« | Back to main page | »
November 08, 2007
Pittsburgh Episcopal Diocese Votes to Leave the Church
By more than a two-to-one vote, members of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh voted Friday in favor of separating from the national church because of a theological rift that began with the consecration of an openly gay bishop in 2003.
Pittsburgh Episcopal Diocese Votes to Leave the Church
By SEAN D. HAMILL
Published: November 3, 2007
New York Times
JOHNSTOWN, Pa., Nov. 2 — By more than a two-to-one vote, members of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh voted Friday in favor of separating from the national church because of a theological rift that began with the consecration of an openly gay bishop in 2003.
The vote sets the stage for what could become a protracted legal battle between the diocese and the Episcopal Church U.S.A., which had warned Pittsburgh’s bishop not to go forward with the vote.
After passionate appeals from both sides of the debate, clergy members and lay people voted 227 to 82 to “realign” the conservative diocese.
If Friday’s vote is approved again in a year, the diocese will begin steps to remove itself from the American church and join with another province in the worldwide Anglican Communion.
After the vote, Bishop Robert W. Duncan of Pittsburgh, who is also moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, an alliance of conservative dioceses and parishes, defended the decision.
“What we’re trying to do is state clearly in the United States for the authority of Scripture,” Bishop Duncan said after the vote, taken during the diocese’s annual convention in this city about 50 miles east of Pittsburgh.
The vote was necessary, he said, because the more liberal bishops now in the majority in the national church “have hijacked my church, and that’s how most of the people here feel.”
Some who opposed separation said it would create nothing but chaos for the diocese.
“I think it was tragic,” said Joan Gunderson, president of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh and a lay deputy who voted against the resolution. “I’m concerned what will follow.”
A day earlier, the head of the Episcopal Church U.S.A., Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, sent Bishop Duncan a letter, warning him that he could face discipline and civil suits if he “committed canonical offenses” including overseeing approval of the resolution.
A spokesman for Bishop Jefferts Schori referred questions to the Rev. George Werner, president of the House of Deputies for the national church until last year.
“Katharine Schori is extremely clear,” Mr. Werner said. “If a diocese like this chooses to claim $30 million in trust funds and 70 churches, she’d be negligent in her duty to let them leave. She can’t back down.”
Mr. Werner was referring to the possibility that the diocese would try to retain control of its resources, buildings and land if it separates from the national church. Bishop Duncan said he was willing to face whatever action the national church takes.
“We may face more legal action, and I may face action myself, but it is clear from our leaders that they’re willing to pay the price of their position, and so am I,” he said.
Pittsburgh joins one other diocese, San Joaquin in Fresno, Calif., to have a preliminary vote to separate from the national church. San Joaquin’s annual convention is in December, when it could vote a second time to make its decision formal. At least one other diocese, in Fort Worth, is considering a similar preliminary vote.
In 2003, the Episcopal Church ordained an openly gay man, V. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire.
Posted by latimer at 10:12 AM | Comments (0)
November 02, 2007
US Presiding Bishop "reaches out" to bishops attempting to withdraw dioceses
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is making public a letter of warning that is being sent to a bishop who is actively seeking to withdraw his diocese from the Episcopal Church, and has stated that letters to other bishops will follow.
"In this way the Presiding Bishop is reaching out with open arms once more to those bishops contemplating realignments for their dioceses, while also warning them of the consequences should they choose to follow through with their proposed actions," said the Rev. Dr. Charles Robertson, Canon to the Presiding Bishop.
The full text of the first of these letters, addressed to Bishop Robert Duncan of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, is included below.
Presiding Bishop reaches out to bishops attempting to withdraw dioceses
By Jan Nunley, October 31, 2007
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is making public a letter of warning that is being sent to a bishop who is actively seeking to withdraw his diocese from the Episcopal Church, and has stated that letters to other bishops will follow.
"In this way the Presiding Bishop is reaching out with open arms once more to those bishops contemplating realignments for their dioceses, while also warning them of the consequences should they choose to follow through with their proposed actions," said the Rev. Dr. Charles Robertson, Canon to the Presiding Bishop.
