian Ernest, while a kinder, gentler leader than outgoing Nigerian Primate Peter Akinola has demonstrated that he is opposed to the innovations of The Episcopal Church. In August the Indian Ocean Archbishop assisted in the consecration of two missionary bishops to the United States in Kenya. In a statement issued on the final day of the CAPA meeting, Archbishop Ernest said unity "must never be at the expense of the truth of the Holy Scriptures that is the bedrock of our faith."

A priest from the Diocese of Harare blasted the CAPA leaders saying they should stand firm against homosexuality and not attend Lambeth next year.

The Rev. Morris Brown Gwedegwe wrote to VOL saying the Primates had not come out strongly enough against the liberal Episcopal Church and Church of England leaders. "I have serious objections to homosexuality based on our cultural beliefs, which are supported by Holy Scripture. What has gone wrong with our consciences? What is so special about the British and the Americans? The Bible condemns such practices. We Africans are being used as scapegoats. Please educate your fellow bishops that the wider road leads to hell."

Gwedegwe said Africans who say homosexuality is not an issue misses their fifth sense. "They have been brainwashed by the American dollar. We in the Diocese of Harare call on the new Chairman of CAPA, the Most Rev. Ian Ernest to stand for Africa. "We want you and us to be on the side of Jesus and not of man."

The priest, whose Central African province is splitting over the issue, said the American Bishops lied when they said there was no September 30, 2007 deadline calling for a stop to same sex blessings and homosexual ordinations. "The Primates resolved that in Dar es Salaam. When they went back to America, and debated the issue, they were busy preparing to elect the Rev. Tracey Lind, a lesbian, to be Bishop of Chicago. At the same time, whilst they were preparing for the New Orleans meeting of the HOB, Archbishop Rowan Williams was conducting a secret service for gay priests in England, all for the love of the dollar. Archbishop Williams has no morals. He has compromised himself on the Civil Partnership motion passed at the CofE General Synod." We Africans We are too soft, he said.

He urged the CAPA bishops to re-read again the Communique which read: "We are convinced that what is at stake in this crisis is the very nature of Anglicanism - to understand it simply in terms of the need for greater inclusivity in the face of changing sexual ethics is a grave mistake. It is not just about sexuality, but also about the nature and person of Jesus Christ, the truth of the Gospel and the authority of the Bible. We see a trend that seems to ignore the careful balance of reformed catholicity and missionary endeavor that is our true heritage, and seeing it replaced with a religion of cultural conformity that offers no transforming power and no eternal hope."

"If we are to go by this, your statement, then there is no need for African Bishops to go to the Lambeth Conference next year. I am concerned with the softness from our African Camp. We think and write very intelligent communiques, but action is always delayed. Let us move with speedily to God so our children will have a legacy to follow."

Canon Dr. Stephen Ayo Fagbemi, an African resident in Sunderland in the Diocese of Durham. England wrote VOL critical of the liberal Bishop of Botswana Trevor Mwamba who was present at the CAPA meeting, saying that the liberal bishop did not represent the mind of Africans regarding homosexuality.

"I was stunned and rather disappointed by his claim that 'Loud voices from Africa, aided by the "almighty dollar" and internet lobbyists, are distorting the true picture of what Africa's 37 million Anglicans really think about sexuality and the future of the Anglican Communion'. This is not only disparaging of those who speak with honesty on this issue, but is also false and demeaning to suggest that those who are opposed to the homosexual agenda in Africa do so because they are aided by the 'almighty dollar'. Such an accusation makes me wonder whether Bishop Mwamba's own position has been influenced by the 'almighty dollar' or 'sterling'.

"As an African I feel really insulted by this argument and wonder why any one would defend any position, however credible, because of financial inducement. Many Africans who have been unduly subdued by Western paternalism or imperialism need to be delivered of this mindset. They believe that you are not allowed to take a different position to your colonial masters or Americans because of their monetary influence."

Present in Mauritius were:

The Most Rev'd Peter J. Akinola, Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion)
**The Most Rev'd Justice Akrofi, The Church of the Province of West Africa
The Rt. Rev'd Philip Baji*, The Anglican Church of Tanzania
The Most Rev'd Fidele Dirokpa, Province de L'Eglise Anglicane Du Congo
The Most Revd Ian Ernest, The Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean
The Most Rev'd Emmanuel Kolini, L'Eglise Episcopal au Rwanda
The Most Rev'd Bernard Malango, The Church of the Province of Central Africa
The Rt Rev'd Trevor Mwamba*, The Church of the Province of Central Africa
The Most Rev'd Bernard Ntahoturi, The Anglican Church of Burundi
The Most Rev'd Benjamin Nzimbi, The Anglican Church of Kenya
The Most Rev'd Henry Orombi, The Church of the Province of Uganda
**The Rt Rev'd Johannes Seoka*, The Anglican Church of Southern Africa
The Rev'd Canon Dr. Sami Fawzy Shehata*, Diocese of Egypt *Representing the Province
** Absent during discussion of Communique due to travel schedule

Posted by latimer at 02:31 PM | Comments (0)

TEC response to Primates' Communique

TEC's 30 September 2007 Statement

The Episcopal Church
By Pat McCaughan and Mary Frances Schjonberg, September 25, 2007

www.ecusa.anglican.org/79901_90460_ENG_HTM.htm

After nearly a full day of deliberations, the House of Bishops on September 25 agreed overwhelmingly by voice vote to reiterate the 2006 General Convention Resolution B033 that said they would "exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion."

