Saturday September 29th 2007, 10:28 pm
The statement from TEC Bishops amounts to no more than cynical window dressing. In an attempt to keep their place at the Anglican table, TEC Bishops have acquiesced only in the most formal way to the requests made by Anglican Primates at Dar es Salaam last February, while at the same time making quite clear they intend to pursue their liberalising agenda.It seems that those who are sympathetic to TEC’s position wish to keep all parties engaged in discussion, even though it is becoming increasingly evident that there is less and less common ground between TEC and orthodox Anglicans. However good the motives of some may be, the possibilities for compromise are now very limited. Furthermore we are deeply concerned that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s own position has now been seriously weakened. Recent press reports suggest that he has shown solidarity with gay activists in TEC by joining them in a service of Holy Communion and by preparing to preside at Holy Communion with a private group of gay activists within the Church of England in two months’ time. We are currently seeking clarification about this from the Archbishop.
We are facing an eleventh-hour crisis in the Anglican Communion; any suggestion that further discussion is the way forward is a failure to realise the imminence of the threat we face. What is needed now is firm, decisive leadership which clearly protects and promotes the Biblical Christian faith. It is around such a position that the Communion could unite. In practice this means that discipline should be applied to TEC. Any bishops involved in the consecration of Gene Robinson or who teach that such consecrations are acceptable should be dis-invited from the Lambeth 2008 conference.
Without such discipline, we fear that divisions within the Anglican Communion will become permanent, with very grave consequences for the Church of England herself. Many in the mainstream of the Church’s life will want to align themselves with orthodox believers and distance themselves from TEC. This will entail a review, and suspension of, current diocesan links with TEC. Where dioceses are unwilling to suspend such links, orthodox clergy and parishes will remain committed to the Church of England, but will find the case for seeking alternative forms of spiritual oversight increasingly attractive and in many cases overwhelming.
30th September 2007
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
News from the Diocese
Church Mergers: The congregation in Oxford will be receiving pastoral support from the rector in Greene. A priest asked me recenting about what will happen to Sherburne. Oxford and Sherburne have been linked churches in the past, but I can't say what the future plan for them is now. Anyone interested can contact the diocesan office.
Cursillo #48 Cancelled.
All is well in the Diocese of Central NY.
Cursillo #48 Cancelled.
All is well in the Diocese of Central NY.
Anglican Bishops Take First Steps to New Structure
COMMON CAUSE PARTNERSHIP SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACTS: PETER FRANK – 724–777–3246 ROBERT LUNDY – 770–595–6979
Anglican bishops from ten jurisdictions and organizations pledged to take the first steps toward a “new ecclesiastical structure” in North America. The meeting of the first ever Common Cause Council of Bishops was held in Pittsburgh September 25–28.
The bishops present lead more than 600 Anglican congregations. They formally organized themselves as a college of bishops which will meet every six months. They also laid out a timeline for the path ahead, committed to working together at local and regional levels, agreed to deploy clergy interchangeably and announced their intention to, in consultation “with those Primates and Provinces of the Anglican Communion offering recognition under the timeline adopted,” call a “founding constitutional convention for an Anglican union,” at the earliest possible date agreeable to all of the partners.
“We met deeply aware that we have arrived at a critical moment in the history of mainstream Anglican witness in North America. God has led us to repentance for past divisions and opened the way for a united path forward. To him be the glory,” said Bishop Robert Duncan, convener of the council.
The full text of the bishops’ joint statement follows:
Common Cause College of Bishops Statement
In the Name of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, to whom belong all might, majesty, dominion and glory.
We, the College of Bishops of the Common Cause Partnership, meeting together in Pittsburgh, September 25–28 in the Year of our Lord 2007, solemnly affirm this agreement.
In the grace, mercy and power of God, and in repentance for past disunity and disharmony, in thanksgiving for our full reconciliation in the Lord Jesus Christ, to give expression to our unity in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church as Anglicans in North America, and for the sake of our mission to extend the Kingdom of God, nurture faithful disciples through Word and Sacraments, seek the lost, and partner globally with other orthodox Anglicans, we hereby commit to do the following:
1.
In order to achieve greater unity and strengthen our partnership in the Gospel, we the undersigned commit ourselves to the Common Cause Partnership as set forth in the Articles of the Partnership (see Appendix 1).
2.
We declare clearly that we are taking this as a first step in the formation of the “separate ecclesiastical structure” in North America called for at Kigali in September, 2006.
3.
In consultation with those Primates and Provinces of the Anglican Communion offering recognition under the timeline adopted, we intend a founding constitutional convention for an Anglican union (see Appendix 2).
4.
Those presently-participating bodies which have not yet joined the Common Cause Partnership will decide at the next meeting of their legislative bodies, either to enter the Partnership or leave full membership in Common Cause, becoming observer bodies. It is expected that all presently-participating bodies will be able to enter the Partnership.
5.
We will work together on the regional and local levels and avail ourselves of the various ministries of the Common Cause Partners. We will deploy clergy interchangeably as outlined in the Articles of the Partnership. We are free to invite our fellow bishops in this College to share episcopal acts and our sacramental life.
6.
The College of Bishops will meet every six months in order to accomplish our stated objectives. The leading bishop of each Partner will serve on a Lead Bishops Roundtable, which may be expanded as they may determine. The Roundtable will advise us in matters referred to it (see Appendix 3).
7.
We are committed to the Great Commission. We will make disciples who make disciples and plant churches that plant churches, not resting until the millions of unreached souls in North America are brought to Christ, until all groups on the earth have indigenous churches firmly begun within them and our Lord returns in glory.
8.
We ask our Chairman to inform the Primates of the Anglican Communion of these commitments in the hope that our emerging common life will commend us to them as full partners.
Appendix 1
The Articles of The Common Cause Partnership
Article 1: Name
The Name shall be called the Common Cause Partnership (CCP).
Article 2: Basis
1. The CCP is a federation of Jurisdictions and Ministries in North America, known as Partners, which affirm the Covenant Declaration and the Theological Statement of the Common Cause Partners, which are attached to these articles. Each jurisdiction accepts one of the historic Books of Common Prayer as the primary standard for worship. The autonomy of the individual Jurisdictions and Ministries, and their constituent bodies, is in no way restricted or superseded by membership in the CCP.
2. The Jurisdictions and Ministries of the Common Cause Partnership at the time of its inception are the American Anglican Council (AAC); the Anglican Communion Network (ACN); the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA); the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC); the Anglican Province of America (APA); the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA); the Anglican Essentials Federation (AEF); Forward in Faith, North America (FIF/NA); and the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC).
Article 3: Tasks
The CCP has five tasks:
(1) Furthering mutual understanding of its Partners with a view to eventual union when deemed appropriate;
(2) Propagating the truths of the Gospel as articulated and practiced in the historic Anglican way;
(3) Taking appropriate public and private steps in common causes in order to speak with one voice and act in concert for the welfare and witness of its Partners;
(4) Pursuing a communal, charitable and organic relationship with the world-wide Anglican Communion; and
(5) Support planting congregations by Partners.
Article 4: The Leadership Council
The governing body of the CCP shall be the Leadership Council.
(1) The Leadership Council is empowered to conduct the current business of the CCP. It represents the CCP in its external relationships both nationally and internationally. It is also available to provide spiritual and practical counsel for the Partners. It decides on admission into the Common Cause Partnership.
(2) The Leadership Council consists of the chief officer of each Partner, plus one member of the clergy (in whatever order) and one lay person from each Partner. The Leadership Council shall elect annually the Moderator of the Partnership from among the chief officers of the Partners. The General Secretary and Treasurer shall be elected annually by the Leadership Council from among its clerical and lay members.
(3) The members of the Leadership Council shall be elected by the Partners they represent for a term of five years, subject to re-election. Upon the expiration of the term of office of a member of the Leadership Council whose membership is a consequent upon his holding office in a Partner, the Leadership Council is authorized to seat a replacement chosen by that Partner.
(4) The Leadership Council shall hold at least one meeting annually. The travel expenses for members shall be paid by the Partner which they represent.
(5) The General Secretary shall work in assistance to the Moderator of the CCP. He shall maintain communication between the CCP Jurisdictions and Ministries by appropriate means. He shall receive from the Partners regular reports about their status. He shall prepare the agenda for sessions of the Leadership Council and is responsible for keeping its minutes. With the Moderator, he is responsible for seeing that decisions taken are carried out, as well as for correspondence and the distribution of reports. An Assistant to the General Secretary may also be elected.
(6) The treasurer shall oversee the financial operations of the CCP, and shall submit regular financial reports on its financial standing.
(7) The Leadership Council may designate an Executive Committee to include, but not limited to, the Moderator, General Secretary, and Treasurer. The Leadership Council shall give the Executive Committee such authority as they deems appropriate.
Article 5: Partnership
(1) Any Jurisdiction or Ministry may apply for membership in the CCP if it supports and practices the principles stated in Articles 2(1) and 3. An application, in the form approved by the Leadership Council, shall be filed with an Admissions Committee appointed by the Moderator. The Admissions Committee shall examine the application and report to the Leadership Council for disposition. The application shall always include the following items:
a. A copy of the constitution (and canons) of the organization concerned.
b. A written report on its origin and historical developments.
c. A report on its present ministry to include:
i. The total number of congregations in North America.
(for the purposes of membership, a parish is defined as a self-supporting congregation with a full-time minister. All other congregations are defined as missions) ii. Contact information for the listed congregations. iii. Consecration information for all the bishops of the applying Jurisdiction or Ministry. iv. Current ecumenical relationships with other jurisdictions.
(2) Each member agrees to pay an annual membership fee to the Partnership treasury in an amount fixed by the Leadership Council.
(3) If a member ceases to follow the principles of Article 2, membership in the CCP can be terminated by a two-thirds vote of the Leadership Council.
Article 6: Communications Office
(1) The CCP may maintain and fund a communications office which would be responsible for the
creation and dissemination of informational materials for the CCP, and other communications duties as assigned by the Leadership Council.
Article 7: Mission Work
(1) In order to foster missionary cooperation among the Partners, a Mission Committee shall hold at least one working session each year. More sessions may be held, if necessary. The Committee shall consist of two representatives from each Partner appointed by its chief officer. The Chairman of the Committee shall be appointed by the Moderator of the CCP in consultation with the Leadership Council.
(2) The Mission Committee shall be available to provide coordination and assistance in forming and cultivating mission congregations begun by the CCP members, and shall make itself available to provide help in establishing corporations, administering an Anglican parish, finding supply clergy for holy days and seasons and fostering a greater sense of engagement in the mission of wider Anglicanism worldwide.
(3) The Mission Committee may nominate to the Leadership Council bodies engaged in fostering the mission of Anglican churches, both in North America and worldwide, for admission as CCP Mission Associates.
(4) Travel and accommodation costs for members of the Mission Committee shall be borne by the respective Partners they represent.
Article 8: Education
(1) In order to provide for the education of all its ministers, lay and ordained, an Education Committee shall hold at least one working session each year. More sessions may be held, if necessary. The Committee shall consist of no more than two representatives from each Partner member appointed by its chief officer. The Chairman of the Committee shall be appointed by the Moderator of the CCP in consultation with the Leadership Council.
(2) The Committee shall evaluate theological education standards for the Partners and make recommendations to the Leadership Council concerning guidelines for common theological examinations which may be used by the Partners of the CCP. The Committee shall also be responsible for providing and, if needed, producing materials for use in Christian education.
(3) The Education Committee may nominate to the Leadership Council bodies engaged in fostering the work of ecclesiastical education in the Anglican churches as CCP Education Associates.
(4) Travel and accommodation costs for members of the Education Committee shall be borne by the respective Partners they represent.
Article 9: Regulations
(1) Whenever possible, decisions shall be taken by consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, a three-quarters majority shall be sufficient for matters of general business. Elections to office shall be held by ballot, with a simple majority of votes cast being sufficient for election.
(2) A simple majority of its members shall constitute a quorum of the Leadership Council of the CCP for the transaction of business at any meeting.
(3) If a Partner makes a recommendation to change any of these articles, such motion shall be treated as general business as provided in the second sentence of Section 1.
(4) A decision to dissolve the CCP may be taken only by a four-fifths majority of the votes cast at a special Leadership Council meeting convened for that purpose.
(5) Partners are free to withdraw from the CCP by action of their own governing bodies at any time.
Article 10: Privileges
(1) As evidence of the union existing among the several Partners, a delegation of clergy and laity from each Partner may be sent to the legislative assembly of another Partner upon the latter’s invitation to take part in its deliberations.
(2) At the Consecration or Ordination of Bishops or other clergy of one Partner, the Bishops and Clergy of the other Partners may be invited to participate.
(3) The Clergy of the several Partners shall be entitled to officiate transiently in the congregations of other Partners, subject to the canonical requirements of these Partners, and shall also be eligible to hold a cure of souls in them, subject to the respective regulations of said entities.
(4) Communicant members of any Partner shall be received by a congregation of another Partner on presentation of a letter of transfer.
(5) Congregations of any Jurisdiction may transfer their membership to any other Jurisdiction on such terms as may mutually be agreed upon by the Jurisdictions.
(6) The Partners, recognizing the fact that they are working together in the same great cause on behalf of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and on the same basis, pledge each to the other their co-operation, compassion, support and prayers.
Article 11: Conciliation of Disputes
In recognition of the pledge set forth in Article 10, section 6, if a dispute arises between two or more Partners and such dispute cannot be resolved according to the biblical mandate of Matthew 18.15–17, the parties to the dispute shall submit circumstances and issues in dispute for conciliation as follows:
a. The Leadership Council shall choose three persons, at least two of whom shall be among its members, to serve as a mediation panel. The persons so appointed may not be in any way related to any party to the dispute by way of family connections, employment, or institutional affiliation.
b. The mediation panel shall assemble within three months of an appeal to afford the parties to the dispute opportunity to present evidence and arguments in support of their respective positions, and the panel shall deliberate as necessary to resolve the circumstances and issues thus presented. In all matters the panel shall seek first the reconciliation of the parties to the dispute; but if reconciliation is not possible it shall propose a non-binding solution to the parties within three months, which they shall be free to accept or reject.
c. No CCP Partner shall take any dispute to a Primate or Primates, nor shall any CCP Partner bring any dispute before any court of law or chancery, without first attempting in good faith to resolve the matter in accordance with the provisions of this article.
Proposed to the Partners
August 18, 2006
Revised 3–28–2007
Appendix 2 Timeline
A. College of Bishops organized: September, 2007
B. Theological Statement and Articles ratified by all Partners
C. CCP Leadership Council 1 (Article 4): week of December 3 or January 6 a. Organizing meeting b. Leadership elected c. Communications office created (Article 6) d. Committees named: i. Executive (Article 4) ii. Admissions (Article 5) iii. Mission (Article 7) iv. Education (Article 8) e. Additional task forces created: v. Prayer Book task force vi. Episcopate task force vii. Budget adopted
D. Province by province visitation and appeal for recognition of the “separate ecclesiastical structure in North America”
E. CCP Leadership Council 2: Advent, 2008 a. Reports and adoption of work from committees and task forces
F. Constitutional convention for an Anglican union held at the earliest possible date agreeable to all the Partners
Appendix 3
Issues for the Lead Bishops Roundtable:
Within the stated timeline, we intend to address the following items:
How we can best exercise our episcopate in common.
A Rule of Life for bishops.
The ways and means of a mutual review of candidates for bishop before consecration.
Common worship.
Stating and maintaining a common Anglican ethos.
How we will live together with bishops and congregations and dioceses that do ordain women and others that do not ordain women, affirming that we will not violate anyone’s conscience on this matter.
The relation of clergy and congregations to bishops. Will our dioceses be rigidly fixed or flexible, allowing for affinity-based arrangements?
The shape and nature of our common episcopal oversight. Will it be conciliar as it was in the early church and as it is maintained in some parts of the Orthodox churches and as it is reflected in some aspects of the Anglican Communion? Will it follow a more hierarchical model? Or will it be modeled after the Western institutional structures, such as the federation model, with which we have been familiar in The Episcopal Church?
Exploring ways to form a leadership “pipeline” from congregational life onward that will lead candidates to offer themselves for ministry, including ordination, in an expanding, mission-minded Church.
Exploring resources for the bishops’ care for clergy and their families, including burned-out clergy and clergy families in trouble.
Exploring with the seminaries of the Church how they can best serve us and how we can support them in our new mission context.
Exploring a Common Cause electronic newsletter, with the intention of incorporating the various newsletters of the Partnership members.
Exploring the standards, spiritual and moral, of ordained and lay leaders.
Consistent with resolutions of Lambeth Conference, seeking to draw continuing churches, not members of the Common Cause Partnership, into fellowship.
CONTACTS: PETER FRANK – 724–777–3246 ROBERT LUNDY – 770–595–6979
Anglican bishops from ten jurisdictions and organizations pledged to take the first steps toward a “new ecclesiastical structure” in North America. The meeting of the first ever Common Cause Council of Bishops was held in Pittsburgh September 25–28.
The bishops present lead more than 600 Anglican congregations. They formally organized themselves as a college of bishops which will meet every six months. They also laid out a timeline for the path ahead, committed to working together at local and regional levels, agreed to deploy clergy interchangeably and announced their intention to, in consultation “with those Primates and Provinces of the Anglican Communion offering recognition under the timeline adopted,” call a “founding constitutional convention for an Anglican union,” at the earliest possible date agreeable to all of the partners.
“We met deeply aware that we have arrived at a critical moment in the history of mainstream Anglican witness in North America. God has led us to repentance for past divisions and opened the way for a united path forward. To him be the glory,” said Bishop Robert Duncan, convener of the council.
