I've posted a number of pieces today while I'm attending the CANA Annual Council in Herndon, VA. This afternoon our Missionary Bishop Martyn Minns gave a terrific address and it is posted here:
http://www.canaconvocation.org/downloads/docs/Pastoral_Call_2009.pdf
One of the aspects of CANA life that I didn't see often in pecusa is numerical growth. At last year's council in Akron, Ohio we heard that CANA had grown to 70 congregations. At this council we heard that we have 85 congregations with the possibility that we will have 100 by year's end. This is strong growth and it is the kind of numerical growth that we are seeing all over the new province in North America (the ACNA).
We have also focused on spiritual growth. You can get a sense of this in the postings below on the CANA Council by BabyBlue.
There is a spirit of unity among attendees that I never experienced in pecusa. We are united at the foot of the cross and for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is encouraging to be with other Christians who share biblical values and a biblical sense of mission.
In contrast I heard one person speak about the emptiness of the recent General Convention in Anaheim. There were fewer people at GC09 than in year's past, fewer exhibitors in the exhibit hall and no sense of joy. You'd think that the liberals would be giddy with all the legislation that they passed, but instead the sense of the speaker was that there was suppressed anger rather than joy.
I also heard that at General Seminary in NYC there is an $8 million budget supported by an anticipated $5 million in revenue. This is after Seabury Western announced that they are closing their doors, EDS has downsized, and Bexley Hall is on life support (SW and BH were not discussed at the CANA Council and GTS was not mentioned in a public meeting).
The feeling of the CANA Council is upbeat, joyous and thankfulness for God's good work in our midst this year pervades the assembly. There is also great anticipation for what we expect God to do as we move forward in CANA and the ACNA. Tommorrow we will hold our closing worship that will include several ordinations. We praise and thank God for the growing ministry that He is entrusting to us.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Update from the CANA Council Day 2
From BabyBlue Online (blog):
Friday, July 31, 2009
I'm here at the 2009 CANA (Convocation of Anglicans in North America) Council meeting at the Church of the Epiphany in Herndon, VA. We've had meetings and gatherings and teachings as well as the Bishop of CANA's pastoral address today. There is a wide-variety of folks here (talk about full inclusion!) - from low church evangelicals to high church Anglo Catholics, women who are nuns and women who are ordained clergy, lots of military chaplains (that's a ministry that is just exploding in CANA), midwesterners and southerners and westerners and every thing in between - church planters looking at architecture plans at the Scott-Long Booth to delegates hovering over the book table, seminars on healing and seminars on art, Trinity School for Ministry is here as well as many others who have ministry booths lining the halls going into the main church nave. The parking lot is packed with cars with plates from all over the country - there's far more blending in rather than staying in comfortable huddles as relationships continue to be built and expanded. It really does feel like a family now - and the family is growing!
One of the most interesting things to watch is how CANA will be folded in to ACNA. I've been doing a lot of thinking about that. For us in Virginia, we've seen CANA as a lifeboat - but not the Love Boat. The question is - when will we hit land? Is land far off - or will it come in sight soon? This is one of the major questions. There seems a lot of energy to move into the Anglican Church of North America (CANA is not a church, but is it a diocese?). But if it's a diocese then what are the districts that are springing up, following the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV) model? Are those future dioceses in ACNA or are they more like regions or deaneries you'd find in a diocese? This is a time to ask questions - and realize that answers aren't going to be discovered by someone else. The answers are nearer than that - in fact, they may be as close as the person sitting next to you.
Friday, July 31, 2009
I'm here at the 2009 CANA (Convocation of Anglicans in North America) Council meeting at the Church of the Epiphany in Herndon, VA. We've had meetings and gatherings and teachings as well as the Bishop of CANA's pastoral address today. There is a wide-variety of folks here (talk about full inclusion!) - from low church evangelicals to high church Anglo Catholics, women who are nuns and women who are ordained clergy, lots of military chaplains (that's a ministry that is just exploding in CANA), midwesterners and southerners and westerners and every thing in between - church planters looking at architecture plans at the Scott-Long Booth to delegates hovering over the book table, seminars on healing and seminars on art, Trinity School for Ministry is here as well as many others who have ministry booths lining the halls going into the main church nave. The parking lot is packed with cars with plates from all over the country - there's far more blending in rather than staying in comfortable huddles as relationships continue to be built and expanded. It really does feel like a family now - and the family is growing!
One of the most interesting things to watch is how CANA will be folded in to ACNA. I've been doing a lot of thinking about that. For us in Virginia, we've seen CANA as a lifeboat - but not the Love Boat. The question is - when will we hit land? Is land far off - or will it come in sight soon? This is one of the major questions. There seems a lot of energy to move into the Anglican Church of North America (CANA is not a church, but is it a diocese?). But if it's a diocese then what are the districts that are springing up, following the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV) model? Are those future dioceses in ACNA or are they more like regions or deaneries you'd find in a diocese? This is a time to ask questions - and realize that answers aren't going to be discovered by someone else. The answers are nearer than that - in fact, they may be as close as the person sitting next to you.
Rowan’s Reflections: Unpacking the Archbishop’s Statement
From the Anglican Communion Institute via BabyBlue:
Written by: Dr NT Wright (in collaboration with ACI and Fulcrum)
Thursday, July 30th, 2009
Introduction
1. In the two days since the Archbishop released his ‘Reflections’ on TEC’s General Convention, they have already generated widely differing responses. We always knew, say some conservatives, that the ABC was a hopeless liberal, and this has confirmed it. Not so, declare many horrified radicals: he has obviously sold out to the conservatives. Some have warmly welcomed the statement and hailed it as paving the way forward. Cautious voices in between are trying to discern strengths and weaknesses. In my view, there is much to welcome, and much whose implications need further unpacking. The two main sections of this paper deal with these two aspects.