The full text of the first of these letters, addressed to Bishop Robert Duncan of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, is included below.
In a private session of the Executive Council, meeting in Dearborn, Michigan, October 26-28, the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor, David Booth Beers, gave an extensive review of the state of property litigation and other legal issues and related disciplinary considerations confronting the Episcopal Church and articulated the policies of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori regarding those issues.
"This is hard. The concepts are hard," said Beers. "It is costly. And it requires a lot of pastoral care of those involved."
Beers talked about three types of situations confronting the church:
* When a group of congregants decides it no longer wants to be part of the Episcopal Church but intend to retain the church building and other parish assets;
* When a bishop and diocesan leadership determine to allow such a group to retain Episcopal Church property under certain circumstances;
* When a bishop and other diocesan leadership decide they no longer want to be part of the Episcopal Church.
In the first group of cases, Beers said, litigation has recently been successfully concluded in the dioceses of Missouri, East Carolina, and Rochester, while other court decisions in recent years favoring the Episcopal Church have been made in Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia, New York, and several other dioceses.
Favorable lower court decisions have been issued by a trial court in the Diocese of South Carolina and by an intermediate appeals court in three cases from the Diocese of Los Angeles. All of those decisions are being appealed. In Long Island, a decision is expected within a month in the case of a parish that sued the Episcopal Church and the diocese. Lawsuits are also pending in the Dioceses of Colorado, Connecticut, Northwest Texas, San Diego, and Virginia.
The Presiding Bishop has been asked to file an amicus brief in a lawsuit involving the Diocese of Colorado, where the dispute is complicated by the fact that the congregation's rector has been accused and found guilty by a diocesan court of embezzlement.
The lawsuit against a group of 11 breakaway Virginia groups is "robust" litigation, said Beers, which has raised interesting questions about the nature of the Anglican Communion itself.
Lawsuits could conceivably be forthcoming in Georgia, Nebraska, Northern California, Ohio, South Dakota, Southern Virginia and a few other dioceses, Beers said.
There have been several settlements, including one in Central New York, where the departing group promised not to invite a bishop from another Anglican jurisdiction until it had secured its own space.
Another settlement in the Diocese of Olympia is being revisited by the incoming bishop.
"What we do for the dioceses in these cases is to provide legal research and other materials such as expert statements, briefs, and advice on litigation strategy. Then we hold a conference with the bishop and other leaders of the diocese such as the chancellor and standing committee officers," said Beers. "We talk to them about what to do about the departing group, how to help those who remain with the Episcopal Church, what to do about the clergy involved, what to do if another Anglican bishop is involved, when it's best to settle, when to pursue litigation, and what works and what doesn't in litigation."
The costs are "heavy," said Beers, but national expenses generally have not exceeded those of some single dioceses in the church. By contrast, he said, it has been reported that the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) congregations in Virginia have spent at least $1 million to date on the pending litigation.
Beers predicted another year or so of lawsuits.
"The total number of parishes in active litigation is probably 20-25, at the outside," he said.
The second category of cases involves diocesan leadership negotiating with congregants who wish to leave with Episcopal Church property. Agreements have been made with congregations in Dallas, Kansas, Olympia, Quincy, Rhode Island, and Virginia.
Critical to these negotiations, in the Presiding Bishop's estimation, are the requirements that congregations not invite a primate or bishop from another province of the Anglican Communion to assume jurisdiction over the departing group and that the diocese be fairly compensated for the value of the real and personal property to be retained by the group of departing members.
And then there are the dioceses seeking to disaffiliate.
Beers stated that it is important for "the disciplinary process of the church to speak to the issues." Something like that has already been attempted with respect to Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin, after a group of California bishops claimed canonical violations when the diocese voted to take the first step to change its constitution in 2006 to qualify its agreement to submit to the Episcopal Church's Constitution and Canons. Article V, Section 1, of the Constitution says that a diocese's constitution must contain an “unqualified accession" to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.