The full text of the bishops’ joint statement follows:
Common Cause College of Bishops Statement
In the Name of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, to whom belong all might, majesty, dominion and glory.
We, the College of Bishops of the Common Cause Partnership, meeting together in Pittsburgh, September 25–28 in the Year of our Lord 2007, solemnly affirm this agreement.
In the grace, mercy and power of God, and in repentance for past disunity and disharmony, in thanksgiving for our full reconciliation in the Lord Jesus Christ, to give expression to our unity in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church as Anglicans in North America, and for the sake of our mission to extend the Kingdom of God, nurture faithful disciples through Word and Sacraments, seek the lost, and partner globally with other orthodox Anglicans, we hereby commit to do the following:
1.
In order to achieve greater unity and strengthen our partnership in the Gospel, we the undersigned commit ourselves to the Common Cause Partnership as set forth in the Articles of the Partnership (see Appendix 1).
2.
We declare clearly that we are taking this as a first step in the formation of the “separate ecclesiastical structure” in North America called for at Kigali in September, 2006.
3.
In consultation with those Primates and Provinces of the Anglican Communion offering recognition under the timeline adopted, we intend a founding constitutional convention for an Anglican union (see Appendix 2).
4.
Those presently-participating bodies which have not yet joined the Common Cause Partnership will decide at the next meeting of their legislative bodies, either to enter the Partnership or leave full membership in Common Cause, becoming observer bodies. It is expected that all presently-participating bodies will be able to enter the Partnership.
5.
We will work together on the regional and local levels and avail ourselves of the various ministries of the Common Cause Partners. We will deploy clergy interchangeably as outlined in the Articles of the Partnership. We are free to invite our fellow bishops in this College to share episcopal acts and our sacramental life.
6.
The College of Bishops will meet every six months in order to accomplish our stated objectives. The leading bishop of each Partner will serve on a Lead Bishops Roundtable, which may be expanded as they may determine. The Roundtable will advise us in matters referred to it (see Appendix 3).
7.
We are committed to the Great Commission. We will make disciples who make disciples and plant churches that plant churches, not resting until the millions of unreached souls in North America are brought to Christ, until all groups on the earth have indigenous churches firmly begun within them and our Lord returns in glory.
8.
We ask our Chairman to inform the Primates of the Anglican Communion of these commitments in the hope that our emerging common life will commend us to them as full partners.
Appendix 1
The Articles of The Common Cause Partnership
Article 1: Name
The Name shall be called the Common Cause Partnership (CCP).
Article 2: Basis
1. The CCP is a federation of Jurisdictions and Ministries in North America, known as Partners, which affirm the Covenant Declaration and the Theological Statement of the Common Cause Partners, which are attached to these articles. Each jurisdiction accepts one of the historic Books of Common Prayer as the primary standard for worship. The autonomy of the individual Jurisdictions and Ministries, and their constituent bodies, is in no way restricted or superseded by membership in the CCP.
2. The Jurisdictions and Ministries of the Common Cause Partnership at the time of its inception are the American Anglican Council (AAC); the Anglican Communion Network (ACN); the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA); the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC); the Anglican Province of America (APA); the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA); the Anglican Essentials Federation (AEF); Forward in Faith, North America (FIF/NA); and the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC).
Article 3: Tasks
The CCP has five tasks:
(1) Furthering mutual understanding of its Partners with a view to eventual union when deemed appropriate;
(2) Propagating the truths of the Gospel as articulated and practiced in the historic Anglican way;
(3) Taking appropriate public and private steps in common causes in order to speak with one voice and act in concert for the welfare and witness of its Partners;
(4) Pursuing a communal, charitable and organic relationship with the world-wide Anglican Communion; and
(5) Support planting congregations by Partners.
Article 4: The Leadership Council
The governing body of the CCP shall be the Leadership Council.
(1) The Leadership Council is empowered to conduct the current business of the CCP. It represents the CCP in its external relationships both nationally and internationally. It is also available to provide spiritual and practical counsel for the Partners. It decides on admission into the Common Cause Partnership.
(2) The Leadership Council consists of the chief officer of each Partner, plus one member of the clergy (in whatever order) and one lay person from each Partner. The Leadership Council shall elect annually the Moderator of the Partnership from among the chief officers of the Partners. The General Secretary and Treasurer shall be elected annually by the Leadership Council from among its clerical and lay members.
(3) The members of the Leadership Council shall be elected by the Partners they represent for a term of five years, subject to re-election. Upon the expiration of the term of office of a member of the Leadership Council whose membership is a consequent upon his holding office in a Partner, the Leadership Council is authorized to seat a replacement chosen by that Partner.
(4) The Leadership Council shall hold at least one meeting annually. The travel expenses for members shall be paid by the Partner which they represent.
(5) The General Secretary shall work in assistance to the Moderator of the CCP. He shall maintain communication between the CCP Jurisdictions and Ministries by appropriate means. He shall receive from the Partners regular reports about their status. He shall prepare the agenda for sessions of the Leadership Council and is responsible for keeping its minutes. With the Moderator, he is responsible for seeing that decisions taken are carried out, as well as for correspondence and the distribution of reports. An Assistant to the General Secretary may also be elected.
(6) The treasurer shall oversee the financial operations of the CCP, and shall submit regular financial reports on its financial standing.
(7) The Leadership Council may designate an Executive Committee to include, but not limited to, the Moderator, General Secretary, and Treasurer. The Leadership Council shall give the Executive Committee such authority as they deems appropriate.
Article 5: Partnership
(1) Any Jurisdiction or Ministry may apply for membership in the CCP if it supports and practices the principles stated in Articles 2(1) and 3. An application, in the form approved by the Leadership Council, shall be filed with an Admissions Committee appointed by the Moderator. The Admissions Committee shall examine the application and report to the Leadership Council for disposition. The application shall always include the following items:
a. A copy of the constitution (and canons) of the organization concerned.
b. A written report on its origin and historical developments.
c. A report on its present ministry to include:
i. The total number of congregations in North America.
(for the purposes of membership, a parish is defined as a self-supporting congregation with a full-time minister. All other congregations are defined as missions) ii. Contact information for the listed congregations. iii. Consecration information for all the bishops of the applying Jurisdiction or Ministry. iv. Current ecumenical relationships with other jurisdictions.
(2) Each member agrees to pay an annual membership fee to the Partnership treasury in an amount fixed by the Leadership Council.
(3) If a member ceases to follow the principles of Article 2, membership in the CCP can be terminated by a two-thirds vote of the Leadership Council.
Article 6: Communications Office
(1) The CCP may maintain and fund a communications office which would be responsible for the
creation and dissemination of informational materials for the CCP, and other communications duties as assigned by the Leadership Council.
Article 7: Mission Work
(1) In order to foster missionary cooperation among the Partners, a Mission Committee shall hold at least one working session each year. More sessions may be held, if necessary. The Committee shall consist of two representatives from each Partner appointed by its chief officer. The Chairman of the Committee shall be appointed by the Moderator of the CCP in consultation with the Leadership Council.
(2) The Mission Committee shall be available to provide coordination and assistance in forming and cultivating mission congregations begun by the CCP members, and shall make itself available to provide help in establishing corporations, administering an Anglican parish, finding supply clergy for holy days and seasons and fostering a greater sense of engagement in the mission of wider Anglicanism worldwide.
(3) The Mission Committee may nominate to the Leadership Council bodies engaged in fostering the mission of Anglican churches, both in North America and worldwide, for admission as CCP Mission Associates.
(4) Travel and accommodation costs for members of the Mission Committee shall be borne by the respective Partners they represent.
Article 8: Education
(1) In order to provide for the education of all its ministers, lay and ordained, an Education Committee shall hold at least one working session each year. More sessions may be held, if necessary. The Committee shall consist of no more than two representatives from each Partner member appointed by its chief officer. The Chairman of the Committee shall be appointed by the Moderator of the CCP in consultation with the Leadership Council.
(2) The Committee shall evaluate theological education standards for the Partners and make recommendations to the Leadership Council concerning guidelines for common theological examinations which may be used by the Partners of the CCP. The Committee shall also be responsible for providing and, if needed, producing materials for use in Christian education.
(3) The Education Committee may nominate to the Leadership Council bodies engaged in fostering the work of ecclesiastical education in the Anglican churches as CCP Education Associates.
(4) Travel and accommodation costs for members of the Education Committee shall be borne by the respective Partners they represent.
Article 9: Regulations
(1) Whenever possible, decisions shall be taken by consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, a three-quarters majority shall be sufficient for matters of general business. Elections to office shall be held by ballot, with a simple majority of votes cast being sufficient for election.
(2) A simple majority of its members shall constitute a quorum of the Leadership Council of the CCP for the transaction of business at any meeting.
(3) If a Partner makes a recommendation to change any of these articles, such motion shall be treated as general business as provided in the second sentence of Section 1.
(4) A decision to dissolve the CCP may be taken only by a four-fifths majority of the votes cast at a special Leadership Council meeting convened for that purpose.
(5) Partners are free to withdraw from the CCP by action of their own governing bodies at any time.
Article 10: Privileges
(1) As evidence of the union existing among the several Partners, a delegation of clergy and laity from each Partner may be sent to the legislative assembly of another Partner upon the latter’s invitation to take part in its deliberations.
(2) At the Consecration or Ordination of Bishops or other clergy of one Partner, the Bishops and Clergy of the other Partners may be invited to participate.
(3) The Clergy of the several Partners shall be entitled to officiate transiently in the congregations of other Partners, subject to the canonical requirements of these Partners, and shall also be eligible to hold a cure of souls in them, subject to the respective regulations of said entities.
(4) Communicant members of any Partner shall be received by a congregation of another Partner on presentation of a letter of transfer.
(5) Congregations of any Jurisdiction may transfer their membership to any other Jurisdiction on such terms as may mutually be agreed upon by the Jurisdictions.
(6) The Partners, recognizing the fact that they are working together in the same great cause on behalf of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and on the same basis, pledge each to the other their co-operation, compassion, support and prayers.
Article 11: Conciliation of Disputes
In recognition of the pledge set forth in Article 10, section 6, if a dispute arises between two or more Partners and such dispute cannot be resolved according to the biblical mandate of Matthew 18.15–17, the parties to the dispute shall submit circumstances and issues in dispute for conciliation as follows:
a. The Leadership Council shall choose three persons, at least two of whom shall be among its members, to serve as a mediation panel. The persons so appointed may not be in any way related to any party to the dispute by way of family connections, employment, or institutional affiliation.
b. The mediation panel shall assemble within three months of an appeal to afford the parties to the dispute opportunity to present evidence and arguments in support of their respective positions, and the panel shall deliberate as necessary to resolve the circumstances and issues thus presented. In all matters the panel shall seek first the reconciliation of the parties to the dispute; but if reconciliation is not possible it shall propose a non-binding solution to the parties within three months, which they shall be free to accept or reject.
c. No CCP Partner shall take any dispute to a Primate or Primates, nor shall any CCP Partner bring any dispute before any court of law or chancery, without first attempting in good faith to resolve the matter in accordance with the provisions of this article.
Proposed to the Partners
August 18, 2006
Revised 3–28–2007
Appendix 2 Timeline
A. College of Bishops organized: September, 2007
B. Theological Statement and Articles ratified by all Partners
C. CCP Leadership Council 1 (Article 4): week of December 3 or January 6 a. Organizing meeting b. Leadership elected c. Communications office created (Article 6) d. Committees named: i. Executive (Article 4) ii. Admissions (Article 5) iii. Mission (Article 7) iv. Education (Article 8) e. Additional task forces created: v. Prayer Book task force vi. Episcopate task force vii. Budget adopted
D. Province by province visitation and appeal for recognition of the “separate ecclesiastical structure in North America”
E. CCP Leadership Council 2: Advent, 2008 a. Reports and adoption of work from committees and task forces
F. Constitutional convention for an Anglican union held at the earliest possible date agreeable to all the Partners
Appendix 3
Issues for the Lead Bishops Roundtable:
Within the stated timeline, we intend to address the following items:
How we can best exercise our episcopate in common.
A Rule of Life for bishops.
The ways and means of a mutual review of candidates for bishop before consecration.
Common worship.
Stating and maintaining a common Anglican ethos.
How we will live together with bishops and congregations and dioceses that do ordain women and others that do not ordain women, affirming that we will not violate anyone’s conscience on this matter.
The relation of clergy and congregations to bishops. Will our dioceses be rigidly fixed or flexible, allowing for affinity-based arrangements?
The shape and nature of our common episcopal oversight. Will it be conciliar as it was in the early church and as it is maintained in some parts of the Orthodox churches and as it is reflected in some aspects of the Anglican Communion? Will it follow a more hierarchical model? Or will it be modeled after the Western institutional structures, such as the federation model, with which we have been familiar in The Episcopal Church?
Exploring ways to form a leadership “pipeline” from congregational life onward that will lead candidates to offer themselves for ministry, including ordination, in an expanding, mission-minded Church.
Exploring resources for the bishops’ care for clergy and their families, including burned-out clergy and clergy families in trouble.
Exploring with the seminaries of the Church how they can best serve us and how we can support them in our new mission context.
Exploring a Common Cause electronic newsletter, with the intention of incorporating the various newsletters of the Partnership members.
Exploring the standards, spiritual and moral, of ordained and lay leaders.
Consistent with resolutions of Lambeth Conference, seeking to draw continuing churches, not members of the Common Cause Partnership, into fellowship.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
It's time to let Episcopalians go on their own
From DelawareOnline:
Posted Thursday, September 27, 2007
OPINION
Rhonda B. Graham
Contrary to the vibrant history of unity movements in modern-day Christianity, too many forget -- or refuse to accept -- that it is biblical to part company.
This is what the Episcopal Church in America needs to consider, even had bishops from Third World dioceses not raided their corps to assume authority over disaffected conservative members.
On Tuesday, the American bishops rejected demands by leaders of the worldwide Anglican Communion -- of which the church is a member -- to roll back their liberal stance on homosexuality. The decision is reverberating with more talk of fracture within the communion and the Episcopal Church itself.
It's erroneous to entirely blame the current friction over ordination of gays and lesbians and blessing ceremonies that resemble marriage.
Backtrack to 1979 when church leadership updated the Book of Common Prayer, the fourth one since its first edition of 1790. The rage over alterations like combining three baptism rites into one, de-emphasizing the Ten Commandments and rearranging the Lord's Prayer widened the divide in the pews that had begun three years earlier when women were permitted ordination.
But when the denomination decided in 2003 to ordain its first gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who was living in a committed relationship, conservatives said enough is enough. They became rankled even more when Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was elected leader of the American wing last year.
African, and to a lesser extent Southeast Asian and Latin American, prelates raced to appoint American bishops and assume jurisdiction over congregations that wanted to leave as a result.
The heads, or primates, of Anglican provinces outside the United States have taken under their wings 200 to 250 of the more than 7,000 congregations in the Episcopal Church.
Robinson's consecration was the tipping point for both sides. It was an affront to many loyalists' idea of "ecclesiastical union." They were willing to live with church rules that barred ordination to gays and lesbians who were not celibate. They were willing to let congregations that disagreed to ordain homosexuals.
Gays and lesbian saw the consecration as a turning point in acceptance of their loyalty to church and spiritual worthiness to assume leadership roles.
But the bishops' move this week rejects the idea of a parallel structure for both sides to co-exist. They say it would compromise church autonomy.
You bet. At stake is control of millions of dollars in property held "in trust" by local congregations in a denomination that has seen its membership rolls steadily decline.
But what good is autonomy that is consistently ignored and challenged by both sides, which cite their varied interpretations of Holy Scriptures as their primary motivator?
The New York Times notes that several months ago, a sizable number of bishops would have argued for unity of the communion at almost any cost. Several bishops said that far fewer would do so now.
Parting may be sweet sorrow, but there are divides that make it necessary to disassemble rickety bridges. This best characterizes the relationship of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
A public unity that hides the fissures over hard-core beliefs that cut to the heart of principles that both sides hold dear is doomed.
The apostle Paul's row with Mark ended when the two bitterly disagreed over a missionary trip. They later embraced, although neither side ceded their original point of view.
The apostle and disciple understood what the modern Episcopal Church refuses to acknowledge: Unity with such serious division is not communion. It's hypocrisy.
Posted Thursday, September 27, 2007
OPINION
Rhonda B. Graham
Contrary to the vibrant history of unity movements in modern-day Christianity, too many forget -- or refuse to accept -- that it is biblical to part company.
This is what the Episcopal Church in America needs to consider, even had bishops from Third World dioceses not raided their corps to assume authority over disaffected conservative members.
On Tuesday, the American bishops rejected demands by leaders of the worldwide Anglican Communion -- of which the church is a member -- to roll back their liberal stance on homosexuality. The decision is reverberating with more talk of fracture within the communion and the Episcopal Church itself.
It's erroneous to entirely blame the current friction over ordination of gays and lesbians and blessing ceremonies that resemble marriage.
Backtrack to 1979 when church leadership updated the Book of Common Prayer, the fourth one since its first edition of 1790. The rage over alterations like combining three baptism rites into one, de-emphasizing the Ten Commandments and rearranging the Lord's Prayer widened the divide in the pews that had begun three years earlier when women were permitted ordination.
But when the denomination decided in 2003 to ordain its first gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who was living in a committed relationship, conservatives said enough is enough. They became rankled even more when Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was elected leader of the American wing last year.
African, and to a lesser extent Southeast Asian and Latin American, prelates raced to appoint American bishops and assume jurisdiction over congregations that wanted to leave as a result.