2. I have tried to bear in mind that the Archbishop is himself not only an Instrument of Unity but the one which has to hold on to everything at this moment. Lambeth 2008 didn’t say much (apart from what the ABC himself said); the status of ACC and Primates are under question in various quarters; it is up to him. He therefore has an obligation to maintain as broad a conversation as possible, and that is continually to be seen in his statement. As often (for instance in his poems, and in his recent book on Dostoevsky) the Archbishop’s writing challenges its readers to pause, to ponder, to think things through. One commentator has suggested that he employs a characteristically British habit of inviting the reader to draw the really important conclusions and giving them the space to do so. This piece is an attempt to take up that challenge and invitation.
Points to Welcome
3. The ABC rightly indicates that the Communion is indeed already broken. In (2) he speaks of ‘the broken bridges [from TEC] into the life of other Anglican provinces’ as the existing reality, and stresses that GenCon 09 has done nothing to repair these broken bridges. Though his explanatory clause ‘very serious anxieties have already been expressed’ is (perhaps deliberately) imprecise, the whole passage indicates, as the Primates did in 2003, that the breach has already occurred. We are not, then, looking now at TEC choosing for the first time to ‘walk apart’, but at the recognition that they did so some time ago and have done nothing to indicate a willingness to rejoin the larger Communion. This is all the more the case if it is indeed true, as the Presiding Bishop has said, that the new Resolutions were ‘descriptive’, that is, stating what is already the case: that is a way of saying, in fact, what some of us thought at the time, that the supposed ‘moratoria’ of GenCon 06 were never binding. This is what the ABC means, in the penultimate section of the whole document, by saying that the different priorities identified by different parts of the Anglican family ‘are bound to have consequences’. For too long TEC, and various other parts of the Communion, have spoken and acted as though there were no consequences. The ABC has now made it clear that this is not the case.
4. Once we penetrate the complex language, the ABC is also eventually clear that the great majority at GenCon voted, in effect if not in so many words, against the two relevant moratoria. ‘The repeated request for moratoria . . . has clearly not found universal favour’ is a roundabout but ultimately unambiguous way of saying ‘the majority voted against the moratoria’. This puts in a different light the reference in the first paragraph to ‘an insistence at the highest level’ (i.e. a letter from the Presiding Bishop) that the relevant resolutions ‘do not have the automatic effect of overturning the requested moratoria’. That may be true in a strict legal sense, though many will see this as an example of typical TEC behaviour, a grandmother’s-footsteps game of creeping forwards without being noticed. But the resolutions that were passed clearly had the effect (a) of reminding people that the way was in fact open all along to the episcopal appointment of non-celibate homosexuals, and (b) of reminding people that rites for public same-sex blessings could indeed be developed. The ABC is now clearly if tacitly saying, throughout the document, that there is no reasonable likelihood, at any point in many years to come, that TEC will in fact turn round and embrace the moratoria ex animo, still less the theology which underlies the Communion’s constant and often-repeated stance on sexual behaviour. Nor is there any reasonable likelihood that TEC will in fact be able to embrace the Covenant when it attains its final form a few months from now. That is the reality with which the Reflections deal.
5. Section 2 of the ABC’s Reflections addresses the presenting double-headed issue of same-sex blessings and the ordination (not simply the consecration as bishops) of non-celibate homosexuals. Here he basically reaffirms the church’s traditional stance, articulated in Lambeth 1.10 from 1998 but universally held, prior to that, whenever the point had been raised. First, the church cannot sanction or bless same-sex unions. Second, since the ordained ministry carries a necessarily representative function for the life of the church, those who order their lives this way cannot fulfil this representative role – cannot, in other words, be ordained. This is perhaps the strongest statement that the ABC has yet made of the Church’s position, and it should be noted carefully that he refers to the whole ordained ministry, i.e. deacons and priests and not just bishops. This has of course always been the official position of the whole Anglican Communion, repeated again and again by Lambeth Conferences, ACC and Primates and never overturned, for instance, in the Church of England’s General Synod. The ABC’s clear statement indicates once again that the two moratoria here expressed (with the second one actually strengthened) should be explicit prerequisites of Covenant membership. However much people may protest – and they have and will – that in some cases this is honoured more in the breach than in the observance, that is not an argument that the position is wrong, but a challenge to the way the church’s order and discipline currently functions. Creating ‘facts on the ground’ which fly in the face of the church’s well-known official teaching does not, as some suppose, generate a moral high ground; it is a form of dishonesty. If people want to object, they should argue the point, not assume it.
6. An aside at this point: some in TEC insist that their theological position has in fact been argued, and that the rest of the Communion is ignoring these arguments. As far as I can discern, there are two main arguments routinely used.
(i) First, the supposed modern and scientific discovery of a personal ‘identity’ characterised by sexual preference, which then generates a set of ‘rights’. The Archbishop has commented on ‘rights’ in this connection. Without entering into discussion of the scientific evidence, it must be said that the Christian notion of personal identity has never before been supposed to be rooted in desires of whatever sort. Indeed, desires are routinely brought under the constraints of ‘being in Christ’. This quite new notion of an ‘identity’ found not only within oneself but within one’s emotional and physical desires needs to be articulated on the basis of scripture and tradition, and this to my mind has not been done.
(ii) This leads to the second point, the appeal to baptism. It is now routinely said in TEC that all the baptised should have access to all the sacraments, on the apparent grounds that baptism indicates God’s acceptance of people as they are. This appears to ignore the New Testament teaching about baptism, that it constitutes a dying to self and sin and a rising to new life with Christ, specifically characterised by a holiness and renewed humanity in which certain habits and styles of life are left behind. From the first century until very recently it was universally understood that this included sexual immorality, and that that included homosexual behaviour. To try to use a supposedly ‘baptismal’ theology to overturn the universal Christian tradition of the meaning of baptism, and with it the universal and biblically-rooted appeal for sexual holiness, is a bold move. Most theologians will think that the first argument above (the proposal of an ‘identity’) is not strong enough to justify it. God’s welcome is always a transforming welcome, as the ABC has elsewhere stressed.