If approved at its second reading slated for the upcoming December 7-8 convention, the diocesan constitution would delete all references to The Episcopal Church and state that the diocese is "a constituent member of the Anglican Communion and in full communion with the See of Canterbury."
If the Title IV Review Committee, which serves as a kind of "grand jury" in such cases, had determined that Schofield had abandoned the Communion of the Church under the terms of Canon IV.9, its decision would have begun a process that could have resulted in Schofield being liable to deposition and removal from office. But the committee agreed that the actions of the bishop at that time "did not constitute abandonment of the communion, as it is defined in the canon."
Appointed to the 2007-2009 Title IV Review Committee are Bishop Suffragan Bavi E. Rivera of Olympia, Bishop Suffragan David C. Jones of Virginia, Bishop C. Wallis Ohl Jr. of Northwest Texas, the Rev. Carolyn Kuhr of Montana, the Very Rev. Scott Kirby of Eau Claire, J.P. Causey Jr. of Virginia and Deborah J. Stokes of Southern Ohio. Causey, Kirby, Kuhr and Stokes served on the 2003-2006 Review Committee.
A charge of abandonment of the communion of the Episcopal Church is determined by vote in the House of Bishops. There is no appeal and no right of formal trial outside of a hearing before the House of Bishops. A proposed revision of Title IV would have changed that, but those provisions were not passed by General Convention 2006.
Of those dioceses considering "realignment," Springfield appears not to have yet acted, and Quincy declined in its recent diocesan convention to pass a proposed canonical revision.
Fort Worth's convention, meeting November 14-15,is set to consider the first reading of a constitutional amendment that would remove accession to the Constitution and Canons of the church, as well several canonical amendments that eliminate mention of the name of the Episcopal Church. Jefferts Schori intends to send a letter to Bishop Jack Iker, who advocates these changes, before the convention notifying him that such a step would force her to take action to bring the diocese and its leadership into line with the mandates of the national Church.
A similar canonical change is set to come before the Diocese of Pittsburgh's convention November 2-3, and Jefferts Schori has written to Pittsburgh's bishop in this regard (see link to letter cited above).
In December the Diocese of San Joaquin is scheduled to hear the second and final reading of its constitutional accession amendment, a proposed act that may prompt "more dramatic action" beforehand.
At some point, assuming that all these and other constitutional changes go forward, the Presiding Bishop could ask the Title IV Review Committee to consider whether the three diocesan bishops who have proposed and supported these changes have abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church.
Presentment charges were filed in 2005 against Connecticut Bishop Drew Smith, because he deposed a priest on the ground that he had abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church in rejecting the bishop's authority. The Title IV Review Committee upheld Smith's action, and Beers said the decision is "an important road map to where we are going."
If the Presiding Bishop were to present materials to the Review Committee regarding potential abandonment by the bishops in question, and if the Committee were to agree that abandonment had taken place, the bishops would have two months to recant their positions. If they failed to do so, the matter would go to the full House of Bishops.
If the House concurred, the Presiding Bishop would depose the bishops and declare the episcopates of those dioceses vacant. Those remaining in the Episcopal Church would be gathered to organize a new diocesan convention and elect a replacement Standing Committee, if necessary.
An assisting bishop would be appointed to provide episcopal ministry until a new diocesan bishop search process could be initiated and a new bishop elected and consecrated.
A lawsuit would be filed against the departed leadership and a representative sample of departing congregations if they attempted to retain Episcopal Church property.
"These are consequences, not punishments," Robertson said, "consequences that have long been clear, and are now being reiterated by the Presiding Bishop in the letters of warning. The goal is reconciliation, but also accountability."