The heads, or primates, of Anglican provinces outside the United States have taken under their wings 200 to 250 of the more than 7,000 congregations in the Episcopal Church.
Robinson's consecration was the tipping point for both sides. It was an affront to many loyalists' idea of "ecclesiastical union." They were willing to live with church rules that barred ordination to gays and lesbians who were not celibate. They were willing to let congregations that disagreed to ordain homosexuals.
Gays and lesbian saw the consecration as a turning point in acceptance of their loyalty to church and spiritual worthiness to assume leadership roles.
But the bishops' move this week rejects the idea of a parallel structure for both sides to co-exist. They say it would compromise church autonomy.
You bet. At stake is control of millions of dollars in property held "in trust" by local congregations in a denomination that has seen its membership rolls steadily decline.
But what good is autonomy that is consistently ignored and challenged by both sides, which cite their varied interpretations of Holy Scriptures as their primary motivator?
The New York Times notes that several months ago, a sizable number of bishops would have argued for unity of the communion at almost any cost. Several bishops said that far fewer would do so now.
Parting may be sweet sorrow, but there are divides that make it necessary to disassemble rickety bridges. This best characterizes the relationship of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
A public unity that hides the fissures over hard-core beliefs that cut to the heart of principles that both sides hold dear is doomed.
The apostle Paul's row with Mark ended when the two bitterly disagreed over a missionary trip. They later embraced, although neither side ceded their original point of view.
The apostle and disciple understood what the modern Episcopal Church refuses to acknowledge: Unity with such serious division is not communion. It's hypocrisy.
Joint Statement on the Resolution of the House of Bishops
Three orthodox Anglican groups, the American Anglican Council, the Anglican Communion Network, and Forward in Faith North America, have issued a joint statement on the recently-concluded meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans.
The last seven days have been eventful ones for the worldwide Anglican Communion. The future of our 500–hundred year fellowship has been focused on The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops (HOB). The worldwide Anglican Communion has been looking for clarity, praying for unity, and searching for Christ and His will in our lives. Unfortunately, the HOB has failed the Communion; their continued ambiguity, questioning of basic Christian beliefs, and rejection of obvious Scriptural teaching has widened the gap between them and biblical Christianity.
The Primates’ Dar es Salaam Communiqué required that The Episcopal Church:
# End same-sex blessings at all levels.
# Confirm that no more non-celibate homosexuals will be consecrated bishop.
# Provide alternative Primatial oversight for those who do not agree with The Episcopal Church’s leadership.
# End all lawsuits against parishes and vestries.
To our disappointment, the House of Bishops (HOB) did not meet the request but offered a carefully crafted response that appears to comply but actually maintains the status quo.
# The HOB refused to address the widespread practice of same-sex blessings. Instead, they restated their long-standing position.
# The HOB clarified Resolution B033 as applying to “non-celibate gay(s) and lesbian(s) [among others]”; however, the bishops agree only, for now, to “exercise restraint.”
# The HOB rejected the Primates’ plan for pastoral oversight and offered their own inadequate alternative.
# The HOB ignored the request to end lawsuits against parishes and vestries. To this day, churches and individuals face litigation funded by The Episcopal Church, and guided by its chancellor.
# Fully half of the response is concerned with matters not raised by the Communion that nonetheless press forward The Episcopal Church’s agenda.
We, with others gathered in Pittsburgh for the Common Cause Council of Bishops, are committed to remaining within biblical Christianity even as The Episcopal Church once again has chosen to continue on its own tragic course. We trust that in the weeks and months ahead God will guide us and the entire Anglican Communion in continuing and deepening a faithful path forward.
Posted September 26, 2007
The last seven days have been eventful ones for the worldwide Anglican Communion. The future of our 500–hundred year fellowship has been focused on The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops (HOB). The worldwide Anglican Communion has been looking for clarity, praying for unity, and searching for Christ and His will in our lives. Unfortunately, the HOB has failed the Communion; their continued ambiguity, questioning of basic Christian beliefs, and rejection of obvious Scriptural teaching has widened the gap between them and biblical Christianity.
The Primates’ Dar es Salaam Communiqué required that The Episcopal Church:
# End same-sex blessings at all levels.
# Confirm that no more non-celibate homosexuals will be consecrated bishop.
# Provide alternative Primatial oversight for those who do not agree with The Episcopal Church’s leadership.
# End all lawsuits against parishes and vestries.
To our disappointment, the House of Bishops (HOB) did not meet the request but offered a carefully crafted response that appears to comply but actually maintains the status quo.
# The HOB refused to address the widespread practice of same-sex blessings. Instead, they restated their long-standing position.
# The HOB clarified Resolution B033 as applying to “non-celibate gay(s) and lesbian(s) [among others]”; however, the bishops agree only, for now, to “exercise restraint.”
# The HOB rejected the Primates’ plan for pastoral oversight and offered their own inadequate alternative.
# The HOB ignored the request to end lawsuits against parishes and vestries. To this day, churches and individuals face litigation funded by The Episcopal Church, and guided by its chancellor.
# Fully half of the response is concerned with matters not raised by the Communion that nonetheless press forward The Episcopal Church’s agenda.
We, with others gathered in Pittsburgh for the Common Cause Council of Bishops, are committed to remaining within biblical Christianity even as The Episcopal Church once again has chosen to continue on its own tragic course. We trust that in the weeks and months ahead God will guide us and the entire Anglican Communion in continuing and deepening a faithful path forward.
Posted September 26, 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
A Report on the New Orleans House of Bishops from Bishop Edward Salmon
In the interest of clarity, I would like to report to the clergy and people of the Diocese of South Carolina on the meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans. I am particularly concerned that you hear directly from me as the distortion in the media and on blogs is profound.
From my perspective this was probably the best meeting I have attended and at the same time the most painful.
I asked for and was granted permission to speak to the whole House beyond any contribution I made in the various debates.
The presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury was helpful in getting us to look at where we are as a Church and a Communion; and what that says about our ecclesiology.
Profound pain was experienced when members of the ACC Steering Committee and the Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East addressed the House. They told us how the decisions made by the Episcopal Church had affected their mission and ecumenical relationships destructively in their lands. It was a moving experience.
Just as devastating was the address from Bishop Jeffrey Steenson explaining why he was resigning his orders and becoming a Roman Catholic. We are good friends and have worked closely together.
We then had a report giving us the list of congregations leaving the Episcopal Church in part or whole for other Anglican jurisdictions and the names of these jurisdictions. A number of the clergy were well known to me. Even the loss of one because of our conflict is a painful matter for me at the end of my ministry. It is a matter of great sorrow.
In my address to the House, I said that I appreciated the hard work that had resulted in the document that was before us.
I also stated that I could not support it for the following reasons:
1. It did not respond as requested to the three points raised by the Anglican Primates in Dar es Salaam.
2. It did not provide alternative oversight that met the needs of those who asked for it.
3. It placed the condition that our responses must be in keeping with our Constitution and Canons. The chaos we are in requires tremendous grace, not law.
4. There is oppression of those not in agreement, often unaware to those responsible.
5. Statements by our leadership saying that 95% of the Church was doing well or that only a small percentage were affected makes discussion impossible. The Episcopal Church Foundation says we are in a systemic decline which is significant.
I believe that the impact of these days has produced the potential for us to move because this is the first time in my memory this has been revealed to the House face to face by members of the Communion. I am committed to continue to work for that day faithfully, but I cannot support the document for the reasons stated.
--The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., is acting Bishop of South Carolina
From my perspective this was probably the best meeting I have attended and at the same time the most painful.
I asked for and was granted permission to speak to the whole House beyond any contribution I made in the various debates.
The presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury was helpful in getting us to look at where we are as a Church and a Communion; and what that says about our ecclesiology.
Profound pain was experienced when members of the ACC Steering Committee and the Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East addressed the House. They told us how the decisions made by the Episcopal Church had affected their mission and ecumenical relationships destructively in their lands. It was a moving experience.
Just as devastating was the address from Bishop Jeffrey Steenson explaining why he was resigning his orders and becoming a Roman Catholic. We are good friends and have worked closely together.
We then had a report giving us the list of congregations leaving the Episcopal Church in part or whole for other Anglican jurisdictions and the names of these jurisdictions. A number of the clergy were well known to me. Even the loss of one because of our conflict is a painful matter for me at the end of my ministry. It is a matter of great sorrow.
In my address to the House, I said that I appreciated the hard work that had resulted in the document that was before us.
I also stated that I could not support it for the following reasons:
1. It did not respond as requested to the three points raised by the Anglican Primates in Dar es Salaam.
2. It did not provide alternative oversight that met the needs of those who asked for it.
3. It placed the condition that our responses must be in keeping with our Constitution and Canons. The chaos we are in requires tremendous grace, not law.
4. There is oppression of those not in agreement, often unaware to those responsible.
5. Statements by our leadership saying that 95% of the Church was doing well or that only a small percentage were affected makes discussion impossible. The Episcopal Church Foundation says we are in a systemic decline which is significant.
I believe that the impact of these days has produced the potential for us to move because this is the first time in my memory this has been revealed to the House face to face by members of the Communion. I am committed to continue to work for that day faithfully, but I cannot support the document for the reasons stated.
--The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., is acting Bishop of South Carolina
New York Times: Episcopal Bishops Reject Anglican Church’s Orders
By NEELA BANERJEE
Published: September 26, 2007
NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 25 — Bishops of the Episcopal Church on Tuesday rejected demands by leaders of the worldwide Anglican Communion to roll back the church’s liberal stance on homosexuality, increasing the possibility of fracture within the communion and the Episcopal Church itself.
After nearly a week of talks at their semiannual meeting in New Orleans, the House of Bishops adopted a resolution that defied a directive by the Anglican Communion’s regional leaders, or primates, to change several church policies regarding the place of gay men and lesbians in their church. But the bishops also expressed a desire to remain part of the communion, and they appeared to be trying to stake out a middle ground that would allow them to do so.
Still, up to five American dioceses led by theologically conservative bishops may try to break with the Episcopal Church and place themselves under the oversight of a foreign primate in the coming months, said the Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon, a conservative Episcopal strategist.
“We’ll have the chaos here increase as more individuals, parishes and dioceses begin moving,” Mr. Harmon said. “What will happen is that we will see more of the disunity here spread to the rest of the communion.”
In a voice vote, all but one bishop supported a resolution, called “A Response to Questions and Concerns Raised by Our Anglican Communion Partners.” Several conservative bishops who are considering leaving the Episcopal Church were not in attendance.
The resolution affirmed the status quo of the Episcopal Church, both theological conservatives and liberals said.
It states, for example, that it “reconfirms” a call to bishops “to exercise restraint” by not consenting to the consecration of a partnered gay bishop. It also says the bishops promise not to authorize “any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions.” Still, some bishops allow such blessings to occur in their dioceses. Both positions have been stated in past meetings of the governing body of the church, the General Convention.
The resolution also calls for an “immediate end” to the practice of foreign bishops’ consecrating conservative Americans to minister to breakaway congregations in the United States, a trend that church leaders believe undermines their authority.
The Bishop Martyn Minns of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, a prominent conservative group supported by the Archbishop of Nigeria, responded to the bishops’ resolution: “They’re offering business as usual. The communion asked them to make a change, to embrace the teaching of the communion about homosexuality, and there’s no change at all.”
The Anglican Communion in 1998 denounced homosexuality as incompatible with Scripture. Bishop Minns spoke from a meeting in Pittsburgh where he and leaders of as many as 50 breakaway groups were discussing how to cooperate and avoid further splintering.
Contrary to recent news reports that the conservatives were close to forming a unified new structure, Bishop Minns said there were no plans to announce the formation of a new Anglican body that would consolidate all the conservative groups that have broken with the Episcopal Church under one umbrella.
The dispute over homosexuality has simmered for at least 30 years, as part of a larger clash about biblical interpretations and primacy. Tensions worsened when the Episcopal Church consecrated an openly gay man, V. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.
At a February meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 36 primates of the Anglican Communion issued the directive on gay bishops and same-sex unions. They also demanded that the Episcopal Church create a parallel leadership structure to serve the conservative minority of Episcopalians who oppose the stance on homosexuality.
The communiqué held out the possibility of a diminished status for the Episcopal Church in the communion if it did not satisfy the primates’ demands.
In March, Episcopal bishops rejected the parallel structure, saying it would compromise church autonomy. At the time, the Episcopal bishops sent an urgent invitation to Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the communion’s spiritual leader, to meet with them in New Orleans, which he did last week, along with other Anglican leaders.
At a news conference in New Orleans on Friday, Archbishop Williams said that other Anglican leaders at this week’s meetings would be “reading and digesting what the bishops have to say” and would share their opinions with him. He said he would also talk to primates and others and then give his own opinion about what to do in the coming weeks.
Bishops in New Orleans said the Dar es Salaam communiqué galvanized them, despite their differing views on homosexuality, largely because of what they considered efforts by foreign primates to interfere in the life of the Episcopal Church.
The communiqué’s idea of outside oversight for dissident Episcopal dioceses and the recent consecrations of bishops to serve breakaway congregations violated most bishops’ notions of local authority and appropriate interactions among provinces of the communion, bishops said.
Some bishops said they have reconciled themselves to the fact that some kind of break in the Episcopal Church or the greater communion is inevitable. If several months ago, a sizable number of bishops would have argued for the unity of the communion at almost any cost, far fewer would do so now, several bishops said.
But others argued that the bishops had sought to prevent a split by agreeing not to ordain more gay bishops or to formalize rites for same-sex unions.
“I think they had a sense of what the communion needed to hear from them, and I think that they said it,” Jim Naughton, canon for communications and advancement of the Diocese of Washington, said of the bishops.
“We wanted to give the people working to hold the Anglican Communion together a useful tool to help them do that,” he added. “At the same time, we did not want to backtrack on our commitment to gay and lesbian Christians. It’s our sense that this resolution has accomplished that.”
Laurie Goodstein contributed reporting from New York.
Published: September 26, 2007
NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 25 — Bishops of the Episcopal Church on Tuesday rejected demands by leaders of the worldwide Anglican Communion to roll back the church’s liberal stance on homosexuality, increasing the possibility of fracture within the communion and the Episcopal Church itself.
After nearly a week of talks at their semiannual meeting in New Orleans, the House of Bishops adopted a resolution that defied a directive by the Anglican Communion’s regional leaders, or primates, to change several church policies regarding the place of gay men and lesbians in their church. But the bishops also expressed a desire to remain part of the communion, and they appeared to be trying to stake out a middle ground that would allow them to do so.
Still, up to five American dioceses led by theologically conservative bishops may try to break with the Episcopal Church and place themselves under the oversight of a foreign primate in the coming months, said the Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon, a conservative Episcopal strategist.
“We’ll have the chaos here increase as more individuals, parishes and dioceses begin moving,” Mr. Harmon said. “What will happen is that we will see more of the disunity here spread to the rest of the communion.”
In a voice vote, all but one bishop supported a resolution, called “A Response to Questions and Concerns Raised by Our Anglican Communion Partners.” Several conservative bishops who are considering leaving the Episcopal Church were not in attendance.
The resolution affirmed the status quo of the Episcopal Church, both theological conservatives and liberals said.
It states, for example, that it “reconfirms” a call to bishops “to exercise restraint” by not consenting to the consecration of a partnered gay bishop. It also says the bishops promise not to authorize “any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions.” Still, some bishops allow such blessings to occur in their dioceses. Both positions have been stated in past meetings of the governing body of the church, the General Convention.
The resolution also calls for an “immediate end” to the practice of foreign bishops’ consecrating conservative Americans to minister to breakaway congregations in the United States, a trend that church leaders believe undermines their authority.
The Bishop Martyn Minns of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, a prominent conservative group supported by the Archbishop of Nigeria, responded to the bishops’ resolution: “They’re offering business as usual. The communion asked them to make a change, to embrace the teaching of the communion about homosexuality, and there’s no change at all.”
The Anglican Communion in 1998 denounced homosexuality as incompatible with Scripture. Bishop Minns spoke from a meeting in Pittsburgh where he and leaders of as many as 50 breakaway groups were discussing how to cooperate and avoid further splintering.
Contrary to recent news reports that the conservatives were close to forming a unified new structure, Bishop Minns said there were no plans to announce the formation of a new Anglican body that would consolidate all the conservative groups that have broken with the Episcopal Church under one umbrella.
The dispute over homosexuality has simmered for at least 30 years, as part of a larger clash about biblical interpretations and primacy. Tensions worsened when the Episcopal Church consecrated an openly gay man, V. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.
At a February meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 36 primates of the Anglican Communion issued the directive on gay bishops and same-sex unions. They also demanded that the Episcopal Church create a parallel leadership structure to serve the conservative minority of Episcopalians who oppose the stance on homosexuality.
The communiqué held out the possibility of a diminished status for the Episcopal Church in the communion if it did not satisfy the primates’ demands.
In March, Episcopal bishops rejected the parallel structure, saying it would compromise church autonomy. At the time, the Episcopal bishops sent an urgent invitation to Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the communion’s spiritual leader, to meet with them in New Orleans, which he did last week, along with other Anglican leaders.
At a news conference in New Orleans on Friday, Archbishop Williams said that other Anglican leaders at this week’s meetings would be “reading and digesting what the bishops have to say” and would share their opinions with him. He said he would also talk to primates and others and then give his own opinion about what to do in the coming weeks.
Bishops in New Orleans said the Dar es Salaam communiqué galvanized them, despite their differing views on homosexuality, largely because of what they considered efforts by foreign primates to interfere in the life of the Episcopal Church.