7. Section 2 contains strong and important warnings against personal prejudice and bigotry. The ABC does not spell out the difference between prejudice and bigotry on the one hand and a principled, thought-out moral stance on the other, but he clearly indicates that the two must be sharply separated. It is most welcome that he indicates the Church’s calling to a genuinely prophetic lifestyle: ‘if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the Church to change its discipline’. No indeed. One of the most astonishing volte-faces in my lifetime has been the change from a liberalism which sought to be counter-cultural, anti-establishment, ‘agin the government’, protesting against the drift of society, and the present would-be liberalism which insists that because society has now drifted in a new direction the church should follow where that culture, the new ‘establishment’, and now even the government, are going. The ABC is far too good a theologian to be taken in by that.
8. Section 3, on the global and local decision-making processes, is a great strength.
(i) Though the ABC does not say so, this is basically a combination of the very heart of the Windsor Report and the one really good section of the Kuala Lumpur Report (Communion, Conflict and Hope, para. 104). At this point the ABC is simply articulating what the Windsor Continuation Group had said clearly before, during and after Lambeth 08.
(ii) The ABC here does three vital things and then homes in on the key point. (a) He insists that this is not (as is often sneeringly said) about bureaucratic or centralized ‘control’; (b) he warns against churches becoming ‘imprisoned in their own cultural environment’ (cognate with the point at the end of my previous paragraph); (c) he broadens the question so as to make it clear that this applies equally to issues such as lay presidency or inviting the unbaptized to receive Holy Communion.
(iii) The key point then is this (his paragraph 13): though some things can indeed be decided by a local church, the decision as to which things can be decided locally is not itself one that can be taken locally. And the criteria upon which the global church can decide this all-important question are (as in Kuala Lumpur) ‘intensity, substance and extent’. This really needs spelling out, but within the ABC’s document, and for that matter the present one, this can be left for another occasion.
9. Within the same section, the ABC makes the vital point that in our ongoing ecumenical work is it vital that our partners know ‘who speaks for the body they are relating to’. If many Anglicans don’t see why these presenting issues should matter, the same is not true for our ecumenical partners, particularly among the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. What is at stake, as well as Anglican identity and ecclesial density (i.e. being a church with a high doctrine of Communion, rather than a loose federation), is ecumenical credibility.
10. Many will not regard the language of a ‘two-track’ Communion as a strength. Some have objected that this is forcing apart what ought to be held together. Others, conversely, have sneered that ‘two-track’ sounds like a vote for pluralism pure and simple, a kind of ecclesial version of ’70s pop-psych ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’: you go your way, we go ours, and we’re both just fine as we are. But the ‘two-track’ option is not intended as an indifferentist, shoulder-shrugging thing (though no doubt some who find themselves in the incipient Track Two will want to see it like that). To say ‘two-tier’, as some have done at earlier stages in the discussion, implies that the two are still ‘tiers’ of the same thing, whereas ‘tracks’ may be going in quite different directions. And it is one ‘track’ rather than the other which will possess the coherence to work together in full solidarity, not least in ecumenical relationships.
11. Finally, the ABC recognises that one of the most urgent questions concerns those within TEC who have remained loyal to TEC itself and yet fully intend also to remain loyal to the rest of the Communion. Having already mentioned in paragraph 2 ‘a significant minority of bishops’ who have clearly said they intend to remain within the Communion’s consensus, he returns to them towards the end. His paragraph 25 is tantalisingly brief where many will want it to be elaborated and explicated, but there can be no doubt that here he holds the door wide open for such people ‘to be free to adopt the Covenant’. How this might work out we must consider below.
Discernment and Further Questions
12. Sex and ‘rights’. In relation to Section 2, someone, sooner or later, needs to spell out further (wearisome though it will be) the difference between (a) the ‘human dignity and civil liberty’ of those with homosexual and similar instincts and (b) their ‘rights’, as practising let alone ordained Christians, to give physical expression to those instincts. As the Pope has pointed out, the language of ‘human rights’ has now been downgraded in public discourse to the special pleading of every interest-group. The church has never acknowledged that powerful sexual instincts, which almost all human beings have, generate a prima facie ‘right’ that these instincts receive physical expression. Indeed, the church has always insisted that self-control is part of the ‘fruit of the Spirit’. All are called to chastity and, within that, some are called to celibacy; but a call to celibacy is not the same thing as discovering that one has a weak or negligible sexual drive. The call to the self-control of chastity is for all: for the heterosexually inclined who, whether married or not, are regularly and powerfully attracted to many different potential partners, just as much as for those with different instincts.
13. The depth of the problem.
(i) Apparent Caution: We should be careful to read the ABC’s cautious words in paragraphs 22 and 24 in the light of the crucial paragraph 2 (see above). The ABC says ‘it would be a mistake to act or speak now as if those decisions’ [i.e. on signing up to the Covenant] ‘had already been made’; and he warns against speaking ‘in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication’. He also speaks of the ‘twofold ecclesial reality’ as a ‘possibility’ in the ‘middle distance’.
(ii) The Reality: But, as he himself has indicated, key decisions have been made (obviously not yet in terms of voting on the Covenant, but certainly in terms of taking stances which will lead directly to such votes); schism has already happened; and not just a twofold, but a confusing and pluriform ecclesial reality, is not just a middle-distance possibility but an on-the-ground and in-your-face fact.
(iii) Confrontation Already Exists: Warning against ‘a competitive hostility between the two’ tracks may seem somewhat unrealistic to many in TEC and Canada who have lost churches, livelihoods and in some cases their Holy Orders – and, we should in all fairness stress, to others who, though theologically orthodox themselves, have been sniped at or sneered at by those who use the ‘orthodox’ label as a pretext for personal gripes or power-games. Speaking of an ‘ideal’ whereby both ‘Tracks’ ‘should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency’, will sound idealistic at best when several loud voices in TEC are saying that what God is calling them to is to spread the ‘gospel’ of ‘inclusivity’, and several other voices are saying that God is calling them to resist precisely this.