Beers added, "The consequences can easily be avoided. But the Episcopal Church has the obligation to discipline its leaders under circumstances like this."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter from the Presiding Bishop to Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan
The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA
Dear Bob,
There have been numerous public references in recent weeks regarding resolutions to be introduced at your forthcoming diocesan convention. Those resolutions, if adopted, would amend several of your diocesan canons and begin the process of amending one or more provisions of your diocesan Constitution. I have reviewed a number of these proposed resolutions, and it is evident to me that they would violate the Constitutional requirement that the Diocese conform to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. It is apparent from your pre-convention report that you endorse these proposed changes. I am also aware of other of your statements and actions in recent months that demonstrate an intention to lead your diocese into a position that would purportedly permit it to depart from The Episcopal Church. All these efforts, in my view, display a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between The Episcopal Church and its dioceses. Our Constitution explicitly provides that a diocese must accede to the Constitution and Canons of the Church.
I call upon you to recede from this direction and to lead your diocese on a new course that recognizes the interdependent and hierarchical relationship between the national Church and its dioceses and parishes. That relationship is at the heart of our mission, as expressed in our polity. Specifically, I sincerely hope that you will change your position and urge your diocese at its forthcoming convention not to adopt the resolutions that you have until now supported.
If your course does not change, I shall regrettably be compelled to see that appropriate canonical steps are promptly taken to consider whether you have abandoned the Communion of this Church -- by actions and substantive statements, however they may be phrased -- and whether you have committed canonical offences that warrant disciplinary action.
It grieves me that any bishop of this Church would seek to lead any of its members out of it. I would remind you of my open offer of an Episcopal Visitor if you wish to receive pastoral care from another bishop. I continue to pray for reconciliation of this situation, and I remain
Your servant in Christ,
Katharine Jefferts Schori
-- The Rev. Jan Nunley is executive editor of Episcopal Life Media.
Posted by latimer at 10:54 AM | Comments (0)
November 01, 2007
UK Anglican parishes to ordain own clergy
Dozens of conservative parishes will start ordaining their own clergy in an open revolt against their bishops if the Church of England continues its liberal drift, the Archbishop of Canterbury has warned.
Anglican parishes to ordain own clergy
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
Last Updated: 3:01am BST 20/10/2007
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/18/nchurch118.xml
Dozens of conservative parishes will start ordaining their own clergy in an open revolt against their bishops if the Church of England continues its liberal drift, the Archbishop of Canterbury has warned.
Dr Rowan Williams was told that evangelicals would increasingly defy Church rules and their own bishops by parachuting in outsiders to carry out irregular ordinations of "orthodox" candidates.
The warning came from Reform, a 1,700-strong evangelical network, which is setting up structures to allow it operate as a resistance movement within the Church.
The Rev Rod Thomas, Reform's chairman, said that members must prepare for "courageous action" as the Church became driven by an increasingly pro-gay agenda.
Speaking to the network's annual conference in London, he urged Dr Williams to withdraw the invitations he has issued to the liberal American bishops for next year's showcase Lambeth Conference.
"Failure to do this will seal the division of the Communion, end all idea of a covenant, leave the Archbishop's role in tatters and rapidly spread fractures through the Church of England," he said.
He claimed the pro-gay lobby in this country was likely to become more overt and persistent, citing the same-sex blessing reportedly conducted by the Anglican provost of Glasgow cathedral last month.
"As the formal Church institutions and councils become paralysed or dysfunctional we must get more serious about devoting time and money to the reforms we seek," Mr Thomas added.
"But the good news is that there has never been a better time to do this. Evangelicals are becoming clearer about the issues that have to be fought and more determined to do the fighting."
Posted by latimer at 11:05 AM | Comments (0)
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 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.
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)
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
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)
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)
March 29, 2007
Church must be 'safe place' for gay and lesbian people
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has said that the churches of the Anglican Communion must be safe places for gay and lesbian people. His comments come in a welcome to an interim report on the Anglican Communion's Listening Process
Archbishop of Canterbury - Church must be 'safe place' for gay and lesbian people
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has said that the churches of the Anglican Communion must be safe places for gay and lesbian people. His comments come in a welcome to an interim report on the Anglican Communion's Listening Process, a commitment to listen to the experience of homosexual people. Archbishop Williams warns that the challenge to create the safe space for their voices to be heard and for their dignity to be respected is based on a fundamental commitment of the Communion.