The communiqué’s idea of outside oversight for dissident Episcopal dioceses and the recent consecrations of bishops to serve breakaway congregations violated most bishops’ notions of local authority and appropriate interactions among provinces of the communion, bishops said.
Some bishops said they have reconciled themselves to the fact that some kind of break in the Episcopal Church or the greater communion is inevitable. If several months ago, a sizable number of bishops would have argued for the unity of the communion at almost any cost, far fewer would do so now, several bishops said.
But others argued that the bishops had sought to prevent a split by agreeing not to ordain more gay bishops or to formalize rites for same-sex unions.
“I think they had a sense of what the communion needed to hear from them, and I think that they said it,” Jim Naughton, canon for communications and advancement of the Diocese of Washington, said of the bishops.
“We wanted to give the people working to hold the Anglican Communion together a useful tool to help them do that,” he added. “At the same time, we did not want to backtrack on our commitment to gay and lesbian Christians. It’s our sense that this resolution has accomplished that.”
Laurie Goodstein contributed reporting from New York.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
A Biblical Anglicanism for North America
From TitusOneNine and Stand Firm:
A total of 51 bishops and bishops-elect representing tens-of-thousands of Anglicans in North America are meeting together Sept. 25-28 in Pittsburgh , PA. The meeting of the first-ever Common Cause Council of Bishops brings together bishops and observers from the American Anglican Council, the Anglican Coalition in Canada, the Anglican Communion Network, Anglican Network in Canada, the Anglican Province of America, Anglican Essentials Canada, the Anglican Mission in the Americas, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, Forward in Faith North America and the Reformed Episcopal Church.
In welcoming the assembled bishops, the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Episcopal Bishop of Pittsburgh and convener of the gathering, said that before any unified orthodox Anglicanism could be expected to emerge in North America relationships among bishops and jurisdictions need to be reordered. "Our shortcoming is not 'right Faith.' Our shortcoming is 'right Order' and 'right Mission ,'" said Bishop Duncan.
Bishop Duncan went on to suggest that the bishops discuss a number of practical points that could contribute to building a more unified orthodox Anglicanism in North America . Among those points, he asked that the bishops agree to consult each other as they plant congregations, mutually review candidates for bishop before consecrations, share ministry initiatives instead of duplicating efforts, work actively together at the local level, and allow those ordained in one jurisdiction to function in all jurisdictions.
"Our theme for this Council of Bishops is 'Together in Mission : Restoring Confidence in an American Episcopate.' The whole world is watching. After speaking the truth to each other, we will need to speak the truth about what we have done - or not done - to the world," said Bishop Duncan.
The full text of Bishop Duncan's opening remarks follows:
A HISTORIC CONCLAVE
"Together in Mission : Restoring Confidence in an American Episcopate"
Welcome to Pittsburgh ! Welcome to the Common Cause Partnership Council of Bishops! Welcome to three days of worship, fellowship, teaching, sharing and incredibly hard work.
Welcome Bishops, Bishops-elect, Bishops-designate, Wives, Presenters, Intercessors, Staff, Friends. Welcome to Dr. George Hunter of Asbury Seminary, our keynote speaker tonight, and welcome to Prof. Justyn Terry of Trinity School for Ministry, our Scripture expositer for the next three mornings.
During the early hours of yesterday, the Lord reminded me of the word "conclave." Bishop's meetings are sometimes "with the key withheld," the literal meaning of the Latin root. Bishops gathering in conclave cannot come out until they have a successful result. While there will be no one "locking us in," the whole Anglican world is expecting something great of us in this meeting. They are expecting some "key" to unlock a more hopeful future. Let us not fail them, or our God.
RE-STRUCTURING RELATIONSHIPS
Most of our work here is behind closed doors. This is an intentional decision on the part of the seven lead bishops who did the planning: Bishops Ackerman, Grundorf, Harvey, Minns, Murphy, Riches and myself. We need to speak the truth to one another. We need to do some hard thinking and hard talking. The future of Anglicanism in North America is at stake.
On Trinity Sunday in 2004, the leaders of the first six (now ten) Partners wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury "signifying our commitment to make common cause for the gospel of Jesus Christ and common cause for a united, missionary and orthodox Anglicanism in North America."
The Primates of the Global South, writing from Kigali exactly one year ago, stated that the time had come for a "separate ecclesiastical structure in the United States [ North America ]." What we come together to do is to see whether we can so re-order the relationships among us that the way might be opened for such a structure to emerge.
Our shortcoming is not "right Faith." Our shortcoming is "right Order" and "right mission."
- Can we agree to interchangeability of those in holy orders?
- Will we work actively together at the local level?
- Will we consult with one another as we seek to plant congregations?
- Can we agree to mutual review of candidates for bishop before consecrations?
- Will we share ministry initiatives or needlessly duplicate efforts?
- Can we agree about appropriate ratios of bishops to congregations, attendance and membership?
- Would each one of us be willing to give up episcopal function for the good of the whole, were that in the best interests of all?
- Could each one of us become a missionary bishop over a growing Church?
Our theme for this Council of Bishops is "Together in Mission : Restoring Confidence in an American Episcopate." The whole world is watching. After speaking the truth to each other, we will need to speak the truth about what we have done - or not done - to the world.
Anglicanism appears to be failing in the West. We cannot answer for how others have failed, or are failing, but we must surely answer for what we do - or do not do - here in this place, in this conclave, wherein we hold the key.
WELCOME
Again the warmest of welcomes, for the most important of tasks. Almost upon us is Global Anglicanism's September 30th deadline for bishops in America to make response about "walking together" or "walking apart." It is to walking together that we are called, is it not? I am confident in the company gathered here and, above all, in the Lord who has called us. We are here to make common cause for the gospel of Jesus Christ, and here to make common cause for a biblical, missionary and united Anglicanism in North America . We have our work cut out for us, we whose highest calling is as servants of the servants of God, and God's servants all across the land very much have their eyes set upon us and upon this place for these days. May God's help be ours in abundance.
A total of 51 bishops and bishops-elect representing tens-of-thousands of Anglicans in North America are meeting together Sept. 25-28 in Pittsburgh , PA. The meeting of the first-ever Common Cause Council of Bishops brings together bishops and observers from the American Anglican Council, the Anglican Coalition in Canada, the Anglican Communion Network, Anglican Network in Canada, the Anglican Province of America, Anglican Essentials Canada, the Anglican Mission in the Americas, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, Forward in Faith North America and the Reformed Episcopal Church.
In welcoming the assembled bishops, the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Episcopal Bishop of Pittsburgh and convener of the gathering, said that before any unified orthodox Anglicanism could be expected to emerge in North America relationships among bishops and jurisdictions need to be reordered. "Our shortcoming is not 'right Faith.' Our shortcoming is 'right Order' and 'right Mission ,'" said Bishop Duncan.
Bishop Duncan went on to suggest that the bishops discuss a number of practical points that could contribute to building a more unified orthodox Anglicanism in North America . Among those points, he asked that the bishops agree to consult each other as they plant congregations, mutually review candidates for bishop before consecrations, share ministry initiatives instead of duplicating efforts, work actively together at the local level, and allow those ordained in one jurisdiction to function in all jurisdictions.
"Our theme for this Council of Bishops is 'Together in Mission : Restoring Confidence in an American Episcopate.' The whole world is watching. After speaking the truth to each other, we will need to speak the truth about what we have done - or not done - to the world," said Bishop Duncan.
The full text of Bishop Duncan's opening remarks follows:
A HISTORIC CONCLAVE
"Together in Mission : Restoring Confidence in an American Episcopate"
Welcome to Pittsburgh ! Welcome to the Common Cause Partnership Council of Bishops! Welcome to three days of worship, fellowship, teaching, sharing and incredibly hard work.
Welcome Bishops, Bishops-elect, Bishops-designate, Wives, Presenters, Intercessors, Staff, Friends. Welcome to Dr. George Hunter of Asbury Seminary, our keynote speaker tonight, and welcome to Prof. Justyn Terry of Trinity School for Ministry, our Scripture expositer for the next three mornings.
During the early hours of yesterday, the Lord reminded me of the word "conclave." Bishop's meetings are sometimes "with the key withheld," the literal meaning of the Latin root. Bishops gathering in conclave cannot come out until they have a successful result. While there will be no one "locking us in," the whole Anglican world is expecting something great of us in this meeting. They are expecting some "key" to unlock a more hopeful future. Let us not fail them, or our God.
RE-STRUCTURING RELATIONSHIPS
Most of our work here is behind closed doors. This is an intentional decision on the part of the seven lead bishops who did the planning: Bishops Ackerman, Grundorf, Harvey, Minns, Murphy, Riches and myself. We need to speak the truth to one another. We need to do some hard thinking and hard talking. The future of Anglicanism in North America is at stake.
On Trinity Sunday in 2004, the leaders of the first six (now ten) Partners wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury "signifying our commitment to make common cause for the gospel of Jesus Christ and common cause for a united, missionary and orthodox Anglicanism in North America."
The Primates of the Global South, writing from Kigali exactly one year ago, stated that the time had come for a "separate ecclesiastical structure in the United States [ North America ]." What we come together to do is to see whether we can so re-order the relationships among us that the way might be opened for such a structure to emerge.
Our shortcoming is not "right Faith." Our shortcoming is "right Order" and "right mission."
- Can we agree to interchangeability of those in holy orders?
- Will we work actively together at the local level?
- Will we consult with one another as we seek to plant congregations?
- Can we agree to mutual review of candidates for bishop before consecrations?
- Will we share ministry initiatives or needlessly duplicate efforts?
- Can we agree about appropriate ratios of bishops to congregations, attendance and membership?
- Would each one of us be willing to give up episcopal function for the good of the whole, were that in the best interests of all?
- Could each one of us become a missionary bishop over a growing Church?
Our theme for this Council of Bishops is "Together in Mission : Restoring Confidence in an American Episcopate." The whole world is watching. After speaking the truth to each other, we will need to speak the truth about what we have done - or not done - to the world.
Anglicanism appears to be failing in the West. We cannot answer for how others have failed, or are failing, but we must surely answer for what we do - or do not do - here in this place, in this conclave, wherein we hold the key.
WELCOME
Again the warmest of welcomes, for the most important of tasks. Almost upon us is Global Anglicanism's September 30th deadline for bishops in America to make response about "walking together" or "walking apart." It is to walking together that we are called, is it not? I am confident in the company gathered here and, above all, in the Lord who has called us. We are here to make common cause for the gospel of Jesus Christ, and here to make common cause for a biblical, missionary and united Anglicanism in North America . We have our work cut out for us, we whose highest calling is as servants of the servants of God, and God's servants all across the land very much have their eyes set upon us and upon this place for these days. May God's help be ours in abundance.
Integrity Statement on House of Bishops’s New Orleans Declaration
Note: Integrity is the lobby group within pecusa for homosexual, bisexual and transgendered people. ed.
NEW ORLEANS—The members of Integrity have prayed unceasingly for their bishops as they met this week to consider a response to the primates' communiqué. The bishops were pressured by the Archbishop of Canterbury and other international guests to comply with the primate's demands. The bishops struggled mightily amongst themselves to achieve a clear consensus on how to respond. Integrity is gratified that the final response from the House of Bishop declined to succumb to the pressure to go backwards, but rather took some significant steps forward.
We are encouraged by their strong language against the incursions of uninvited bishops into this province, their commendation of the Anglican Listening Process, their unequivocal support that the Bishop of New Hampshire should receive an invitation to the Lambeth Conference, and their affirmation of safety and civil rights for LGBT persons.
Integrity President Susan Russell said, "In response to requests for 'clarity' the House of Bishops made it clear today that the Episcopal Church is moving forward in faith. I believe today’s response will be received as a sign of great hope that we are committed to working through the hard ground of our differences. I look forward to taking the support of the House of Bishops for the Listening Process with me when I and other Integrity representatives meet with Anglican colleagues in London next month to prepare for our witness at the Lambeth Conference."
"Integrity is confident that The Episcopal Church will continue to move forward," concluded Russell. "Integrity expects General Convention 2009 to be a tipping point for equality. We will be working hard in the months ahead to repeal B033 and to authorize development of a rite for blessing same-sex relationships as steps toward the goal of the full inclusion of all the baptized into the Body of Christ."
NEW ORLEANS—The members of Integrity have prayed unceasingly for their bishops as they met this week to consider a response to the primates' communiqué. The bishops were pressured by the Archbishop of Canterbury and other international guests to comply with the primate's demands. The bishops struggled mightily amongst themselves to achieve a clear consensus on how to respond. Integrity is gratified that the final response from the House of Bishop declined to succumb to the pressure to go backwards, but rather took some significant steps forward.
We are encouraged by their strong language against the incursions of uninvited bishops into this province, their commendation of the Anglican Listening Process, their unequivocal support that the Bishop of New Hampshire should receive an invitation to the Lambeth Conference, and their affirmation of safety and civil rights for LGBT persons.
Integrity President Susan Russell said, "In response to requests for 'clarity' the House of Bishops made it clear today that the Episcopal Church is moving forward in faith. I believe today’s response will be received as a sign of great hope that we are committed to working through the hard ground of our differences. I look forward to taking the support of the House of Bishops for the Listening Process with me when I and other Integrity representatives meet with Anglican colleagues in London next month to prepare for our witness at the Lambeth Conference."
"Integrity is confident that The Episcopal Church will continue to move forward," concluded Russell. "Integrity expects General Convention 2009 to be a tipping point for equality. We will be working hard in the months ahead to repeal B033 and to authorize development of a rite for blessing same-sex relationships as steps toward the goal of the full inclusion of all the baptized into the Body of Christ."
Statement from the House of Bishops
House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
New Orleans, Louisiana
September 25, 2007
A Response to Questions and Concerns Raised by our Anglican Communion Partners
In accordance with Our Lord's high priestly prayer that we be one, and in the spirit of Resolution A159 of the 75th General Convention, and in obedience to his Great Commission to go into the world and make disciples, and in gratitude for the gift of the Anglican Communion as a sign of the Holy Spirit's ongoing work of reconciliation throughout the world, we offer the following to the Episcopal Church, the Primates, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), and the larger Communion, with the hope of "mending the tear in the fabric" of our common life in Christ.
"I do it all for the sake of the Gospel so that I might share in its blessings." 1 Corinthians 9:23
Introduction
The House of Bishops expresses sincere and heartfelt thanks to the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates for accepting our invitation to join us in New Orleans. By their presence they have both honored us and assisted us in our discernment. Their presence was a living reminder of the unity that is Christ's promised gift in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Much of our meeting time was spent in continuing discernment of our relationships within the Anglican Communion. We engaged in careful listening and straightforward dialogue with our guests. We expressed our passionate desire to remain in communion. It is our conviction that The Episcopal Church needs the Anglican Communion, and we heard from our guests that the Anglican Communion needs The Episcopal Church.
The House of Bishops offers the following responses to our Anglican Communion partners. We believe they provide clarity and point toward next steps in an ongoing process of dialogue. Within The Episcopal Church the common discernment of God's call is a lively partnership among laypersons, bishops, priests, and deacons, and therefore necessarily includes the Presiding Bishop, the Executive Council, and the General Convention.
Summary
* We reconfirm that resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 (The Election of Bishops) calls upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to 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."
* We pledge as a body not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.
* We commend our Presiding Bishop's plan for episcopal visitors.
* We deplore incursions into our jurisdictions by uninvited bishops and call for them to end.
* We support the Presiding Bishop in seeking communion-wide consultation in a manner that is in accord with our Constitution and Canons.
* We call for increasing implementation of the listening process across the Communion and for a report on its progress to Lambeth 2008.
* We support the Archbishop of Canterbury in his expressed desire to explore ways for the Bishop of New Hampshire to participate in the Lambeth Conference.
* We call for unequivocal and active commitment to the civil rights, safety, and dignity of gay and lesbian persons.
Discussion
Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention
The House of Bishops concurs with Resolution EC011 of the Executive Council. This Resolution commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention, calling upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to 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." (1) The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.
Blessing of Same-Sex Unions
We, the members of the House of Bishops, pledge 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. In the near future we hope to be able to draw upon the benefits of the Communion-wide listening process. In the meantime, it is important to note that no rite of blessing for persons living in same-sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention. In addition to not having authorized liturgies the majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions. We do note that in May 2003 the Primates said we have a pastoral duty "to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations." They further stated, "...[I]t is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care."
Episcopal Visitors
We affirm the Presiding Bishop's plan to appoint episcopal visitors for dioceses that request alternative oversight. Such oversight would be provided by bishops who are a part of and subject to the communal life of this province. We believe this plan is consistent with and analogous to Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) as affirmed by the Windsor Report (paragraph 152). We thank those bishops who have generously offered themselves for this ministry. We hope that dioceses will make use of this plan and that the Presiding Bishop will continue conversation with those dioceses that may feel the need for such ministries. We appreciate and need to hear all voices in The Episcopal Church.
Incursions by Uninvited Bishops
We call for an immediate end to diocesan incursions by uninvited bishops in accordance with the Windsor Report and consistent with the statements of past Lambeth Conferences and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Such incursions imperil common prayer and long-established ecclesial principles of our Communion. These principles include respect for local jurisdiction and recognition of the geographical boundaries of dioceses and provinces. As we continue to commit ourselves to honor both the spirit and the content of the Windsor Report, we call upon those provinces and bishops engaging in such incursions likewise to honor the Windsor Report by ending them. We offer assurance that delegated episcopal pastoral care is being provided for those who seek it.