(iv) Mutual Respect? Pleading for ‘mutual respect for deeply held theological convictions’ will seem straightforwardly unreal both to those who are fed up being called hopeless liberals by unthinking conservatives and to those who are fed up being called hopeless conservatives by unthinking liberals. ‘Deeply held theological convictions’ of course characterize plenty of other groups, not least (for instance) serious Muslim theologians. I respect such convictions, while still believing it proper to argue against them. This kind of plea could simply park the question, insisting (in good Anglican style) that we treat everyone as being in reality what they are in profession, but seeming to ignore the call, to bishops in particular, to guard the faith, teach the truth and refute error. Did Athanasius respect the ‘deeply held theological convictions’ of Arius and his followers? Perhaps he did; certainly he took them seriously enough to refute them vigorously. If the separation of two ‘Tracks’ generated, at last, a full-scale theological and exegetical discussion of disputed points, rather than emotive sniping, we might all be better served in the long run.
14. Representation on Ecumenical bodies. In paragraphs 9, 15 and 23 the ABC speaks of certain people being unable to represent the Communion’s voice in ecumenical encounters. He does not say who he means or how this is now to be worked out (as it must be very quickly if major ecumenical work is to proceed). Presumably the end of paragraphs 10 and 14 are a reference to the dangers inherent in TEC’s position, but again he does not spell this out (no doubt because it isn’t only TEC that faces this danger). In particular, the membership of the newly constituted international Faith and Order Advisory Group raises some questions, particularly (see below) if this group is to advise on the future role of the Instruments and the future structural shape of the Communion. So, too, the Joint Standing Committee as presently constituted includes people who, according to the Archbishop’s own analysis, have gone with the decision to move away from the rest of the Communion.
15. ‘In Communion’? A pressing question in all of this must be: who, both during this process and at its end, will be ‘in Communion’ with whom? Once Tracks One and Two have been identified, will there be mutual recognition of ministries? Presumably not if Track One is committed to Paragraph 8 of the Archbishop’s paper while Track Two is committed to demolishing it. Will communicants be welcome across the gap between the Tracks? If the Covenant becomes the gold standard, and if ACNA sign up as they may well, will the rest of the Communion (including of course the C of E) be ‘in communion’ with ACNA? These are difficult and uncomfortable questions. But they will certainly emerge; there is already a motion on the subject slated for General Synod in February 2010, though by then all sorts of things may look different.
16. No Delay. As this process continues to unfold, there is one major problem with a proposal to put all the eggs into the Covenant basket. (I had always understood that the Covenant was not designed to deal with the post-2003 problem, but rather to head off quite different problems that might arise in the future. I remain wary of trying, now, to put all the weight for the full sorting-out of the 2003 problem on to the Covenant, especially on to one brief, dense and inevitably controversial section of it, and particularly when the final drafting of that section is in the hands of a very small group, albeit then reporting to the ABC.) Now that GenCon 09 has happened, even if the Covenant is completed within a few months TEC will assuredly say that it can’t consider it until 2012, and that such consideration could only be preliminary, looking to a more definite decision in 2015. This delaying tactic – twelve years from 2003, when the crisis really began! – must be seen for what it is, and headed off. The obvious way to do this is to declare that ‘Track One’ is open, right away, to Covenant signatories, and only Covenant signatories. How precisely that could be done (granted that the Joint Standing Committee, for instance, includes some from TEC and other sympathetic provinces) remains a question. But it needs to be done, and done quickly. I offer some suggestions on all this in the conclusion below.
17. Section 4 of the Covenant. Picking up the point just made: Section 4 of the Covenant needs to proceed swiftly to its final form. This process is far too important to be left to a small group advising the Archbishop. When the Archbishop receives the group’s work, he should consult with key Communion representatives to ensure that there are no remaining hidden problems. In this process, any reduction or limiting of Section 4 (clearly the hope of the majority in TEC, not least those who pushed the ACC to postpone a decision) will be a large step away from the mind of the Communion as the ABC has himself expressed it, and would have the effect of nullifying all that he has said in his Reflections.
18. Retuning the Instruments? A further problem, not too far down the line, is contained in the ABC’s brief references to a restructuring or reworking of the Instruments themselves.
(i) New Cross-Track ‘instruments’? In paragraph 24 he speaks of hoping and working for ‘the best kinds of shared networks and institutions of common interest that could be maintained as between different visions of the Anglican heritage’. What might these be? Clearly not the Lambeth Conference, the ACC and the Primates. They, we must assume, will be Track One institutions; if they are not, the whole point (not least the whole ecumenical point) will be lost. So do we need some new institutions to enable the two tracks to talk to one another and to work together on shared ‘mission and service’ projects? This would constitute an unprecedented kind of internal ecumenism, fraught with frustrations and bad memories; yet perhaps it needs to be attempted.
(ii) The existing Institutions: And what about the existing Institutions? Paragraph 26 speaks of the present structures needing ‘serious rethinking in the near future’. This, presumably, will be a task for the newly constituted international Faith and Order Advisory Group – though, since some of that Group come from parts of the Communion which now appear likely to be in Track Two, that raises other difficult questions. (Why was the group chosen and named just before General Convention?) But the thought of the complex discussions that might swirl around any reshaping of Lambeth, ACC and Primates, and any ‘covering-both-tracks’ new institutions, is daunting. We already have a highly confusing situation both globally and nationally, with the ACO and Lambeth sitting uncomfortably side by side and with the shape and role of the existing Instruments remaining unclear. We need, if anything, to simplify and clarify, not to create more complexity. Complexity simply hands power to those with time on their hands and with well-developed skills in political manipulation.