"The commitments of the Communion are not only to certain theological positions on the question of sexual ethics but also to a manifest and credible respect for the proper liberties of homosexual people, a commitment again set out in successive Lambeth Conference Resolutions over many decades. I share the concerns expressed about situations where the Church is seen to be underwriting social or legal attitudes which threaten these proper liberties. It is impossible to read this report without being aware that in many places - including Western countries with supposedly 'liberal' attitudes - hate crimes against homosexual people have increased in recent years and have taken horrifying and disturbing forms.
"No-one reading this report can be complacent about such a situation, and the Church is challenged to show that it is truly a safe place for people to be honest and where they may be confident that they will have their human dignity respected, whatever serious disagreements about ethics may remain. It is good to know that the pastoral care of homosexual people is affirmed clearly by so many provinces."
In his statement, Archbishop Williams paid tribute to the work of Canon Phil Groves and the team at the Anglican Communion Office involved in coordinating the Listening Process. The interim report, comprising summaries of the Communion's 38 Provinces' progress on the issue, can be found at www.aco.org/listening/reports/
The full statement follows:
"I am profoundly grateful to Canon Phil Groves and all at the Anglican Communion Office who have worked so hard to produce this preliminary account of what the Communion has done to honour its commitment at Lambeth 1998 to listen to the experience of gay and lesbian people. It is a commitment that has been repeated many times but it has not proved easy to set up an appropriate process that will involve the whole Anglican family.
"The sensitivities of this exercise are obvious. Social, cultural and legal contexts are very varied indeed. And in the present climate of the Anglican Communion, there is inevitably a suspicion either that this is just window-dressing, or that it is a covert programme for changing doctrine and discipline. Real - and mutual - listening is hard to achieve. There are contexts where it is difficult to find a safe place for gay and lesbian people to speak about their lives openly. There are contexts where people assume the debate is over. The report shows that listening is possible, but also that there is a great deal still to be done. The work continues, but we have a solid start here.
"The commitments of the Communion are not only to certain theological positions on the question of sexual ethics but also to a manifest and credible respect for the proper liberties of homosexual people, a commitment again set out in successive Lambeth Conference Resolutions over many decades. I share the concerns expressed about situations where the Church is seen to be underwriting social or legal attitudes which threaten these proper liberties. It is impossible to read this report without being aware that in many places - including Western countries with supposedly 'liberal' attitudes - hate crimes against homosexual people have increased in recent years and have taken horrifying and disturbing forms.
"No-one reading this report can be complacent about such a situation, and the Church is challenged to show that it is truly a safe place for people to be honest and where they may be confident that they will have their human dignity respected, whatever serious disagreements about ethics may remain. It is good to know that the pastoral care of homosexual people is affirmed clearly by so many provinces.
"I welcome this document as a valuable first stage in our collective response to the challenge that the last Lambeth Conference put before us, and I hope that it will be part of the 'deep and dispassionate'
study of issues in sexual ethics for which an earlier Lambeth Conference called."
Ends
___________________________________________________________________
ACNSlist, published by Anglican Communion News Service, London
Posted by latimer at 11:01 AM | Comments (0)
March 22, 2007
America Rebuffs Primates
22.03.07 - The American Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops has rejected a key element ofthe communiqué issued by the Primates at last month’smeeting in Tanzania, saying they will not accept a pastoral council that undermines their authority.
WEDNESDAY MARCH 21 2007 No: 65 www.churchnewspaper.com
CHURCH OF ENGLAND THE ORIGINAL CHURCH NEWSPAPER ESTABLISHED IN 1828
America Rebuffs Primates
By George Conger
www.churchnewspaper.com/cen_online
The American Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops has rejected a key element of the communiqué issued by the Primates at last month’s meeting in Tanzania, saying they will not accept a pastoral council that undermines their authority.
The Bishops yesterday released their “Mind of the House” resolution rejecting the pastoral provision of the Dar es Salaam plan, but claimed is not a complete rejection of the Primates’communiqué.