Communion-wide Consultation
In their communique of February 2007, the Primates proposed a "pastoral scheme." At our meeting in March 2007, we expressed our deep concern that this scheme would compromise the authority of our own primate and place the autonomy of The Episcopal Church at risk. The Executive Council reiterated our concerns and declined to participate. Nevertheless we recognize a useful role for communion-wide consultation with respect to the pastoral needs of those seeking alternative oversight, as well as the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons in this and other provinces. We encourage our Presiding Bishop to continue to explore such consultation in a manner that is in accord with our Constitution and Canons.
The Listening Process
The 1998 Lambeth Conference called all the provinces of the Anglican Communion to engage in a "listening process" designed to bring gay and lesbian Anglicans fully into the church's conversation about sexuality. We look forward to receiving initial reports about this process at the 2008 Lambeth Conference, and to participating with others in this crucial enterprise. We are aware that in some cultural contexts, conversation concerning homosexuality is difficult. We see an important role for the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) in this listening process, since it represents both the lay and ordained members of our constituent churches and so is well placed to engage every part of the body in this conversation. We encourage the ACC to identify the variety of resources needed to accomplish these conversations.
The Lambeth Conference
Invitations to the Lambeth Conference are extended by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Those among us who have received an invitation to attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference look forward to that gathering with hope and expectation. Many of us are engaged in mission partnerships with bishops and dioceses around the world and cherish these relationships. Lambeth offers a wonderful opportunity to build on such partnerships.
We are mindful that the Bishop of New Hampshire has not yet received an invitation to the conference. We also note that the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a desire to explore a way for him to participate. We share the Archbishop's desire and encourage our Presiding Bishop to offer our assistance as bishops in this endeavor. It is our fervent hope that a way can be found for his full participation.
Justice and Dignity for Gay and Lesbian Persons
It is of fundamental importance that, as we continue to seek consensus in matters of human sexuality, we also be clear and outspoken in our shared commitment to establish and protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons, and to name and oppose at every turn any action or policy that does violence to them, encourages violence towards them, or violates their dignity as children of God. We call all our partners in the Anglican Communion to recommit to this effort. As we stated at the conclusion of our meeting in March 2007: "We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion and peace. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. 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. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God."
________________________________________
(1) The Communion Sub-Group noted that "the resolution uses the language of 'restraint', and the group noted that there has been considerable discussion since General Convention about the exact force of that word. By requiring that the restraint must be expressed in a particular way--'by not consenting...', however, the resolution is calling for a precise response, which complies with the force of the recommendation of the Windsor Report." The group also noted "that while the Windsor Report restricted its recommendation to candidates for the episcopate who were living in a same gender union, the resolution at General Convention widened this stricture to apply to a range of lifestyles which present a wider challenge. The group welcomed this widening of the principle, which was also recommended by the Windsor Report, and commend it to the Communion."
New Orleans, Louisiana
September 25, 2007
A Response to Questions and Concerns Raised by our Anglican Communion Partners
In accordance with Our Lord's high priestly prayer that we be one, and in the spirit of Resolution A159 of the 75th General Convention, and in obedience to his Great Commission to go into the world and make disciples, and in gratitude for the gift of the Anglican Communion as a sign of the Holy Spirit's ongoing work of reconciliation throughout the world, we offer the following to the Episcopal Church, the Primates, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), and the larger Communion, with the hope of "mending the tear in the fabric" of our common life in Christ.
"I do it all for the sake of the Gospel so that I might share in its blessings." 1 Corinthians 9:23
Introduction
The House of Bishops expresses sincere and heartfelt thanks to the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates for accepting our invitation to join us in New Orleans. By their presence they have both honored us and assisted us in our discernment. Their presence was a living reminder of the unity that is Christ's promised gift in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Much of our meeting time was spent in continuing discernment of our relationships within the Anglican Communion. We engaged in careful listening and straightforward dialogue with our guests. We expressed our passionate desire to remain in communion. It is our conviction that The Episcopal Church needs the Anglican Communion, and we heard from our guests that the Anglican Communion needs The Episcopal Church.
The House of Bishops offers the following responses to our Anglican Communion partners. We believe they provide clarity and point toward next steps in an ongoing process of dialogue. Within The Episcopal Church the common discernment of God's call is a lively partnership among laypersons, bishops, priests, and deacons, and therefore necessarily includes the Presiding Bishop, the Executive Council, and the General Convention.
Summary
* We reconfirm that resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 (The Election of Bishops) calls upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to 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."
* We pledge as a body not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.
* We commend our Presiding Bishop's plan for episcopal visitors.
* We deplore incursions into our jurisdictions by uninvited bishops and call for them to end.
* We support the Presiding Bishop in seeking communion-wide consultation in a manner that is in accord with our Constitution and Canons.
* We call for increasing implementation of the listening process across the Communion and for a report on its progress to Lambeth 2008.
* We support the Archbishop of Canterbury in his expressed desire to explore ways for the Bishop of New Hampshire to participate in the Lambeth Conference.
* We call for unequivocal and active commitment to the civil rights, safety, and dignity of gay and lesbian persons.
Discussion
Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention
The House of Bishops concurs with Resolution EC011 of the Executive Council. This Resolution commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention, calling upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to 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." (1) The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.
Blessing of Same-Sex Unions
We, the members of the House of Bishops, pledge 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. In the near future we hope to be able to draw upon the benefits of the Communion-wide listening process. In the meantime, it is important to note that no rite of blessing for persons living in same-sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention. In addition to not having authorized liturgies the majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions. We do note that in May 2003 the Primates said we have a pastoral duty "to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations." They further stated, "...[I]t is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care."
Episcopal Visitors
We affirm the Presiding Bishop's plan to appoint episcopal visitors for dioceses that request alternative oversight. Such oversight would be provided by bishops who are a part of and subject to the communal life of this province. We believe this plan is consistent with and analogous to Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) as affirmed by the Windsor Report (paragraph 152). We thank those bishops who have generously offered themselves for this ministry. We hope that dioceses will make use of this plan and that the Presiding Bishop will continue conversation with those dioceses that may feel the need for such ministries. We appreciate and need to hear all voices in The Episcopal Church.
Incursions by Uninvited Bishops
We call for an immediate end to diocesan incursions by uninvited bishops in accordance with the Windsor Report and consistent with the statements of past Lambeth Conferences and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Such incursions imperil common prayer and long-established ecclesial principles of our Communion. These principles include respect for local jurisdiction and recognition of the geographical boundaries of dioceses and provinces. As we continue to commit ourselves to honor both the spirit and the content of the Windsor Report, we call upon those provinces and bishops engaging in such incursions likewise to honor the Windsor Report by ending them. We offer assurance that delegated episcopal pastoral care is being provided for those who seek it.
Communion-wide Consultation
In their communique of February 2007, the Primates proposed a "pastoral scheme." At our meeting in March 2007, we expressed our deep concern that this scheme would compromise the authority of our own primate and place the autonomy of The Episcopal Church at risk. The Executive Council reiterated our concerns and declined to participate. Nevertheless we recognize a useful role for communion-wide consultation with respect to the pastoral needs of those seeking alternative oversight, as well as the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons in this and other provinces. We encourage our Presiding Bishop to continue to explore such consultation in a manner that is in accord with our Constitution and Canons.
The Listening Process
The 1998 Lambeth Conference called all the provinces of the Anglican Communion to engage in a "listening process" designed to bring gay and lesbian Anglicans fully into the church's conversation about sexuality. We look forward to receiving initial reports about this process at the 2008 Lambeth Conference, and to participating with others in this crucial enterprise. We are aware that in some cultural contexts, conversation concerning homosexuality is difficult. We see an important role for the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) in this listening process, since it represents both the lay and ordained members of our constituent churches and so is well placed to engage every part of the body in this conversation. We encourage the ACC to identify the variety of resources needed to accomplish these conversations.
The Lambeth Conference
Invitations to the Lambeth Conference are extended by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Those among us who have received an invitation to attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference look forward to that gathering with hope and expectation. Many of us are engaged in mission partnerships with bishops and dioceses around the world and cherish these relationships. Lambeth offers a wonderful opportunity to build on such partnerships.
We are mindful that the Bishop of New Hampshire has not yet received an invitation to the conference. We also note that the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a desire to explore a way for him to participate. We share the Archbishop's desire and encourage our Presiding Bishop to offer our assistance as bishops in this endeavor. It is our fervent hope that a way can be found for his full participation.
Justice and Dignity for Gay and Lesbian Persons
It is of fundamental importance that, as we continue to seek consensus in matters of human sexuality, we also be clear and outspoken in our shared commitment to establish and protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons, and to name and oppose at every turn any action or policy that does violence to them, encourages violence towards them, or violates their dignity as children of God. We call all our partners in the Anglican Communion to recommit to this effort. As we stated at the conclusion of our meeting in March 2007: "We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion and peace. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. 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. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God."
________________________________________
(1) The Communion Sub-Group noted that "the resolution uses the language of 'restraint', and the group noted that there has been considerable discussion since General Convention about the exact force of that word. By requiring that the restraint must be expressed in a particular way--'by not consenting...', however, the resolution is calling for a precise response, which complies with the force of the recommendation of the Windsor Report." The group also noted "that while the Windsor Report restricted its recommendation to candidates for the episcopate who were living in a same gender union, the resolution at General Convention widened this stricture to apply to a range of lifestyles which present a wider challenge. The group welcomed this widening of the principle, which was also recommended by the Windsor Report, and commend it to the Communion."
The Episcopal Church Plays and Loses the Numbers Game
by Kendall Harmon
As is well known, the Episcopal Church radically altered its theology and practice at its General Convention in 2003. As a result a significant amount of unrest has gone on in the TEC community which the leadership has tried to downplay or deny.
It is important to understand that those who are deeply opposed to the new theology fall into not one but four groups, each of which is engaged in different things.
(1) There are people who are voting with their feet, and departing from the Episcopal Church to Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Free Church Protestantism.
According to the Christian Century, “the Episcopal Church has suffered a net loss of nearly 115,000 members over the past three years —with homosexuality issues fueling the departures.” Kirk Hadaway, the denomination’s director of research, noted that “it is a precipitous drop in losing 36,000 in both 2003 and 2004, and now 42,000 in 2005.” The numbers for 2006 have not been released yet, but they are sure to show this trend continuing, and indeed probably increasing as the departure of large portions of whole parishes or indeed nearly all of some parishes begin to be reflected in the numbers.
Also, the level of struggle is well indicated by a recent national church publication in which we learn:
“The proportion [of parishes] with excellent or good financial health declined from 56% to 32% between 2000 and 2005.”
And: “The proportion in some or serious financial difficulty almost doubled, increasing from 13% in 2000 to 25% in 2005.”
(2) There are whole parishes or portions of parishes which through different means have sought to leave the Episcopal Church but to keep their ties to the Anglican Communion through a relationship with another Anglican Province. At present, these groups are in a state of flux and in seemingly nearly constant motion but it is possible to delineate some sense of their numbers:
Anglican Mission in America (Rwanda), some 100-115 parishes
CANA (Nigeria), some 60 parishes
Uganda, some about 30 parishes
Kenya, some 20-30 parishes
Southern Cone, some at least 50 parishes
Now, not all of these parishes consists of former members of TEC as some are church plants, but many of them contain sections of former TEC folks and in a number of cases nearly the whole parish came over from TEC (Christ Church, Plano, Texas, being a recent example, in that case of a church who joined AMIA/Rwanda)
(3) There are parishes or sections of parishes who are on the verge of deciding along the lines of group 2 in some way by the end of 2007/early 2008, depending on the outcome of the Tanzania Communique, the House of Bishops meeting, and the response of the Anglican leadership thereto. Saint Clements, El Paso, one of the largest parishes in the diocese of the Rio Grande, just voted by an overwhelming margin to leave TEC on Sunday, September 16th. It needs to be emphasized that many of these people and parishes do not wish to depart, but feel if the Anglican Communion leadership continues to fail to provide a safe place for them, they have no other choice.
It must also be noted that three dioceses—Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, and San Joaquin, appear to be considering moves in this direction. I am not aware of any time in the history of the Episcopal Church when three dioceses as whole dioceses sought to consider these kinds of momentous decisions. (It will of course be noted that the dioceses are not monolithic—no diocese is-and there are smaller groups within the diocese that feel differently. Nonetheless the contemplated collective diocesan action is significant).
(4) There is a considerable group of other individuals, parishes and dioceses who are completely opposed to the new theology and practice of TEC’s leadership, but who wish to find a way to stay connected to the Anglican Communion as they continue to stand in radical opposition, and are not sure what the way forward is. Two examples would be the diocese of South Carolina, and the parish of Saint Martin’s Houston, which claims the largest membership in the country and which made clear in its last call process that their new rector would need to stand solidly for the theology of the Anglican Communion and the Windsor Report.
The national leadership’s way of treating this problem is to give the most narrow definition as possible to group two, and then to try to minimize the problem.
Unfortunately, for example we see things like this:
Note on Dioceses, Congregations and Church Structure
· Dioceses and congregations remain part of the Episcopal Church even when local leaders and/or a number of parishioners opt to leave the denomination as a matter of personal choice.
· Dioceses are created by the General Convention and cannot be dissolved without action of the General Convention in accordance with the provisions of the churchwide constitution and canons. Congregations, likewise, are created by a local diocese and continue within that structure unless otherwise decided by the local bishop in consultation with other elected diocesan leaders.
· According to a September 2007 update from director of research Kirk Hadaway, out of some 7600 total Episcopal Church congregations, located inside and outside the U.S., since 2003:
32 have LEFT--and by that we mean the majority of the congregation expressed a desire or voted to withdraw from The Episcopal Church, the bishop declared the congregation abandoned and notified the national office, where the church is now listed as non-filing/closed.
23 have VOTED TO LEAVE--meaning a significant number, usually including the clergy, have expressed a desire to withdraw from The Episcopal Church.
(And one immediately notes in passing that the national church office managed to get THESE numbers updated and out before the House of Bishops meeting, but that they still do not have the numbers out from 2006 in terms of overall membership numbers. Hmmmmm. I wonder why.)
Or this, which ran in April 2007 with the headline "Episcopal Bishop says few leaving over same-sex issues":
The Episcopal Church's presiding bishop on Wednesday downplayed the notion of a denominational schism over homosexuality, saying only a tiny fraction of congregations have moved to break away.
In an interview, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said the congregations had "gotten a lot of attention and been very noisy," but accounted for less than 1 percent of the country's total number of parishes, which she put at 7,500.
"The Episcopal Church is alive and well," she said. Jefferts Schori was in Virginia Beach on Wednesday to speak at the Episcopal Communicators annual meeting at The Cavalier Hotel.
You can see what is going on, they are playing games with numbers and categories. "Few" leaving actually means "congregations," and congregations means congregations defined as a whole. This is collapsing all four categories into a very narrow and misleading picture of group number 2.
People know that in reality it is very difficult to get whole parishes or dioceses to take significant decisions about ANYTHING, much less something as important as this. Given the degree of opposition and hostility faced in numerous quarters from diocesan and national leadership, and given how many Anglican reasserters (such as your blog convenor) have been advocating a stay and be opposed but be faithful stance, it is actually surprising that the numbers from the four categories are this large.
The key point is, taken together the four groups illustrate a VERY SERIOUS problem. Good leadership owns the actual situation and then tries to deal with it, it does not try to redefine it narrowly and pretend it is less than it is--KSH.
Update: the above article was written before and independently of this one by Simon Sarmiento but the information seems to be of a similar type.
As is well known, the Episcopal Church radically altered its theology and practice at its General Convention in 2003. As a result a significant amount of unrest has gone on in the TEC community which the leadership has tried to downplay or deny.
It is important to understand that those who are deeply opposed to the new theology fall into not one but four groups, each of which is engaged in different things.
(1) There are people who are voting with their feet, and departing from the Episcopal Church to Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Free Church Protestantism.
According to the Christian Century, “the Episcopal Church has suffered a net loss of nearly 115,000 members over the past three years —with homosexuality issues fueling the departures.” Kirk Hadaway, the denomination’s director of research, noted that “it is a precipitous drop in losing 36,000 in both 2003 and 2004, and now 42,000 in 2005.” The numbers for 2006 have not been released yet, but they are sure to show this trend continuing, and indeed probably increasing as the departure of large portions of whole parishes or indeed nearly all of some parishes begin to be reflected in the numbers.
Also, the level of struggle is well indicated by a recent national church publication in which we learn:
“The proportion [of parishes] with excellent or good financial health declined from 56% to 32% between 2000 and 2005.”
And: “The proportion in some or serious financial difficulty almost doubled, increasing from 13% in 2000 to 25% in 2005.”
(2) There are whole parishes or portions of parishes which through different means have sought to leave the Episcopal Church but to keep their ties to the Anglican Communion through a relationship with another Anglican Province. At present, these groups are in a state of flux and in seemingly nearly constant motion but it is possible to delineate some sense of their numbers:
Anglican Mission in America (Rwanda), some 100-115 parishes
CANA (Nigeria), some 60 parishes
Uganda, some about 30 parishes
Kenya, some 20-30 parishes
Southern Cone, some at least 50 parishes
Now, not all of these parishes consists of former members of TEC as some are church plants, but many of them contain sections of former TEC folks and in a number of cases nearly the whole parish came over from TEC (Christ Church, Plano, Texas, being a recent example, in that case of a church who joined AMIA/Rwanda)
(3) There are parishes or sections of parishes who are on the verge of deciding along the lines of group 2 in some way by the end of 2007/early 2008, depending on the outcome of the Tanzania Communique, the House of Bishops meeting, and the response of the Anglican leadership thereto. Saint Clements, El Paso, one of the largest parishes in the diocese of the Rio Grande, just voted by an overwhelming margin to leave TEC on Sunday, September 16th. It needs to be emphasized that many of these people and parishes do not wish to depart, but feel if the Anglican Communion leadership continues to fail to provide a safe place for them, they have no other choice.