Conclusion
19. Having worked very carefully through the Archbishop’s Reflections several times, having read what several others have said, and having had various conversations, I can understand the frustrations of those who wanted something more obviously crisp and clear. Yet at the heart of this document are two things which the Communion has badly needed to hear, hedged about with all kinds of assurances which make it clear that this is neither a knee-jerk reaction nor a mere statement of prejudice: a strong reaffirmation of the Anglican position on sexual behaviour, and a strong insistence on the Windsor point that global issues cannot be decided locally – and that the decision as to what is global and what is local cannot itself be decided locally. The ‘so what’ of all this needs now to be drawn out, and in my view this needs to happen more or less at once, not postponed until Section 4 of the Covenant is redrafted and ratified. In particular, the Communion Partner bishops, and parishes and individuals who take that stance, need to be assured that what is said rather briefly in paragraph 25 does indeed apply, and will indeed apply, to them, and that ways will be found very quickly to turn that into a reality.
20. How then can this ‘so what’ become a reality? We remind ourselves again that the ABC has no juridical authority outside his own Province, and that he is aware of himself being involved in the danger of trying, as a local Primate, to decide things for the whole Communion. Yet, as Archbishop of Canterbury, he carries within the whole Communion immense moral and pastoral authority, rooted in his exposition of scripture and articulation of the whole Christian tradition; and this, as he himself has insisted, is the real heart of all authority within the body of Christ. Too often in recent times legal and juridical ‘authority’ has been used, and perhaps abused, in the place of the genuine apostolic authority of the word of God and prayer. It is thus up to the Archbishop himself to move swiftly to implement what he himself has said, counting on support from bishops around his own Province and the whole Communion. The Covenant (which the ABC has repeatedly affirmed as the new instrument of our unity and common life) needs to be completed and offered to all Anglicans for signature. Those within TEC who sign it need appropriate Communion recognition and relatedness – if bishops, a Primatial relationship, if parishes or individuals, an episcopal relationship. Ways by which this can be done have been worked out by the Communion Partner bishops, and it is with them, first and foremost, that the Archbishop must work towards the necessary and urgent solutions. What now follows are some suggestions for how this might be attempted.
21. A Way Forward?
(i) How do ‘Communion Partners’ sign on? The question presses, as in the ABC’s paragraph 25, as to how dioceses, parishes and individuals within TEC will be able to sign the Covenant and thus not only align themselves, but be recognised by the wider Communion as aligning themselves, with that wider Communion itself. The ABC is certainly here referring to the ‘Communion Partner’ bishops, and to the parishes and individuals who take the same line that they do. As the ABC says, ‘there should be a clear answer to this question’, and actually the ABC himself is now the main person, if not the only person, in a position to give a clear and authoritative answer. But some proposals here may perhaps help.
(ii) The Anaheim Statement: In his second paragraph, the Archbishop notes that a substantial minority have indicated their dissent from the position taken by TEC as a whole. The document they have produced (‘the Anaheim Statement’) could now form something of a bridge between the present confusion and the not-too-distant future when the full Covenant will be available for signature. Some reports indicate that bishops who voted with the majority in Gen Con are now realising the predicament they’ve put themselves in and are starting to sign up to Anaheim instead.
(iii) What about Parishes and Individuals? But here’s the problem: it is one thing for bishops and their dioceses to be ‘Communion Partners’, recognised by Lambeth and the wider Communion as full ‘Track One’ members. (That carries its own problems, but if the diocese is the primary unit, as the ABC has insisted, it is clearly possible.) But how a parish in a non-signing diocese, or an individual in a non-signing parish or diocese, can become a ‘Track One’ Anglican, recognised as such globally, remains to be seen. Many in that position neither want nor intend to join a movement like ACNA, nor should they be put in a position where they have no other option. But a way forward must be found.
(iv) Getting from Here to There: Covenant Sections 1-3. The Covenant, when completed, will provide a line in the sand. However, we do not need to wait until Section 4 is redrafted. The first three sections are already completed and agreed, and they (especially Section Three) already prohibit the kinds of things which General Convention has done, and which many TEC bishops are doing. These three sections could be signed and adopted right away by CP bishops and dioceses as a signal of their intent.
(v) Getting from Here to There: Anaheim. The Anaheim Statement itself could also function as a preliminary rallying point around which more may gather than had initially been supposed. Perhaps, indeed, signing this statement, along with Sections 1-3 of the Covenant, could function, ahead of the availability of the final version of the Covenant, as a prerequisite for participation, from this moment on, in representative Anglican functions and bodies and, not least, in bodies that deal with the Covenant itself and the future of the Instruments. That would give actual and practical expression to what the ABC has now said. Indeed, unless something like this is implemented at once it will be hard to sustain trust in the ongoing process.
(vi) Interim Structures? We need some interim structures to get us from where we are to where we need to be – and not only in TEC, but also in Canada and perhaps elsewhere. But we need these now, not in six months, let alone six years. The Communion Partner bishops should perhaps restate their willingness to provide, with the permission of the relevant Diocesan, alternative episcopal relationship and cover for parishes in Dioceses whose bishops might find their relation to the wider Communion to have changed. The now largely discredited ‘DEPO’ system (‘Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight’) may have been a signpost, albeit one that didn’t seem to be capable of working well at the time, towards some kind of a solution. Issues of polity should, if possible, be dealt with at a provincial, not a global, level.
(vii) Urgent meetings? Ideally, the CP bishops, and perhaps some of the Rectors, should meet with the Archbishop to discuss some kind of a revived DEPO. The ABC could then invite others, including both representatives of TEC leadership on the one hand and ACNA on the other, to further meetings to work out agreements that would avoid future confusions or accusations. There is a need, perhaps, for a call to mutual respect, and maturity of decision-making, in recognition of where things now stand. There is no point pretending things are otherwise than they are. We have come to the tipping point, and wisdom suggests that all involved take counsel in recognition of that.
(viii) What about ACNA? All this raises, then, the question of ACNA itself (and, indeed, other would-be Anglican bodies). Without some kind of clear steer on the issues just raised, we can expect that ACNA will continue to attract individuals, congregations and perhaps even dioceses. This is, indeed, already happening. However, though the situation on the ground is often confused, ACNA has expressed a clear willingness to work with the Communion Partner bishops towards whatever greater good may come. And ACNA itself has shown itself eager to sign the Covenant when it is complete. All this will go into the melting pot of whatever new alignments the Communion will discover over the coming months. It is important that bridges, not fences, be built during this period.