The rejection of the pastoral council plan by the House of Bishops, following closely upon the dismissal of the recommendations of the Panel of Reference by the Bishop of Florida earlier this month, leaves the Archbishop of Canterbury few options as the American church has rejected all of the structural mechanisms put forward to event a confrontation with the Global South.
The Bishops meeting took place at Houston from March 16-21, where they wrote a four-part resolution, extended an invitation to Dr Williams to visit the US, and released a statement attacking the Primates’ communiqué and outlining why they ould not accede to its emands.
While Dr Williams and the Primates asked the House of Bishops to respond to the Dares Salaam plan, the US bishops have attempted to step out of the line of fire, and have made their recommendations to the US church’s Executive Council — asking it to make the decision.
The four-part resolution affirmed the Bishops’ desire to be invited to the 2008 Lambeth Conference and to remain “part of the councils”
of the Communion; stated that the interpretation of the Preamble of the US Church’s constitution, which says that it is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion and in communion with the See of Canterbury, was a matter for the US Church alone to interpret; rejected the Dar esSalaam plan of pastoral careas “injurious” to the Episcopal Church; and pledged to find alternative ways of “meeting the pastoral concerns of the Primates.”
In a letter to Dr Williams,the bishops stated they believed there was an “urgent need for us to meet face to face” to discuss these issues and asked him to “join us a tour expense” at a meeting in the United States before the Sept 30 deadline set by the Primates’ communiqué.
However, the Rev Richard Kirker, Chief Executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, welcomed the Episcopal Church’s response.He said: “At last some sanity is breaking into the debate. There is an obvious realisation that the consequences of this pandering to the Puritans means an increasing hostility towards lesbian and gay people so clearly demonstrated by the Archbishop of Nigeria who is fiercely promoting anti-gay legislation in his country contrary to Scripture and all the decisions of Anglicanism over the last 30 years.
“The Archbishop of Canterbury has much to answer for. His decision to sell us down the river in the short term to buy time has back-fired - the Americans are having none of it and we hope he will now come to see his strategy has failed. "If the Americans are expelled from the Anglican Communion this will encourage those already bent on ourdestruction to persecute lesbian and gay people.”
The Episcopal News Service
www.dfms.org/3577_84198_ENG_HTM.htm
House of Bishops: Message to God's People
Spring House of Bishops Meeting
Camp Allen Episcopal Conference Center
Navasota, Texas
March 16-21, 2007
A Message to God's People...from the Bishops of the Episcopal Church
As we prepare for Easter and the joyous celebration of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, we send you greetings from Navasota, Texas where we gathered for the spring meeting of the House of Bishops. We represent fifteen sovereign nations, the fifty United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, and Micronesia bearing witness to the Gospel of Our Lord and the wonders of Christ's redeeming work in the world. We were reminded of the health and vitality of our Church as our new Presiding Bishop recounted her travels. We have experienced a sense of identity, clarity, and purpose in fulfilling our vocation as bishops. We were blessed by the presence of the Primate and the House of Bishops of the Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico. Together we discovered a growing unity as we seek the mind of Christ. Our meeting was marked by a spirit of thanksgiving and respect, lived in a rich rhythm of worship, work, study, and rest.
That spirit moved us deeper into our focus on mission for Christ. In that context we discussed the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the Primates' Communiqué, the draft Anglican Communion Covenant, as well as a number of other mission opportunities.
The central theme of the address by the Rev. Dr. Ian Douglas of the Episcopal Divinity School was that "the mission of the Church is to participate in the mission of God". This observation set the tone for our study and discussion of the MDGs. We gave special attention to the challenge of environmental sustainability, the theme of a presentation by Dr. John Pine of Louisiana State University who addressed the environmental implications of global climate change.
We heard from the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner and the Rev. Dr. Katherine Grieb, members of the Covenant Drafting Committee, each of whom brought a distinct perspective regarding the proposed Covenant. Their presentations, which are available on line, will inform further conversations as the drafting process continues prior to the Lambeth Conference of 2008.