It must also be noted that three dioceses—Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, and San Joaquin, appear to be considering moves in this direction. I am not aware of any time in the history of the Episcopal Church when three dioceses as whole dioceses sought to consider these kinds of momentous decisions. (It will of course be noted that the dioceses are not monolithic—no diocese is-and there are smaller groups within the diocese that feel differently. Nonetheless the contemplated collective diocesan action is significant).
(4) There is a considerable group of other individuals, parishes and dioceses who are completely opposed to the new theology and practice of TEC’s leadership, but who wish to find a way to stay connected to the Anglican Communion as they continue to stand in radical opposition, and are not sure what the way forward is. Two examples would be the diocese of South Carolina, and the parish of Saint Martin’s Houston, which claims the largest membership in the country and which made clear in its last call process that their new rector would need to stand solidly for the theology of the Anglican Communion and the Windsor Report.
The national leadership’s way of treating this problem is to give the most narrow definition as possible to group two, and then to try to minimize the problem.
Unfortunately, for example we see things like this:
Note on Dioceses, Congregations and Church Structure
· Dioceses and congregations remain part of the Episcopal Church even when local leaders and/or a number of parishioners opt to leave the denomination as a matter of personal choice.
· Dioceses are created by the General Convention and cannot be dissolved without action of the General Convention in accordance with the provisions of the churchwide constitution and canons. Congregations, likewise, are created by a local diocese and continue within that structure unless otherwise decided by the local bishop in consultation with other elected diocesan leaders.
· According to a September 2007 update from director of research Kirk Hadaway, out of some 7600 total Episcopal Church congregations, located inside and outside the U.S., since 2003:
32 have LEFT--and by that we mean the majority of the congregation expressed a desire or voted to withdraw from The Episcopal Church, the bishop declared the congregation abandoned and notified the national office, where the church is now listed as non-filing/closed.
23 have VOTED TO LEAVE--meaning a significant number, usually including the clergy, have expressed a desire to withdraw from The Episcopal Church.
(And one immediately notes in passing that the national church office managed to get THESE numbers updated and out before the House of Bishops meeting, but that they still do not have the numbers out from 2006 in terms of overall membership numbers. Hmmmmm. I wonder why.)
Or this, which ran in April 2007 with the headline "Episcopal Bishop says few leaving over same-sex issues":
The Episcopal Church's presiding bishop on Wednesday downplayed the notion of a denominational schism over homosexuality, saying only a tiny fraction of congregations have moved to break away.
In an interview, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said the congregations had "gotten a lot of attention and been very noisy," but accounted for less than 1 percent of the country's total number of parishes, which she put at 7,500.
"The Episcopal Church is alive and well," she said. Jefferts Schori was in Virginia Beach on Wednesday to speak at the Episcopal Communicators annual meeting at The Cavalier Hotel.
You can see what is going on, they are playing games with numbers and categories. "Few" leaving actually means "congregations," and congregations means congregations defined as a whole. This is collapsing all four categories into a very narrow and misleading picture of group number 2.
People know that in reality it is very difficult to get whole parishes or dioceses to take significant decisions about ANYTHING, much less something as important as this. Given the degree of opposition and hostility faced in numerous quarters from diocesan and national leadership, and given how many Anglican reasserters (such as your blog convenor) have been advocating a stay and be opposed but be faithful stance, it is actually surprising that the numbers from the four categories are this large.
The key point is, taken together the four groups illustrate a VERY SERIOUS problem. Good leadership owns the actual situation and then tries to deal with it, it does not try to redefine it narrowly and pretend it is less than it is--KSH.
Update: the above article was written before and independently of this one by Simon Sarmiento but the information seems to be of a similar type.
Samuel and PECUSA
In our Tuesday morning Bible study at St. Andrew’s Anglican Church in Vestal, NY, we have been studying 1 Samuel. Part of this morning’s study was chapter 3 where Samuel’s sleep is interrupted by the voice of the Lord. Walter Brueggemann, in his commentary on 1 and 2 Samuel offers some thoughts that show how relevant chapters 1-3 are to our current crisis in Anglicanism. Brueggemann says,
Chapters 1-3 as a larger unit serve to authorize Samuel to take a fresh
initiative into Israel’s life.
The narrative takes great care to show that Samuel’s credibility does not
rest on any conventional political confirmation. Samuel is presented as
having an authorization rooted in nothing other than the freedom and
promise of God. Samuel’s freshly authorized voice in Israel’s public
life stands over against all conventional modes of power and brusquely
displaces them. [p. 27]
We hear the liberals proclaim over and over again that God is doing a new thing in pecusa. By this they mean that their actions that Scripture deems unrighteous are actually righteous - the Holy Spirit has told them so. Meanwhile, from Africa and other parts of the developing world comes an authorization of a new ministry in the United States. Outside the political structure of pecusa comes bishops, priests and deacons who will be obedient to the word of God and the councils of the worldwide church. This new, growing structure is in stark contrast to the "conventional modes of power" of pecusa (threats to vestries and congregations,clergy inhibitions and depositions, lawsuits) "and brusquely displaces them."
Brueggemann goes on to say, "A new beginning means a terrible ending of some other arrangements… This new beginning requires facing candidly all that has failed…" (p. 28)
We see no signs yet that pecusa is willing to acknowledge a new beginning or their mounting failures. The realignment of North American Anglicanism is moving ahead and pecusa has yet to face into the terrible ending that is coming at the accelerating rate of thousands of members leaving pecusa each year. Like Eli, pecusa has grown fat and blind and is in no condition to hear the word of the Lord.
Chapters 1-3 as a larger unit serve to authorize Samuel to take a fresh
initiative into Israel’s life.
The narrative takes great care to show that Samuel’s credibility does not
rest on any conventional political confirmation. Samuel is presented as
having an authorization rooted in nothing other than the freedom and
promise of God. Samuel’s freshly authorized voice in Israel’s public
life stands over against all conventional modes of power and brusquely
displaces them. [p. 27]
We hear the liberals proclaim over and over again that God is doing a new thing in pecusa. By this they mean that their actions that Scripture deems unrighteous are actually righteous - the Holy Spirit has told them so. Meanwhile, from Africa and other parts of the developing world comes an authorization of a new ministry in the United States. Outside the political structure of pecusa comes bishops, priests and deacons who will be obedient to the word of God and the councils of the worldwide church. This new, growing structure is in stark contrast to the "conventional modes of power" of pecusa (threats to vestries and congregations,clergy inhibitions and depositions, lawsuits) "and brusquely displaces them."
Brueggemann goes on to say, "A new beginning means a terrible ending of some other arrangements… This new beginning requires facing candidly all that has failed…" (p. 28)
We see no signs yet that pecusa is willing to acknowledge a new beginning or their mounting failures. The realignment of North American Anglicanism is moving ahead and pecusa has yet to face into the terrible ending that is coming at the accelerating rate of thousands of members leaving pecusa each year. Like Eli, pecusa has grown fat and blind and is in no condition to hear the word of the Lord.
Bishop Steenson’s Statement to the House of Bishops
A STATEMENT TO THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
NEW ORLEANS, 25 SEPTEMBER 2007
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
Please let me begin by thanking you for your gracious hospitality to me during the time I have been privileged to belong to this House. I appreciate your careful and deliberate efforts to embrace the practical values of Christian community. At no point have I thought to myself, “I don’t want to be in communion with these people.” Quite the opposite: I have deeply valued these relationships and sincerely hoped that they might model a way of remaining in communion for all the Church.
But communion, Christian communion, is more than human relationships, as essential as these are. My conscience is deeply troubled, because I sense that the obligations of my ministry in the Episcopal Church may lead me to a place apart from Scripture and Tradition. I am concerned that if I do not listen to and act in accordance with conscience now, it will become harder and harder to hear God’s voice. Already I have sought out our Presiding Bishop for her counsel and prayers, and now I come before you, asking that you give me the necessary canonical permission to resign as ordinary of my diocese. I should like to do this by the end of this year, and afterwards, in proper order, to be released from my ordination vows in the Episcopal Church.
I want to emphasize my gratitude for the gift of ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church and for the many blessings received along the way. Especially am I thankful for the people of my diocese and the high honor of serving them both as canon to the ordinary and bishop. It is indeed painful to lay down this ministry, but I realize that an effective leader cannot be so conflicted about the guiding principles of the Church one serves. I hope my decision will encourage others who believe they can no longer remain in the Episcopal Church, to respect its laws and to withdraw as courteously as possible for the sake of the Christian witness.
Our spring meeting this year at Camp Allen was a profoundly disturbing experience for me. I was more than a little surprised when such a substantial majority declared the polity of the Episcopal Church to be primarily that of an autonomous and independent local church relating to the wider Anglican Communion by voluntary association. This is not the Anglicanism in which I was formed, inspired by the Oxford movement and the Catholic Revival in the Church of England. Perhaps something was defective in my education for ministry in the Episcopal Church, but, honestly, I did not recognize the church that this House described on that occasion.
This sent me to reflect further on that crucial text from Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium: “Many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside the Church's visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner dynamic toward Catholic unity." If this is true, then what we say and do as Anglicans ought to be directed toward the goal of reunification with the Catholic Church. The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission strove valiantly to bring this about, and it once seemed that Anglicanism might offer itself, even sacrificially, for the sake of authentic Christian unity. It is much to be regretted that its 1998 report, “The Gift of Authority,” has been largely forgotten in our present conflicts, especially its call for the re-reception of the historic ministry of Peter within Anglican life.
In light of this, I have tried to understand the choices that are now before us:
It seems to me that the Episcopal Church has made a decisive turn away from those extraordinary efforts to preserve the Communion, such as Archbishop Rowan’s proposal last summer in “The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today.” It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Episcopal Church has rejected the discipline of communion but wants it only on its own terms.
Others in the Anglican Communion have taken it upon themselves to establish a separate provincial structure to challenge the Episcopal Church, some even arguing for a re-formed Anglicanism without reference to the See of Canterbury.
The Windsor Report calls for a future Anglicanism governed by strengthened instruments of communion and a covenant, but the strong medicine of primacy, so necessary to Catholic order, is missing from its prescriptions.
In none of these choices do I find that “inner dynamic toward Catholic unity.” It doesn’t appear that one can get there from where we are now, at least not corporately, considering Anglicanism’s present configurations.
From time to time it seems necessary for some to embark on these personal journeys as a reminder that the churches of the Reformation were not intended to carry on indefinitely separated from their historical and theological mooring in the Church of Rome. I believe that the Lord now calls me in this direction. It amazes me, after all of these years, what a radical journey of faith this must necessarily be. To some it seems foolish; to others disloyal; to others an abandonment. I once thought that it would be a simple matter of considering the theological evidence and then drawing a rational conclusion that surely would be self-evident to reasonable people. But faith is also a mystery and a gift, and this ultimately becomes a journey of the heart.
One day in the fall of 1978 I came home from classes at Harvard Divinity School to tune in the evening news and see John Paul II step on to the loggia of St. Peter’s for the first time. It was a quo vadis? moment, and I remember sensing for the first time the importance of being in communion with Peter. Over the years I have been especially conscious of those moments of peace and joy experienced when hearing and reflecting on the words of the two most recent successors of St. Peter. My old teacher, Dr. Mark Noll, writes in Is the Reformation Over? of his surprise at reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church and finding himself stopping to pray. That is exactly it, the experience of giving your heart to Jesus Christ again because you have encountered his words anew, now embodied in his ecclesial Body at its source. I do want to assure you that I have tried to follow the Ignatian principle of discernment, to make no important decision while in a place of spiritual desolation. I have especially sought to give no place to that anger which darkens understanding and clouds judgment.
With all my heart, I ask for your forgiveness for any difficulty this may cause and for anything I may have said or done that has failed to live up to the love of Christ. I hope that you will not see this as a repudiation of the Episcopal Church or Anglicanism. Rather, it is the sincere desire of a simple soul to bear witness to the fullness of the Catholic Faith, in communion with what St. Irenaeus called “that greatest and most ancient Church” (Adv. Haer. 3.3.2). I believe that our noble Anglican tradition (“this worthy patrimony”) has deep within it the instinct of a migratory bird calling, “It is time to fly home to a place you have never seen before.” May the Lord bless my steps and yours and bring our paths together in His good time.
- The Rt. Rev. Jeffrey Steenson
http://www.standfirminfaith.com
Posted by Sarah Hey
NEW ORLEANS, 25 SEPTEMBER 2007
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
Please let me begin by thanking you for your gracious hospitality to me during the time I have been privileged to belong to this House. I appreciate your careful and deliberate efforts to embrace the practical values of Christian community. At no point have I thought to myself, “I don’t want to be in communion with these people.” Quite the opposite: I have deeply valued these relationships and sincerely hoped that they might model a way of remaining in communion for all the Church.
But communion, Christian communion, is more than human relationships, as essential as these are. My conscience is deeply troubled, because I sense that the obligations of my ministry in the Episcopal Church may lead me to a place apart from Scripture and Tradition. I am concerned that if I do not listen to and act in accordance with conscience now, it will become harder and harder to hear God’s voice. Already I have sought out our Presiding Bishop for her counsel and prayers, and now I come before you, asking that you give me the necessary canonical permission to resign as ordinary of my diocese. I should like to do this by the end of this year, and afterwards, in proper order, to be released from my ordination vows in the Episcopal Church.
I want to emphasize my gratitude for the gift of ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church and for the many blessings received along the way. Especially am I thankful for the people of my diocese and the high honor of serving them both as canon to the ordinary and bishop. It is indeed painful to lay down this ministry, but I realize that an effective leader cannot be so conflicted about the guiding principles of the Church one serves. I hope my decision will encourage others who believe they can no longer remain in the Episcopal Church, to respect its laws and to withdraw as courteously as possible for the sake of the Christian witness.
Our spring meeting this year at Camp Allen was a profoundly disturbing experience for me. I was more than a little surprised when such a substantial majority declared the polity of the Episcopal Church to be primarily that of an autonomous and independent local church relating to the wider Anglican Communion by voluntary association. This is not the Anglicanism in which I was formed, inspired by the Oxford movement and the Catholic Revival in the Church of England. Perhaps something was defective in my education for ministry in the Episcopal Church, but, honestly, I did not recognize the church that this House described on that occasion.
This sent me to reflect further on that crucial text from Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium: “Many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside the Church's visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner dynamic toward Catholic unity." If this is true, then what we say and do as Anglicans ought to be directed toward the goal of reunification with the Catholic Church. The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission strove valiantly to bring this about, and it once seemed that Anglicanism might offer itself, even sacrificially, for the sake of authentic Christian unity. It is much to be regretted that its 1998 report, “The Gift of Authority,” has been largely forgotten in our present conflicts, especially its call for the re-reception of the historic ministry of Peter within Anglican life.
In light of this, I have tried to understand the choices that are now before us:
It seems to me that the Episcopal Church has made a decisive turn away from those extraordinary efforts to preserve the Communion, such as Archbishop Rowan’s proposal last summer in “The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today.” It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Episcopal Church has rejected the discipline of communion but wants it only on its own terms.
Others in the Anglican Communion have taken it upon themselves to establish a separate provincial structure to challenge the Episcopal Church, some even arguing for a re-formed Anglicanism without reference to the See of Canterbury.
The Windsor Report calls for a future Anglicanism governed by strengthened instruments of communion and a covenant, but the strong medicine of primacy, so necessary to Catholic order, is missing from its prescriptions.
In none of these choices do I find that “inner dynamic toward Catholic unity.” It doesn’t appear that one can get there from where we are now, at least not corporately, considering Anglicanism’s present configurations.
From time to time it seems necessary for some to embark on these personal journeys as a reminder that the churches of the Reformation were not intended to carry on indefinitely separated from their historical and theological mooring in the Church of Rome. I believe that the Lord now calls me in this direction. It amazes me, after all of these years, what a radical journey of faith this must necessarily be. To some it seems foolish; to others disloyal; to others an abandonment. I once thought that it would be a simple matter of considering the theological evidence and then drawing a rational conclusion that surely would be self-evident to reasonable people. But faith is also a mystery and a gift, and this ultimately becomes a journey of the heart.
One day in the fall of 1978 I came home from classes at Harvard Divinity School to tune in the evening news and see John Paul II step on to the loggia of St. Peter’s for the first time. It was a quo vadis? moment, and I remember sensing for the first time the importance of being in communion with Peter. Over the years I have been especially conscious of those moments of peace and joy experienced when hearing and reflecting on the words of the two most recent successors of St. Peter. My old teacher, Dr. Mark Noll, writes in Is the Reformation Over? of his surprise at reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church and finding himself stopping to pray. That is exactly it, the experience of giving your heart to Jesus Christ again because you have encountered his words anew, now embodied in his ecclesial Body at its source. I do want to assure you that I have tried to follow the Ignatian principle of discernment, to make no important decision while in a place of spiritual desolation. I have especially sought to give no place to that anger which darkens understanding and clouds judgment.