22. These are only suggestions, designed to help those on the ground not only to think through the issues but to take concrete and immediate steps. I have said many times that, for all those involved in this whole messy situation, the main priority at the moment is prayer. That remains my conviction and my plea. Prayer for the church; for our beloved Communion and the many other Christians with whom we seek to deepen fellowship; for Archbishop Rowan; for wisdom, courage, clarity and vision; for God’s glory, the extension of his kingdom, and the power of the gospel and the Spirit at work in hearts, lives, communities and throughout our world.
Written by: Dr NT Wright (in collaboration with ACI and Fulcrum)
Thursday, July 30th, 2009
Introduction
1. In the two days since the Archbishop released his ‘Reflections’ on TEC’s General Convention, they have already generated widely differing responses. We always knew, say some conservatives, that the ABC was a hopeless liberal, and this has confirmed it. Not so, declare many horrified radicals: he has obviously sold out to the conservatives. Some have warmly welcomed the statement and hailed it as paving the way forward. Cautious voices in between are trying to discern strengths and weaknesses. In my view, there is much to welcome, and much whose implications need further unpacking. The two main sections of this paper deal with these two aspects.
2. I have tried to bear in mind that the Archbishop is himself not only an Instrument of Unity but the one which has to hold on to everything at this moment. Lambeth 2008 didn’t say much (apart from what the ABC himself said); the status of ACC and Primates are under question in various quarters; it is up to him. He therefore has an obligation to maintain as broad a conversation as possible, and that is continually to be seen in his statement. As often (for instance in his poems, and in his recent book on Dostoevsky) the Archbishop’s writing challenges its readers to pause, to ponder, to think things through. One commentator has suggested that he employs a characteristically British habit of inviting the reader to draw the really important conclusions and giving them the space to do so. This piece is an attempt to take up that challenge and invitation.
Points to Welcome
3. The ABC rightly indicates that the Communion is indeed already broken. In (2) he speaks of ‘the broken bridges [from TEC] into the life of other Anglican provinces’ as the existing reality, and stresses that GenCon 09 has done nothing to repair these broken bridges. Though his explanatory clause ‘very serious anxieties have already been expressed’ is (perhaps deliberately) imprecise, the whole passage indicates, as the Primates did in 2003, that the breach has already occurred. We are not, then, looking now at TEC choosing for the first time to ‘walk apart’, but at the recognition that they did so some time ago and have done nothing to indicate a willingness to rejoin the larger Communion. This is all the more the case if it is indeed true, as the Presiding Bishop has said, that the new Resolutions were ‘descriptive’, that is, stating what is already the case: that is a way of saying, in fact, what some of us thought at the time, that the supposed ‘moratoria’ of GenCon 06 were never binding. This is what the ABC means, in the penultimate section of the whole document, by saying that the different priorities identified by different parts of the Anglican family ‘are bound to have consequences’. For too long TEC, and various other parts of the Communion, have spoken and acted as though there were no consequences. The ABC has now made it clear that this is not the case.
4. Once we penetrate the complex language, the ABC is also eventually clear that the great majority at GenCon voted, in effect if not in so many words, against the two relevant moratoria. ‘The repeated request for moratoria . . . has clearly not found universal favour’ is a roundabout but ultimately unambiguous way of saying ‘the majority voted against the moratoria’. This puts in a different light the reference in the first paragraph to ‘an insistence at the highest level’ (i.e. a letter from the Presiding Bishop) that the relevant resolutions ‘do not have the automatic effect of overturning the requested moratoria’. That may be true in a strict legal sense, though many will see this as an example of typical TEC behaviour, a grandmother’s-footsteps game of creeping forwards without being noticed. But the resolutions that were passed clearly had the effect (a) of reminding people that the way was in fact open all along to the episcopal appointment of non-celibate homosexuals, and (b) of reminding people that rites for public same-sex blessings could indeed be developed. The ABC is now clearly if tacitly saying, throughout the document, that there is no reasonable likelihood, at any point in many years to come, that TEC will in fact turn round and embrace the moratoria ex animo, still less the theology which underlies the Communion’s constant and often-repeated stance on sexual behaviour. Nor is there any reasonable likelihood that TEC will in fact be able to embrace the Covenant when it attains its final form a few months from now. That is the reality with which the Reflections deal.
5. Section 2 of the ABC’s Reflections addresses the presenting double-headed issue of same-sex blessings and the ordination (not simply the consecration as bishops) of non-celibate homosexuals. Here he basically reaffirms the church’s traditional stance, articulated in Lambeth 1.10 from 1998 but universally held, prior to that, whenever the point had been raised. First, the church cannot sanction or bless same-sex unions. Second, since the ordained ministry carries a necessarily representative function for the life of the church, those who order their lives this way cannot fulfil this representative role – cannot, in other words, be ordained. This is perhaps the strongest statement that the ABC has yet made of the Church’s position, and it should be noted carefully that he refers to the whole ordained ministry, i.e. deacons and priests and not just bishops. This has of course always been the official position of the whole Anglican Communion, repeated again and again by Lambeth Conferences, ACC and Primates and never overturned, for instance, in the Church of England’s General Synod. The ABC’s clear statement indicates once again that the two moratoria here expressed (with the second one actually strengthened) should be explicit prerequisites of Covenant membership. However much people may protest – and they have and will – that in some cases this is honoured more in the breach than in the observance, that is not an argument that the position is wrong, but a challenge to the way the church’s order and discipline currently functions. Creating ‘facts on the ground’ which fly in the face of the church’s well-known official teaching does not, as some suppose, generate a moral high ground; it is a form of dishonesty. If people want to object, they should argue the point, not assume it.
6. An aside at this point: some in TEC insist that their theological position has in fact been argued, and that the rest of the Communion is ignoring these arguments. As far as I can discern, there are two main arguments routinely used.