Mission concerns received attention in a variety of workshops and presentations, including: the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast, Darkness into Day campaign, TEAM (Toward Effective Anglican Mission), TEAC (Theological Education within Anglican Communion), Bishops Working for a Just Society, issues facing returning military personnel from Iraq and Afghanistan and their families, as well as immigration and border issues viewed from both the United States and Mexican perspectives. The fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq was marked by a prayer vigil for peace. Then, in both formal and informal ways, members of the House expressed their strong desire to keep God's mission at the center of the life of the Church.
We also heard a well-documented report by the House of Bishops' Task Force on Property Disputes on the history and strategy of groups, including some in the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (NACDAP) and others, to remove congregations and church property from The Episcopal Church. This report will be made available at a later date. We commend it, once publicly available, to diocesan Standing Committees.
We had an extended and thoughtful discussion of the Communiqué from the Primates Meeting in Dar es Salaam, which represents the beginning of a longer process of response that will continue through the coming months.
It is our strong desire to remain within the fellowship of the Anglican Communion. The Primates' Communiqué, however, raises significant concerns. First among these is what is arguably an unprecedented shift of power toward the Primates, represented, in part, by the proposed "Pastoral Scheme." This proposed plan calls for the appointment of a Primatial Vicar and Pastoral Council for The Episcopal Church whose membership would consist of "up to five members; two nominated by the Primates, two by the Presiding Bishop, and a Primate of a Province of the Anglican Communion nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chair the Council." We believe this proposal contravenes the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Moreover, because it is proposed that this scheme take immediate effect, we were compelled, at this March meeting, to request that the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church decline to participate in this aspect of the Communiqué's requests. Nonetheless, we pledge to continue working to find a way of meeting the pastoral concerns raised by the Primates that are compatible with our own Church's polity and canons. We should note that our recommendation to Executive Council not to participate in the Pastoral Scheme, though not unanimously endorsed by this House, came at the conclusion of long and gracious conversation.
Finally, we believe that the leaders of the Church must always hold basic human rights and the dignity of every human being as fundamental concerns in our witness for Christ. We were, therefore, concerned that while the Communiqué focuses on homosexuality, it ignores the pressing issues of violence against gay and lesbian people around the world, and the criminalization of homosexual behavior in many nations of the world.
The Theology Committee of the House of Bishops was charged with the responsibility of developing a teaching guide for consideration of both the Primates' Communiqué and the proposed draft Covenant for the Anglican Communion. We anticipate this guide will be available by late May for use by bishops and dioceses in preparation for the September meeting of the House of Bishops.
The bishops unanimously affirmed a Mind of the House Resolution inviting the Archbishop of Canterbury and the members of the Primates' Standing Committee to meet, at a time of their choosing, with the House of Bishops.
As we prepare to celebrate the Paschal Mystery we call for your prayers for and commitment to God's mission of making all things new.
For we do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus' sake. (2 Corinthians 4:5)
Posted by latimer at 03:48 PM | Comments (0)
American Bishops Reject Primates' Ultimatum
The House of Bishops has declined to participate in a pastoral initiative designed by the primates to care for congregations and dioceses which for reasons of conscience cannot accept the episcopal ministry of their bishop or primate.
Bishops Reject Primates' Ultimatum
www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3146
The House of Bishops has declined to participate in a pastoral initiative designed by the primates to care for congregations and dioceses which for reasons of conscience cannot accept the episcopal ministry of their bishop or primate.
“We understand that the present situation requires intentional care for those within our Church who find themselves in conscientious disagreement with the actions of our General Convention,” the bishops said. “We pledge ourselves to continue to work with them toward a workable arrangement. In truth, the number of those who seek to divide our Church is small, and our Church is marked by encouraging signs of life and hope.”
The rejection was contained in one of three resolutions approved by the bishops on March 20. The resolutions were debated as part of a business session during the bishops’ annual spring retreat held March 16-21 at Camp Allen near Houston.