With all my heart, I ask for your forgiveness for any difficulty this may cause and for anything I may have said or done that has failed to live up to the love of Christ. I hope that you will not see this as a repudiation of the Episcopal Church or Anglicanism. Rather, it is the sincere desire of a simple soul to bear witness to the fullness of the Catholic Faith, in communion with what St. Irenaeus called “that greatest and most ancient Church” (Adv. Haer. 3.3.2). I believe that our noble Anglican tradition (“this worthy patrimony”) has deep within it the instinct of a migratory bird calling, “It is time to fly home to a place you have never seen before.” May the Lord bless my steps and yours and bring our paths together in His good time.
- The Rt. Rev. Jeffrey Steenson
http://www.standfirminfaith.com
Posted by Sarah Hey
Monday, September 24, 2007
From the Bishop's Songbook
Baby Blue Online provides the lyrics from one of the songs for the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans:
Mothering God
Mothering God,
you gave me birth
in the bright morning of this world.
Creator, source of every breath,
you are my rain, my wind, my sun.
Mothering Christ, you took my form,
offering me your food of light,
grain of life, and grape of love,
your very body for my peace.
Mothering Spirit,
nurturing one,
in amrs of patience hold me close,
so that in faith I root and grow
until I flower, until I know.
Mothering God
Mothering God,
you gave me birth
in the bright morning of this world.
Creator, source of every breath,
you are my rain, my wind, my sun.
Mothering Christ, you took my form,
offering me your food of light,
grain of life, and grape of love,
your very body for my peace.
Mothering Spirit,
nurturing one,
in amrs of patience hold me close,
so that in faith I root and grow
until I flower, until I know.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Address of Bishop Mouneer Anis
Note: This was posted at Stand Firm by the Rev. Matt Kennedy:
To the House of Bishops in New Orleans
Bishop Mouneer Anis
Bishop of the Episcopal/Anglican Diocese of Egypt
With North Africa and the Horn of Africa
President Bishop of the Episcopal/Anglican province of
Jerusalem and the Middle East
My Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Thank you so much for inviting me here to come and listen to you and for
giving me the opportunity to share my heart with you. I am very aware of my
own sh ortcomings and weaknesses, but every word I want to say is out of
love and concern for the unity of the Church of Christ.
I do not come with great authority, nor am I the Primate of a Province with
a great number of Anglicans; I do however come from a region where Christ
walked and where the Church was borne. I come representing the Church of
Jerusalem and the Middle East.
The Church in this region has faced many challenges since the first century.
Our brothers and sisters in the early centuries were ready to sacrifice
their very lives to stay true to the Faith they received from the Lord and
His Apostles. Their blood was not in vain; rather it became the seed of
the Church all across our region. Many disputes and heresies took place in
our region. In face of all the challenges, persecutions, and heresies our
ancestors—people like St. Athanasius, St. Clement, Origen and Cyril from
Alexandria, along with Tertull ian, Cyprian and St. Augustine from North
Africa-- kept the faith of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We
are constantly learning from our ancient martyrs and forebears how to serve
the Kingdom of God faithfully.
Today our Anglican Church in the Middle East still lives within a very
exciting and challenging context. We live among the Oriental Orthodox, the
Greek Orthodox, the Catholics, the Jews and the Muslims. We greatly value
our ecumenical relations and continue to work for unity.
We also deeply respect and appreciate our Muslim friends and value our
interfaith relations while in no way compromise our faith. I have to tell
you that many of these relations were severely strained after your decision
to consecrate Gene Robinson as Bishop in 2003. We are seen as the new
heretics and this has hindered our ecumenical and interfaith relations as
well as our mission in the region.
My friends, like you, we want to be relevant to the culture in which we
live. More importantly, we want to be salt and light to our societies.
That is not an easy calling but it means we must remain distinct and humble
at the same time. Without being distinct we cannot be salt and light;
without humility we will not represent the One who said “I am meek and lowly
in heart”. We, are also continuously challenged whether we should allow the
culture to transform the Apostolic faith we once received, or if we should
allow the Gospel of Jesus Christ to transform our culture as it has in the
past. As we struggle to answer this question we must never divorce
ourselves from the faith that countless men, women and children died to
protect. I believe that if we faithfully serve the Church of Christ, He will
continue to fulfil his promise that the gates of Hades will not prevail
against her.
.
Rupertus Meldenius said ''In essentials, unity; in non essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity''. Our hope is to be united on the essentials of
faith which are defined only by the whole church. We are not in any way
trying to impose rigid views on you. Like you we celebrate diversity, but
we believe that such diversity should not be unlimited and should not
contradict the essentials of our faith. We are not schismatic, but we are
diligent to preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. We want
unity by not unity at any expense.
Anglicans are aware with humility that we are not ''the” church but we are
one member of the body of Christ, the one Holy Catholic Church. We proclaim
this every week in our churches. This places upon us the responsibility to
listen to and respect our ecumenical partners.
My friends, you may believe you have discovered a very different truth from
that of the majority in the Anglican Communion. It is not just about
sexuality, but about your views of Christ, the Gospel and the authority of
the Bible. Please forgive me when I relay that some say you are a different
church, others even think that you are a different religion.
I understand that it is difficult for you in your context to accept the
standard teaching of the Anglican Communion. This is why you refused to
accept Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10. You also ignored all the
warnings of the Primates in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Your response to the
Windsor Report is seen by the Primates as not clear. You cannot say you
value being member of the Anglican Communion while you ignore the
interdependence of the member churches. The interdependence is what
differentiates us from other congregational churches. I would like to remind
you and myself with the famous resolution number 49 of the Lambeth
Conference of 1930 which declares “ the Anglican Communion is a fellowship
of churches that …are bound together not by a central legislative and
executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common
counsel of the bishops in conference.”
With respect, I have to say that those who would prefer to speak of laws and
procedures, constitutions and canons, committees and process: you are
missing the point! It is our mutual loyalty and fellowship, submitting to
one another in the common cause of Jesus Christ that makes us of one Church
one faith and one Lord.
It is clear that your actions have resulted in one of the most difficult
disputes in the Communion in our generation. You may see them as not core
doctrinal issues. Many like me see the opposite but the thing that we all
cannot ignore is that these issues are divisive and have created a lot of
undesired consequences and reactions. For the first time in centuries, the
fabric of our Communion is torn. Our energies have been drained and our
resources are lost; and it is difficult for both of us to continue like
this.
My friends, if you really believe that the truth revealed to you is
different from that shown to the rest of the Communion, then you need to
uphold that claim with boldness even at the risk of losing unity. If you
think it is right and necessary to ordain and consecrate practicing
homosexuals and that you should bless same sex partnerships or even
marriages, you should be true to what you believe is right and accept the
consequences.
However, if you appreciate being members of the global Anglican family, then
you have to walk along side the members of your family. Those who say that
it is important to stay together around the table, to listen to each other
and to continue our dialogue over the difficult issues that are facing us
are wise. We whole heartedly agree with this, but staying around one table
requires that you should not take actions that are contrary to the standard
position (Lambeth 1:10) of the rest of the Communion.
Sitting around one table requires humility from all of us. One church cannot
say to the rest of churches “I know the whole truth, you don’t”. Archbishop
Rowan reminded us in his paper “Challenge and hope” that “the whole truth is
revealed to the whole church.” Sitting around one table requires that
each one should have a clear stance before the discussion starts. It also
requires true openness and willingness to accept the mind of the whole. We
do not have to be in one communion to sit around one table. We do so when
we dialogue with the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and with other faiths. It
would be extremely difficult to sit around one table when you have already
decided the outcome of the discussion and when you ignore the many voices,
warnings, and appeals from around the Communion.
Today I appeal to you to respond with great clarity to the requests were
made in Dar Es Salam. If you accepted the Primates' recommendations, would
you be able to give assurance that the Executive Committee and the General
Convention of TEC would ratify your response? It is the responsibility of
the Bishop to guard the faith as we promise during our consecration. In many
if not in most parts of the Communion and the historic churches, present and
ancient, matters of faith and order, is the responsibility and therefore the
authority of the Bishops to safeguard and teach.
If you don't commit yourself to the Dar Es Salam recommendations, would you
be willing to walk apart at least for a period during which we continue our
discussions and dialogue until we reach a common understanding, especially
about the essentials of our faith? Forgive me when I say that for many of us
in the Communion, we feel that you have already walked apart at least
theologically from the standard teaching of the Communion.
I know that you value personal freedom and independence. The whole world
learns this from you. You need to demonstrate this by securing freedom for
the American orthodox Anglicans who do not share your theological direction.
Show your spirit of inclusiveness when you deal with them. I am afraid to
say that without this more and more interventions from other provinces is
going to happen. No one wants this.
I pray for wisdom and grace, for myself, as well as for you, and I pray that
God will lead us both in the right direction. Remember the illustrious
history of God’s church and remember future generations who will sit in
judgment on us. Remember also that the whole world is waiting and watching
what you do.
Please forgive me if I have said anything that offends you.
May the Lord Bless you.
+ Mouneer Egypt
_____
To the House of Bishops in New Orleans
Bishop Mouneer Anis
Bishop of the Episcopal/Anglican Diocese of Egypt
With North Africa and the Horn of Africa
President Bishop of the Episcopal/Anglican province of
Jerusalem and the Middle East
My Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Thank you so much for inviting me here to come and listen to you and for
giving me the opportunity to share my heart with you. I am very aware of my
own sh ortcomings and weaknesses, but every word I want to say is out of
love and concern for the unity of the Church of Christ.
I do not come with great authority, nor am I the Primate of a Province with
a great number of Anglicans; I do however come from a region where Christ
walked and where the Church was borne. I come representing the Church of
Jerusalem and the Middle East.
The Church in this region has faced many challenges since the first century.
Our brothers and sisters in the early centuries were ready to sacrifice
their very lives to stay true to the Faith they received from the Lord and
His Apostles. Their blood was not in vain; rather it became the seed of
the Church all across our region. Many disputes and heresies took place in
our region. In face of all the challenges, persecutions, and heresies our
ancestors—people like St. Athanasius, St. Clement, Origen and Cyril from
Alexandria, along with Tertull ian, Cyprian and St. Augustine from North
Africa-- kept the faith of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We
are constantly learning from our ancient martyrs and forebears how to serve
the Kingdom of God faithfully.
Today our Anglican Church in the Middle East still lives within a very
exciting and challenging context. We live among the Oriental Orthodox, the
Greek Orthodox, the Catholics, the Jews and the Muslims. We greatly value
our ecumenical relations and continue to work for unity.
We also deeply respect and appreciate our Muslim friends and value our
interfaith relations while in no way compromise our faith. I have to tell
you that many of these relations were severely strained after your decision
to consecrate Gene Robinson as Bishop in 2003. We are seen as the new
heretics and this has hindered our ecumenical and interfaith relations as
well as our mission in the region.
My friends, like you, we want to be relevant to the culture in which we
live. More importantly, we want to be salt and light to our societies.
That is not an easy calling but it means we must remain distinct and humble
at the same time. Without being distinct we cannot be salt and light;
without humility we will not represent the One who said “I am meek and lowly
in heart”. We, are also continuously challenged whether we should allow the
culture to transform the Apostolic faith we once received, or if we should
allow the Gospel of Jesus Christ to transform our culture as it has in the
past. As we struggle to answer this question we must never divorce
ourselves from the faith that countless men, women and children died to
protect. I believe that if we faithfully serve the Church of Christ, He will
continue to fulfil his promise that the gates of Hades will not prevail
against her.
.
Rupertus Meldenius said ''In essentials, unity; in non essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity''. Our hope is to be united on the essentials of
faith which are defined only by the whole church. We are not in any way
trying to impose rigid views on you. Like you we celebrate diversity, but
we believe that such diversity should not be unlimited and should not
contradict the essentials of our faith. We are not schismatic, but we are
diligent to preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. We want
unity by not unity at any expense.
Anglicans are aware with humility that we are not ''the” church but we are
one member of the body of Christ, the one Holy Catholic Church. We proclaim
this every week in our churches. This places upon us the responsibility to
listen to and respect our ecumenical partners.
My friends, you may believe you have discovered a very different truth from
that of the majority in the Anglican Communion. It is not just about
sexuality, but about your views of Christ, the Gospel and the authority of
the Bible. Please forgive me when I relay that some say you are a different
church, others even think that you are a different religion.
I understand that it is difficult for you in your context to accept the
standard teaching of the Anglican Communion. This is why you refused to
accept Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10. You also ignored all the
warnings of the Primates in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Your response to the
Windsor Report is seen by the Primates as not clear. You cannot say you
value being member of the Anglican Communion while you ignore the
interdependence of the member churches. The interdependence is what
differentiates us from other congregational churches. I would like to remind
you and myself with the famous resolution number 49 of the Lambeth
Conference of 1930 which declares “ the Anglican Communion is a fellowship
of churches that …are bound together not by a central legislative and
executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common
counsel of the bishops in conference.”
With respect, I have to say that those who would prefer to speak of laws and
procedures, constitutions and canons, committees and process: you are
missing the point! It is our mutual loyalty and fellowship, submitting to
one another in the common cause of Jesus Christ that makes us of one Church
one faith and one Lord.
It is clear that your actions have resulted in one of the most difficult
disputes in the Communion in our generation. You may see them as not core
doctrinal issues. Many like me see the opposite but the thing that we all
cannot ignore is that these issues are divisive and have created a lot of
undesired consequences and reactions. For the first time in centuries, the
fabric of our Communion is torn. Our energies have been drained and our
resources are lost; and it is difficult for both of us to continue like
this.
My friends, if you really believe that the truth revealed to you is
different from that shown to the rest of the Communion, then you need to
uphold that claim with boldness even at the risk of losing unity. If you
think it is right and necessary to ordain and consecrate practicing
homosexuals and that you should bless same sex partnerships or even
marriages, you should be true to what you believe is right and accept the
consequences.
However, if you appreciate being members of the global Anglican family, then
you have to walk along side the members of your family. Those who say that
it is important to stay together around the table, to listen to each other
and to continue our dialogue over the difficult issues that are facing us
are wise. We whole heartedly agree with this, but staying around one table
requires that you should not take actions that are contrary to the standard
position (Lambeth 1:10) of the rest of the Communion.
Sitting around one table requires humility from all of us. One church cannot
say to the rest of churches “I know the whole truth, you don’t”. Archbishop
Rowan reminded us in his paper “Challenge and hope” that “the whole truth is
revealed to the whole church.” Sitting around one table requires that
each one should have a clear stance before the discussion starts. It also
requires true openness and willingness to accept the mind of the whole. We
do not have to be in one communion to sit around one table. We do so when
we dialogue with the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and with other faiths. It
would be extremely difficult to sit around one table when you have already
decided the outcome of the discussion and when you ignore the many voices,
warnings, and appeals from around the Communion.
Today I appeal to you to respond with great clarity to the requests were
made in Dar Es Salam. If you accepted the Primates' recommendations, would
you be able to give assurance that the Executive Committee and the General
Convention of TEC would ratify your response? It is the responsibility of
the Bishop to guard the faith as we promise during our consecration. In many
if not in most parts of the Communion and the historic churches, present and
ancient, matters of faith and order, is the responsibility and therefore the
authority of the Bishops to safeguard and teach.
If you don't commit yourself to the Dar Es Salam recommendations, would you
be willing to walk apart at least for a period during which we continue our
discussions and dialogue until we reach a common understanding, especially
about the essentials of our faith? Forgive me when I say that for many of us
in the Communion, we feel that you have already walked apart at least
theologically from the standard teaching of the Communion.
I know that you value personal freedom and independence. The whole world
learns this from you. You need to demonstrate this by securing freedom for
the American orthodox Anglicans who do not share your theological direction.
Show your spirit of inclusiveness when you deal with them. I am afraid to
say that without this more and more interventions from other provinces is
going to happen. No one wants this.
I pray for wisdom and grace, for myself, as well as for you, and I pray that
God will lead us both in the right direction. Remember the illustrious
history of God’s church and remember future generations who will sit in
judgment on us. Remember also that the whole world is waiting and watching
what you do.
Please forgive me if I have said anything that offends you.
May the Lord Bless you.
+ Mouneer Egypt
_____
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Anglican Theologian Ephraim Radner on a way forward
I cannot say with much certainty what Abp. Williams “really” wants in the midst of this mess. Perhaps he himself doesn’t really know. But one thing I am certain of: if the American bishops of all stripes—and their dioceses and clergy—could agree to some response to this situation that would get the larger Communion out from under this fight, he would think this the proper and acceptable course. EVEN IF IT MEANT THAT A LARGE PORTION OF TEC DISTANCED ITSELF FROM THE COMMUNION. He would not be happy with this, but he would find it acceptable, because it would be a way of dealing with a conflict that engaged the mature agreement of responsible Christian leaders, however difficult and costly. The current way of dealing with it—spreading it around the Communion like vomit with a rag—has proven not only costly, but scandalous.
My own hope, in light of this limited sense of the Archbishop’s desires, would be this: that the “Windsor Bishops” resolution be voted upon, and that, following that vote, there be an agreement worked out by which those who cannot, in good conscience (and here Abp. Anis’ plea provides a concrete possibility of direciton), abide by the acknowledged teaching and discipline of the Communion, by which they will temporarily withdraw from the Communion’s formal councils for an undetermined time (5 to 10 years was the suggestion of Prof. Grieb at the last House of Bishops’ meeting, a suggestion greeted with much appreciation); and during this time, those dioceses committed to the Communion’s teaching and discipline will move forward with the Communion’s life, and those congregations and clergy in dissenting TEC dioceses will be put under the oversight of Communion dioceses. When this is done, a formal request will be made to the Primates that those providing extra-geogrphaical oversight give up that role, and fold their congregations back into the Communion-linked dioceses and oversight of American bishops. TEC will not cease to exist (though, as with the Communion, not all will participate in its formal life); it will, rather, exist in a state of partition.