(i) First, the supposed modern and scientific discovery of a personal ‘identity’ characterised by sexual preference, which then generates a set of ‘rights’. The Archbishop has commented on ‘rights’ in this connection. Without entering into discussion of the scientific evidence, it must be said that the Christian notion of personal identity has never before been supposed to be rooted in desires of whatever sort. Indeed, desires are routinely brought under the constraints of ‘being in Christ’. This quite new notion of an ‘identity’ found not only within oneself but within one’s emotional and physical desires needs to be articulated on the basis of scripture and tradition, and this to my mind has not been done.
(ii) This leads to the second point, the appeal to baptism. It is now routinely said in TEC that all the baptised should have access to all the sacraments, on the apparent grounds that baptism indicates God’s acceptance of people as they are. This appears to ignore the New Testament teaching about baptism, that it constitutes a dying to self and sin and a rising to new life with Christ, specifically characterised by a holiness and renewed humanity in which certain habits and styles of life are left behind. From the first century until very recently it was universally understood that this included sexual immorality, and that that included homosexual behaviour. To try to use a supposedly ‘baptismal’ theology to overturn the universal Christian tradition of the meaning of baptism, and with it the universal and biblically-rooted appeal for sexual holiness, is a bold move. Most theologians will think that the first argument above (the proposal of an ‘identity’) is not strong enough to justify it. God’s welcome is always a transforming welcome, as the ABC has elsewhere stressed.
7. Section 2 contains strong and important warnings against personal prejudice and bigotry. The ABC does not spell out the difference between prejudice and bigotry on the one hand and a principled, thought-out moral stance on the other, but he clearly indicates that the two must be sharply separated. It is most welcome that he indicates the Church’s calling to a genuinely prophetic lifestyle: ‘if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the Church to change its discipline’. No indeed. One of the most astonishing volte-faces in my lifetime has been the change from a liberalism which sought to be counter-cultural, anti-establishment, ‘agin the government’, protesting against the drift of society, and the present would-be liberalism which insists that because society has now drifted in a new direction the church should follow where that culture, the new ‘establishment’, and now even the government, are going. The ABC is far too good a theologian to be taken in by that.
8. Section 3, on the global and local decision-making processes, is a great strength.
(i) Though the ABC does not say so, this is basically a combination of the very heart of the Windsor Report and the one really good section of the Kuala Lumpur Report (Communion, Conflict and Hope, para. 104). At this point the ABC is simply articulating what the Windsor Continuation Group had said clearly before, during and after Lambeth 08.
(ii) The ABC here does three vital things and then homes in on the key point. (a) He insists that this is not (as is often sneeringly said) about bureaucratic or centralized ‘control’; (b) he warns against churches becoming ‘imprisoned in their own cultural environment’ (cognate with the point at the end of my previous paragraph); (c) he broadens the question so as to make it clear that this applies equally to issues such as lay presidency or inviting the unbaptized to receive Holy Communion.
(iii) The key point then is this (his paragraph 13): though some things can indeed be decided by a local church, the decision as to which things can be decided locally is not itself one that can be taken locally. And the criteria upon which the global church can decide this all-important question are (as in Kuala Lumpur) ‘intensity, substance and extent’. This really needs spelling out, but within the ABC’s document, and for that matter the present one, this can be left for another occasion.
9. Within the same section, the ABC makes the vital point that in our ongoing ecumenical work is it vital that our partners know ‘who speaks for the body they are relating to’. If many Anglicans don’t see why these presenting issues should matter, the same is not true for our ecumenical partners, particularly among the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. What is at stake, as well as Anglican identity and ecclesial density (i.e. being a church with a high doctrine of Communion, rather than a loose federation), is ecumenical credibility.
10. Many will not regard the language of a ‘two-track’ Communion as a strength. Some have objected that this is forcing apart what ought to be held together. Others, conversely, have sneered that ‘two-track’ sounds like a vote for pluralism pure and simple, a kind of ecclesial version of ’70s pop-psych ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’: you go your way, we go ours, and we’re both just fine as we are. But the ‘two-track’ option is not intended as an indifferentist, shoulder-shrugging thing (though no doubt some who find themselves in the incipient Track Two will want to see it like that). To say ‘two-tier’, as some have done at earlier stages in the discussion, implies that the two are still ‘tiers’ of the same thing, whereas ‘tracks’ may be going in quite different directions. And it is one ‘track’ rather than the other which will possess the coherence to work together in full solidarity, not least in ecumenical relationships.
11. Finally, the ABC recognises that one of the most urgent questions concerns those within TEC who have remained loyal to TEC itself and yet fully intend also to remain loyal to the rest of the Communion. Having already mentioned in paragraph 2 ‘a significant minority of bishops’ who have clearly said they intend to remain within the Communion’s consensus, he returns to them towards the end. His paragraph 25 is tantalisingly brief where many will want it to be elaborated and explicated, but there can be no doubt that here he holds the door wide open for such people ‘to be free to adopt the Covenant’. How this might work out we must consider below.
Discernment and Further Questions
12. Sex and ‘rights’. In relation to Section 2, someone, sooner or later, needs to spell out further (wearisome though it will be) the difference between (a) the ‘human dignity and civil liberty’ of those with homosexual and similar instincts and (b) their ‘rights’, as practising let alone ordained Christians, to give physical expression to those instincts. As the Pope has pointed out, the language of ‘human rights’ has now been downgraded in public discourse to the special pleading of every interest-group. The church has never acknowledged that powerful sexual instincts, which almost all human beings have, generate a prima facie ‘right’ that these instincts receive physical expression. Indeed, the church has always insisted that self-control is part of the ‘fruit of the Spirit’. All are called to chastity and, within that, some are called to celibacy; but a call to celibacy is not the same thing as discovering that one has a weak or negligible sexual drive. The call to the self-control of chastity is for all: for the heterosexually inclined who, whether married or not, are regularly and powerfully attracted to many different potential partners, just as much as for those with different instincts.