They also pledged not to authorize public rites for same-gender blessings "until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action," according to the response.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told reporters at a news conference following the conclusion of the meeting that bishops found "common ground to stand on … high ground. Not everyone is 100 percent happy with every word in this document, but we believe we have found a place that all of us can stand together -- at the foot of the cross."

The final statement adopted by the House of Bishops was sent immediately via email to the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, a spokesperson for the Anglican Communion said.

Intended to clarify General Convention Resolution B033, the document offered the strongest language thus far about interventions from overseas bishops in local dioceses. "We deplore incursions into our jurisdictions by uninvited bishops and call for them to end," the document said. It also called for "unequivocal and active commitment to the civil rights, safety, and dignity of gay and lesbian persons."

Its overwhelming passage indicated strong support for the leadership of Jefferts Schori, who received a standing ovation and sustained applause at the news she is approaching her one-year anniversary as presiding bishop and primate of the Episcopal Church. Bishops supported her plans for: episcopal visitors; communion-wide consultations; increased listening across the Anglican Communion and assisting in ways to invite the Bishop of New Hampshire to the Lambeth Conference in 2008.

Jefferts Schori praised the "remarkable work" of the bishops. "We have reaffirmed our firm desire to remain as full members of the Anglican Communion."
She emphasized that the meetings were carried out within a context of mission, outreach and transformation, noting that nearly $1 million was raised for Gulf Coast hurricane relief efforts and that bishops and their spouses painted, installed sheet rock, helped rebuild damaged homes and made other community connections. That spirit of connectedness and service infused the deliberations, she said.

Bishop Robert Fitzpatrick of Hawai'i, agreed. "It was non-adversarial and it was holy," he said of the efforts of the bishops to craft a statement that all could accept with integrity.

The conversations "were not a battle between right and left, but a discussion across a spectrum" with the main question being "what will the Episcopal Church be and how will we fit into the family of the Anglican Communion."

"It's not that you make a compromise; you live into your reality," he said. The resulting document represents the current reality of the House of Bishops "right down to the parsing of every word" and is an "honest portrayal of where we are without overstating any position," he said.

Former South Carolina Bishop Ed Salmon said that even though the process used to reach the final document did not acknowledge the "unconscious oppression of those who don't agree," the effort "represented significant progress in terms of the House of Bishops working together."

However, he said that the document did not directly address the Primates' Communiqué.

"I believe we have a problem in the Anglican Communion because we have a problem in the Episcopal Church," Salmon said, explaining that the problem is "symptomatically" about human sexuality, but "more deeply" about theological differences.

Still, Salmon said, he would do everything he could to make the statement work.

Bishop Caroline Tanner Irish of the Diocese of Utah, a diocese in which same-gender blessings have been offered as a pastoral response, said she would have to "unpack" the statement for the members of her diocese.

"I think putting [same-gender blessings] in the context of 'pastoral care' is the critical word," she said. She praised the House of Bishops for what she called the hard work and compromise offered by all the members.

"It was hard," she said. "We were doing very hard work. It required discipline and courtesy to each other."

Diocese of Texas Bishop Don Wimberly said that the bishops were "really sobered" by hearing from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council earlier in the meeting. It is one thing to "read reports" about what the rest of the Anglican Communion thinks about the actions of the Episcopal Church, he said, but it's another thing to sit face-to-face with people expressing those concerns.

"I'm going to support this," he said of the resolution, adding that the Episcopal Church would have to wait and see how the rest of the Anglican Communion will respond.

'Good and glorious work'
In other business, the bishops: updated reports of Designated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight or DEPO within their own dioceses; received information about an awareness campaign coinciding with Theological Education Sunday to, in accordance with General Convention Resolution B006, help avert the crisis in seminarian debt and counter its impact on attracting potential clergy.

Bishops also addressed anti-racism and antiwar issues, and urged the U.S. Congress to extend more assistance to the Gulf Coast for hurricane rebuilding efforts and also recognized the National Episcopal Health Ministries Network for organizing gifts of prayer shawls for bishops and spouses.

Jefferts Schori reported that she has visited 26 dioceses "in more than a perfunctory way and four others for just one event" within the past year. "Consecrations are not the only reason I come" for visitations, she told the gathering, adding that she likes to spend several days during visitations, face to face with clergy and laity, as well as "be present in some kind of public forum, not specifically church-related. You have the opportunity to say what would be most helpful, the possibilities are as broad as your imagination."

She told bishops "what's been most surprising to me about this ministry is the media interest," but added that it is a remarkable opportunity for evangelism and to talk about "the vitality and effectiveness and mission work in the Episcopal Church."

There is "good and glorious work that is going on in many, many, many places in this church. The conflict you read about in the headlines is not reality in 95 percent of this church."

-- The Rev. Pat McCaughan is senior associate for parish life at St. George's Church and Academy in Laguna Hills, California. She is also a correspondent for the Diocese of Los Angeles and Episcopal News Service. The Rev. Mary Frances Schjonberg is national correspondent for the Episcopal News Service. The Rev. Mary Frances Schjonberg is national correspondent for the Episcopal News Service.

Posted by latimer at 02:17 PM | Comments (0)