This will not eliminate “diversity” from the Communion, or even dissenting voices from the councils of the Communion. We are well aware that there are many, outside of TEC, who are sympathetic with elements of her general drift. But these diverse voices will have agreed to abide by the common teaching and discipline of the Communion until such time as it is consensually altered (unlike many TEC bishops). They may indeed have an influence on any future Covenant proposal, but it will be an influence exercised within the constraints of common Communion submission. I would think that, once a Covenent is adopted—and I still believe it can and should be—and adopted in a form that is agreeable to those who are able, in good conscience, to live within this Communion as it now stands (and may yet stand), TEC, in its partitioned state, may be able to make a more final determination as to its desired role within the Communion.
As I said, a way forward like this would, in fact, be congruent in certain significant ways with commitments of Canterbury, Egypt (and probably other GS jurisdictions), and liberal TEC bishops (up to a point). If there is indeed “room” in the present moment to “maneuver”, I cannot see that I can be anywhere but in this kind of arena of possibility. To be sure, I believe such an arena is too constricting for many to accept.
[Comment made at Stand Firm]
My own hope, in light of this limited sense of the Archbishop’s desires, would be this: that the “Windsor Bishops” resolution be voted upon, and that, following that vote, there be an agreement worked out by which those who cannot, in good conscience (and here Abp. Anis’ plea provides a concrete possibility of direciton), abide by the acknowledged teaching and discipline of the Communion, by which they will temporarily withdraw from the Communion’s formal councils for an undetermined time (5 to 10 years was the suggestion of Prof. Grieb at the last House of Bishops’ meeting, a suggestion greeted with much appreciation); and during this time, those dioceses committed to the Communion’s teaching and discipline will move forward with the Communion’s life, and those congregations and clergy in dissenting TEC dioceses will be put under the oversight of Communion dioceses. When this is done, a formal request will be made to the Primates that those providing extra-geogrphaical oversight give up that role, and fold their congregations back into the Communion-linked dioceses and oversight of American bishops. TEC will not cease to exist (though, as with the Communion, not all will participate in its formal life); it will, rather, exist in a state of partition.
This will not eliminate “diversity” from the Communion, or even dissenting voices from the councils of the Communion. We are well aware that there are many, outside of TEC, who are sympathetic with elements of her general drift. But these diverse voices will have agreed to abide by the common teaching and discipline of the Communion until such time as it is consensually altered (unlike many TEC bishops). They may indeed have an influence on any future Covenant proposal, but it will be an influence exercised within the constraints of common Communion submission. I would think that, once a Covenent is adopted—and I still believe it can and should be—and adopted in a form that is agreeable to those who are able, in good conscience, to live within this Communion as it now stands (and may yet stand), TEC, in its partitioned state, may be able to make a more final determination as to its desired role within the Communion.
As I said, a way forward like this would, in fact, be congruent in certain significant ways with commitments of Canterbury, Egypt (and probably other GS jurisdictions), and liberal TEC bishops (up to a point). If there is indeed “room” in the present moment to “maneuver”, I cannot see that I can be anywhere but in this kind of arena of possibility. To be sure, I believe such an arena is too constricting for many to accept.
[Comment made at Stand Firm]
Thursday, September 20, 2007
From The Bishop of Albany
September 20, 2007
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
I arrived in New Orleans yesterday for the House of Bishops Meeting which officially began this morning and will end on Tuesday night, Sept. 25th. I ask each of you to enter into a period of prayer and fasting, keeping not only me, but the entire House of Bishops in your prayers, as well as ++Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, and the visiting members of the Primate’s Standing Committee. We are truly at a critical time in the life of the Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican Communion. This is NOT “just one more meeting.” I sincerely believe that the decisions made by the House of Bishops at this meeting will be a key factor in determining the future of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.
I invite you to join me in praying that the Holy Spirit will come mightily upon this House, touching and transforming the hearts and souls and minds of every Bishop here, helping us to discern and carry out the will of God. May His will and only His will be done. Just as Paul encountered the risen Lord on the road to Damascus, may we too have a Damascus road experience in which we, the House of Bishops, are convicted of that which is not of God, repenting and asking His forgiveness of our sins, and then be given the grace to be faithful and obedient in exercising our ministry as bishops in God’s holy Church, keeping Jesus Christ at the center of all that we do.
Archbishop Rowan Williams will be with us through tomorrow afternoon. I pray the Holy Spirit will speak clearly to and through him as he addressed the House of Bishops. May we be open to what he has to say.
While we will be addressing a variety of issues throughout the meeting, one of the most important things we will deal with is our official response to the Primate’s Communiqué to the House of Bishops regarding the Windsor Report. As most of you are well aware, there is much division within the Church regarding what our response should be. Again, it is my prayer that God’s will be done. Thank you for yours prayers and your faithfulness.
In Christ Jesus,
--(The Rt. Rev.) Bill Love is Bishop of Albany
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
I arrived in New Orleans yesterday for the House of Bishops Meeting which officially began this morning and will end on Tuesday night, Sept. 25th. I ask each of you to enter into a period of prayer and fasting, keeping not only me, but the entire House of Bishops in your prayers, as well as ++Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, and the visiting members of the Primate’s Standing Committee. We are truly at a critical time in the life of the Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican Communion. This is NOT “just one more meeting.” I sincerely believe that the decisions made by the House of Bishops at this meeting will be a key factor in determining the future of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.
I invite you to join me in praying that the Holy Spirit will come mightily upon this House, touching and transforming the hearts and souls and minds of every Bishop here, helping us to discern and carry out the will of God. May His will and only His will be done. Just as Paul encountered the risen Lord on the road to Damascus, may we too have a Damascus road experience in which we, the House of Bishops, are convicted of that which is not of God, repenting and asking His forgiveness of our sins, and then be given the grace to be faithful and obedient in exercising our ministry as bishops in God’s holy Church, keeping Jesus Christ at the center of all that we do.
Archbishop Rowan Williams will be with us through tomorrow afternoon. I pray the Holy Spirit will speak clearly to and through him as he addressed the House of Bishops. May we be open to what he has to say.
While we will be addressing a variety of issues throughout the meeting, one of the most important things we will deal with is our official response to the Primate’s Communiqué to the House of Bishops regarding the Windsor Report. As most of you are well aware, there is much division within the Church regarding what our response should be. Again, it is my prayer that God’s will be done. Thank you for yours prayers and your faithfulness.
In Christ Jesus,
--(The Rt. Rev.) Bill Love is Bishop of Albany
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Church of England Newspaper: Three questions for the USA
By George Conger
THE ARCHBISHOP of Canterbury has set three questions for the American Church to answer at this week’s meeting of the US House of Bishops in New Orleans. Failure to pass the test, which will be graded by the primates of the Anglican Communion, may result in the de facto expulsion of the Episcopal
Church from the Anglican Communion. While no legal mechanism exists to expel a member church from the Communion, should the Episcopal Church deign not to comply with the unanimous request of the Primates, the current structure of the Communion would not likely stand the stress, and crack up.
The US House of Bishops will be asked:
1. To clarify the meaning and intent of the Episcopal Church’s 2006 General Convention resolution B033, which pledged the bishops to refrain from consenting to the election of bishops whose ‘manner of life’ would pose a challenge to the Communion,
2. To clarify their stance on the blessing of same-sex unions. While the Prayer Book does not permit the practice, several dioceses had authorised rites for the blessing of gay unions as a ‘pastoral’ measure, and
3. To explain its views on a proposed Anglican Covenant. While the final Covenant document has not been drafted, should the American Church refuse to consider endorsing any pan-Anglican agreement, it would render the exercise moot.
The US Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, is expected to reintroduce proposals for a ‘primatial vicar’ who would exercise metropolitan authority on her behalf for conservatives. The proposal was first made Last November, but conservatives rejected it, saying the proposal lacked any guarantees or accountability.
The Presiding Bishop is understood to have canvassed a number of bishops about the primatial vicar plan, including one participant in the Camp Allen meetings of moderate and conservative bishops and had been given conflicting advice as to the suitability of her proposal. Fort Worth Bishop Jack Iker told The Church of England Newspaper any plan that kept his diocese under the authority of Bishop Schori was a non-starter.
From the left, a group of five bishops has prepared a 98-page paper that rejects the primates’ pastoral scheme. They argue that the plans violated the Episcopal Church’s polity. But one of the purported authors of that document, Upper South Carolina Bishop Dorsey Henderson, disassociated himself from it, saying
the bishops had a duty to guard the faith and unity of the Church.
“I believe bishops have authority and responsibility to act quite apart from General Convention, and you need look no further than the catechism in The Book of Common Prayer from where my views derive,” he said.
--This article appears in the Church of England Newspaper, September 21,2007 edition, on page one
THE ARCHBISHOP of Canterbury has set three questions for the American Church to answer at this week’s meeting of the US House of Bishops in New Orleans. Failure to pass the test, which will be graded by the primates of the Anglican Communion, may result in the de facto expulsion of the Episcopal
Church from the Anglican Communion. While no legal mechanism exists to expel a member church from the Communion, should the Episcopal Church deign not to comply with the unanimous request of the Primates, the current structure of the Communion would not likely stand the stress, and crack up.
The US House of Bishops will be asked:
1. To clarify the meaning and intent of the Episcopal Church’s 2006 General Convention resolution B033, which pledged the bishops to refrain from consenting to the election of bishops whose ‘manner of life’ would pose a challenge to the Communion,
2. To clarify their stance on the blessing of same-sex unions. While the Prayer Book does not permit the practice, several dioceses had authorised rites for the blessing of gay unions as a ‘pastoral’ measure, and
3. To explain its views on a proposed Anglican Covenant. While the final Covenant document has not been drafted, should the American Church refuse to consider endorsing any pan-Anglican agreement, it would render the exercise moot.
The US Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, is expected to reintroduce proposals for a ‘primatial vicar’ who would exercise metropolitan authority on her behalf for conservatives. The proposal was first made Last November, but conservatives rejected it, saying the proposal lacked any guarantees or accountability.
The Presiding Bishop is understood to have canvassed a number of bishops about the primatial vicar plan, including one participant in the Camp Allen meetings of moderate and conservative bishops and had been given conflicting advice as to the suitability of her proposal. Fort Worth Bishop Jack Iker told The Church of England Newspaper any plan that kept his diocese under the authority of Bishop Schori was a non-starter.
From the left, a group of five bishops has prepared a 98-page paper that rejects the primates’ pastoral scheme. They argue that the plans violated the Episcopal Church’s polity. But one of the purported authors of that document, Upper South Carolina Bishop Dorsey Henderson, disassociated himself from it, saying
the bishops had a duty to guard the faith and unity of the Church.
“I believe bishops have authority and responsibility to act quite apart from General Convention, and you need look no further than the catechism in The Book of Common Prayer from where my views derive,” he said.
--This article appears in the Church of England Newspaper, September 21,2007 edition, on page one
AP: Episcopal Bishops in Key Meeting on Gays
By RACHEL ZOLL – 3 hours ago
The Rev. Frank Wade, a veteran of the brawling theological debates in the Episcopal Church, said the denomination was once filled with people like him: "old white men." It was the church of the establishment, the spiritual home of more U.S. presidents than any other denomination.
Now, the head of the church is a woman who says the Bible supports gay relationships. Many Episcopal priests believe that accepting Jesus isn't the only path to salvation. And V. Gene Robinson, who lives openly with his longtime male partner, is the bishop of New Hampshire.
Episcopalians are hardly alone among mainline Protestants in their liberal turn, but they have been tested like no others for their views. The Episcopal Church is the Anglican body in the U.S., and many Anglican leaders overseas are infuriated by Episcopal left-leaning beliefs.
Starting on Thursday in New Orleans, Episcopal bishops will take up the most direct demand yet that they reverse course: Anglican leaders want an unequivocal pledge that Episcopalians won't consecrate another gay bishop or approve official prayers for same-gender couples. If the church fails to do so by Sept. 30, their full membership in the Anglican Communion could be lost.
"I think the bishops are going to stand up and say, `Going backward is not one of our options,'" said Wade of the Washington diocese, who has led church legislative committees on liturgy and Anglican relations. "I don't think there's going to be a backing down."
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is taking the rare step of meeting privately with the bishops on the first two days of their closed-door talks. The Anglican spiritual leader faces a real danger that the communion, nearly five centuries old, could break up on his watch.
"I'm working very hard to stop that happening," he told The Daily Telegraph of London.
The 2.2 million-member Episcopal Church comprises only a tiny part of the world's 77 million Anglicans. But the wealthy U.S. denomination covers about one-third of the communion's budget.
Within the Episcopal Church, most parishioners either accept gay relationships or don't want to split up over homosexuality.
However, a small minority of Episcopal traditionalists are fed up with church leaders.
Three dioceses — San Joaquin, Pittsburgh and Quincy, Ill. — are taking steps to break away and align directly with like-minded Anglican provinces overseas.
According to the national church, 55 of its more than 7,000 parishes have either already left or voted to leave the denomination, with 11 others losing a significant number of members and clergy. Episcopal conservatives contend the losses are much higher.
Many of the breakaway parishes aren't waiting to see what the bishops decide in New Orleans. They've aligned with sympathetic overseas Anglican leaders, called primates, who have ignored communion tradition that they only oversee churches within their own provinces.
Primates from the predominantly conservative provinces of Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya and elsewhere have ordained bishops to work in the U.S., and have set up parish networks that rival the Episcopal Church on its own turf.
Litigation over who owns the properties has already started and will be expensive and messy. Episcopal buildings and other holdings nationwide are worth billions of dollars.
The fight isn't just about the Bible and homosexuality. It's fueled by deep differences over how Scripture should be interpreted on a wide range of issues, including salvation and truth.
The decades of debate turned into open confrontation when Robinson was consecrated in 2003. A church — and global communion — that once held together Christians with diverse biblical views found itself dividing into factions, seeing little that could unite them.
"The various debates ... over my lifetime have been a fascinating study in two ships passing each other in the night," said the Rev. Peter Moore, a leading conservative thinker and retired head of the Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Ambridge, Pa. "Neither heard a thing the other said. It was clear that both groups had made up their minds on totally different grounds, and they were not speaking the same language."
The outcome of the New Orleans meeting, which runs through Tuesday, could turn that gap into a permanent break.
The Rev. Frank Wade, a veteran of the brawling theological debates in the Episcopal Church, said the denomination was once filled with people like him: "old white men." It was the church of the establishment, the spiritual home of more U.S. presidents than any other denomination.
Now, the head of the church is a woman who says the Bible supports gay relationships. Many Episcopal priests believe that accepting Jesus isn't the only path to salvation. And V. Gene Robinson, who lives openly with his longtime male partner, is the bishop of New Hampshire.
Episcopalians are hardly alone among mainline Protestants in their liberal turn, but they have been tested like no others for their views. The Episcopal Church is the Anglican body in the U.S., and many Anglican leaders overseas are infuriated by Episcopal left-leaning beliefs.
Starting on Thursday in New Orleans, Episcopal bishops will take up the most direct demand yet that they reverse course: Anglican leaders want an unequivocal pledge that Episcopalians won't consecrate another gay bishop or approve official prayers for same-gender couples. If the church fails to do so by Sept. 30, their full membership in the Anglican Communion could be lost.
"I think the bishops are going to stand up and say, `Going backward is not one of our options,'" said Wade of the Washington diocese, who has led church legislative committees on liturgy and Anglican relations. "I don't think there's going to be a backing down."
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is taking the rare step of meeting privately with the bishops on the first two days of their closed-door talks. The Anglican spiritual leader faces a real danger that the communion, nearly five centuries old, could break up on his watch.
"I'm working very hard to stop that happening," he told The Daily Telegraph of London.
The 2.2 million-member Episcopal Church comprises only a tiny part of the world's 77 million Anglicans. But the wealthy U.S. denomination covers about one-third of the communion's budget.
Within the Episcopal Church, most parishioners either accept gay relationships or don't want to split up over homosexuality.
However, a small minority of Episcopal traditionalists are fed up with church leaders.
Three dioceses — San Joaquin, Pittsburgh and Quincy, Ill. — are taking steps to break away and align directly with like-minded Anglican provinces overseas.
According to the national church, 55 of its more than 7,000 parishes have either already left or voted to leave the denomination, with 11 others losing a significant number of members and clergy. Episcopal conservatives contend the losses are much higher.
Many of the breakaway parishes aren't waiting to see what the bishops decide in New Orleans. They've aligned with sympathetic overseas Anglican leaders, called primates, who have ignored communion tradition that they only oversee churches within their own provinces.
Primates from the predominantly conservative provinces of Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya and elsewhere have ordained bishops to work in the U.S., and have set up parish networks that rival the Episcopal Church on its own turf.
Litigation over who owns the properties has already started and will be expensive and messy. Episcopal buildings and other holdings nationwide are worth billions of dollars.
The fight isn't just about the Bible and homosexuality. It's fueled by deep differences over how Scripture should be interpreted on a wide range of issues, including salvation and truth.
The decades of debate turned into open confrontation when Robinson was consecrated in 2003. A church — and global communion — that once held together Christians with diverse biblical views found itself dividing into factions, seeing little that could unite them.
"The various debates ... over my lifetime have been a fascinating study in two ships passing each other in the night," said the Rev. Peter Moore, a leading conservative thinker and retired head of the Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Ambridge, Pa. "Neither heard a thing the other said. It was clear that both groups had made up their minds on totally different grounds, and they were not speaking the same language."
The outcome of the New Orleans meeting, which runs through Tuesday, could turn that gap into a permanent break.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)