The bishops noted several times in the three resolutions that they desired to remain full members of the Anglican Communion. Only General Convention, however, can make decisions which are binding on The Episcopal Church. In their Feb. 19 communiqué, the primates asked the House of Bishops to respond on behalf of The Episcopal Church no later than Sept. 30. The bishops deferred the Church's response on the pastoral council to Executive Council.
The bishops listed five reasons why they considered the pastoral council and primatial vicar to be a bad idea. The pastoral council violates the canons which contain no provision for the primate to delegate authority. It would change the character of the “Windsor process.” It harkens back to a period of Colonialism from which The Episcopal Church was liberated. It replaces local rule by laity with a curial model.
“Most important of all it is spiritually unsound,” they said. “The pastoral scheme encourages one of the worst tendencies of our Western culture, which is to break relationships when we find them difficult instead of doing the hard work necessary to repair them and be instruments of reconciliation. The real cultural phenomenon that threatens the spiritual life of our people, including marriage and family life, is the ease with which we choose to break our relationships and the vows that established them rather than seek the transformative power of the Gospel in them. We cannot accept what would be injurious to this Church and could well lead to its permanent division.”
In the first resolution, the bishops said only General Convention can define the Church's relationship toward the Anglican Communion. In the second resolution, the bishops restated their desire to continue to participate in the life and work of the Communion and requested an urgent meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the primates standing committee.
“We believe that there is an urgent need for us to meet face to face with the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the primates’ standing committee, and we hereby request and urge that such a meeting be negotiated by the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury at the earliest possible opportunity,” they said. “We invite the Archbishop and members of the primates’ standing committee to join us at our expense for three days of prayer and conversation regarding these important matters.”
Posted by latimer at 03:28 PM | Comments (0)
February 25, 2005
North American Provinces suspended from Communion!
The Archbishops (also known as Primates) of the 38 Anglican Provinces worldwide have released their conference communique one day early with a forceful statement that reaffirms the authority of scripture in the life of our church and their commitment to resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference.
The Primates have essentially endorsed the direction set by the Windsor Report, describing Sections A & B of the report as "an authentic description of the life of the Anglican Communion". But more than that, they have firmly set forth the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 as the standard for Christian teaching on human sexuality. In declaring that it "should command respect as the position overwhelmingly adopted by the bishops of the Anglican Communion" they are "deeply alarmed that [it] has been seriously undermined by recent developments in North America."
It's paragraph 14 of the communique that contains the teeth:
Within the ambit of the issues discussed in the Windsor Report and in order to recognise the integrity of all parties, we request that the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference. During that same period we request that both churches respond through their relevant constitutional bodies to the questions specifically addressed to them in the Windsor Report as they consider their place within the Anglican Communion. (cf. paragraph 8)
It is all said very politely, I know. But it does follow paragraph 12 where the Primates declare that, while the North American churches (and ours?) continue in their present direction, "the underlying reality of our communion in God the Holy Trinity is obscured, and the effectiveness of our common mission severely hindered."
Or to translate that into ordinary language - "we consider you have a different God and a different Gospel, and until you sort it out (if you can, and we very much doubt that you can!) you best not hang around!" You might think my lanuage a bit exaggerated, but to refer to "our communion in God" in this way, is unieqivocally making this controversy a salvation issue.
For reaction in the secular media see this BBC report or the Sydney Morning Herald. Initial comment from various Anglican groupings can be found on Mainstream UK's homepage.
Let me leave you with this last observation: why did the New Zealand Bishop's Pastoral letter in response to the Windsor Report differ so markedly from that of the Primates? Were they reading the same document? And why were Bishop John Paterson and Dr Jenny Plane Te Paa (members of the Lambeth Commission who wrote the Windsor report) so up-beat in their interview for Anglican Taonga (and so dismissive of the views of conservative anglicans)? The contrast with the Primates Communique is startling! Perhaps you would like to make a comment?
Malcolm Falloon WardenPosted by latimer at 11:52 PM | Comments (0)