13. The depth of the problem.
(i) Apparent Caution: We should be careful to read the ABC’s cautious words in paragraphs 22 and 24 in the light of the crucial paragraph 2 (see above). The ABC says ‘it would be a mistake to act or speak now as if those decisions’ [i.e. on signing up to the Covenant] ‘had already been made’; and he warns against speaking ‘in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication’. He also speaks of the ‘twofold ecclesial reality’ as a ‘possibility’ in the ‘middle distance’.
(ii) The Reality: But, as he himself has indicated, key decisions have been made (obviously not yet in terms of voting on the Covenant, but certainly in terms of taking stances which will lead directly to such votes); schism has already happened; and not just a twofold, but a confusing and pluriform ecclesial reality, is not just a middle-distance possibility but an on-the-ground and in-your-face fact.
(iii) Confrontation Already Exists: Warning against ‘a competitive hostility between the two’ tracks may seem somewhat unrealistic to many in TEC and Canada who have lost churches, livelihoods and in some cases their Holy Orders – and, we should in all fairness stress, to others who, though theologically orthodox themselves, have been sniped at or sneered at by those who use the ‘orthodox’ label as a pretext for personal gripes or power-games. Speaking of an ‘ideal’ whereby both ‘Tracks’ ‘should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency’, will sound idealistic at best when several loud voices in TEC are saying that what God is calling them to is to spread the ‘gospel’ of ‘inclusivity’, and several other voices are saying that God is calling them to resist precisely this.
(iv) Mutual Respect? Pleading for ‘mutual respect for deeply held theological convictions’ will seem straightforwardly unreal both to those who are fed up being called hopeless liberals by unthinking conservatives and to those who are fed up being called hopeless conservatives by unthinking liberals. ‘Deeply held theological convictions’ of course characterize plenty of other groups, not least (for instance) serious Muslim theologians. I respect such convictions, while still believing it proper to argue against them. This kind of plea could simply park the question, insisting (in good Anglican style) that we treat everyone as being in reality what they are in profession, but seeming to ignore the call, to bishops in particular, to guard the faith, teach the truth and refute error. Did Athanasius respect the ‘deeply held theological convictions’ of Arius and his followers? Perhaps he did; certainly he took them seriously enough to refute them vigorously. If the separation of two ‘Tracks’ generated, at last, a full-scale theological and exegetical discussion of disputed points, rather than emotive sniping, we might all be better served in the long run.
14. Representation on Ecumenical bodies. In paragraphs 9, 15 and 23 the ABC speaks of certain people being unable to represent the Communion’s voice in ecumenical encounters. He does not say who he means or how this is now to be worked out (as it must be very quickly if major ecumenical work is to proceed). Presumably the end of paragraphs 10 and 14 are a reference to the dangers inherent in TEC’s position, but again he does not spell this out (no doubt because it isn’t only TEC that faces this danger). In particular, the membership of the newly constituted international Faith and Order Advisory Group raises some questions, particularly (see below) if this group is to advise on the future role of the Instruments and the future structural shape of the Communion. So, too, the Joint Standing Committee as presently constituted includes people who, according to the Archbishop’s own analysis, have gone with the decision to move away from the rest of the Communion.
15. ‘In Communion’? A pressing question in all of this must be: who, both during this process and at its end, will be ‘in Communion’ with whom? Once Tracks One and Two have been identified, will there be mutual recognition of ministries? Presumably not if Track One is committed to Paragraph 8 of the Archbishop’s paper while Track Two is committed to demolishing it. Will communicants be welcome across the gap between the Tracks? If the Covenant becomes the gold standard, and if ACNA sign up as they may well, will the rest of the Communion (including of course the C of E) be ‘in communion’ with ACNA? These are difficult and uncomfortable questions. But they will certainly emerge; there is already a motion on the subject slated for General Synod in February 2010, though by then all sorts of things may look different.
16. No Delay. As this process continues to unfold, there is one major problem with a proposal to put all the eggs into the Covenant basket. (I had always understood that the Covenant was not designed to deal with the post-2003 problem, but rather to head off quite different problems that might arise in the future. I remain wary of trying, now, to put all the weight for the full sorting-out of the 2003 problem on to the Covenant, especially on to one brief, dense and inevitably controversial section of it, and particularly when the final drafting of that section is in the hands of a very small group, albeit then reporting to the ABC.) Now that GenCon 09 has happened, even if the Covenant is completed within a few months TEC will assuredly say that it can’t consider it until 2012, and that such consideration could only be preliminary, looking to a more definite decision in 2015. This delaying tactic – twelve years from 2003, when the crisis really began! – must be seen for what it is, and headed off. The obvious way to do this is to declare that ‘Track One’ is open, right away, to Covenant signatories, and only Covenant signatories. How precisely that could be done (granted that the Joint Standing Committee, for instance, includes some from TEC and other sympathetic provinces) remains a question. But it needs to be done, and done quickly. I offer some suggestions on all this in the conclusion below.
17. Section 4 of the Covenant. Picking up the point just made: Section 4 of the Covenant needs to proceed swiftly to its final form. This process is far too important to be left to a small group advising the Archbishop. When the Archbishop receives the group’s work, he should consult with key Communion representatives to ensure that there are no remaining hidden problems. In this process, any reduction or limiting of Section 4 (clearly the hope of the majority in TEC, not least those who pushed the ACC to postpone a decision) will be a large step away from the mind of the Communion as the ABC has himself expressed it, and would have the effect of nullifying all that he has said in his Reflections.
18. Retuning the Instruments? A further problem, not too far down the line, is contained in the ABC’s brief references to a restructuring or reworking of the Instruments themselves.
(i) New Cross-Track ‘instruments’? In paragraph 24 he speaks of hoping and working for ‘the best kinds of shared networks and institutions of common interest that could be maintained as between different visions of the Anglican heritage’. What might these be? Clearly not the Lambeth Conference, the ACC and the Primates. They, we must assume, will be Track One institutions; if they are not, the whole point (not least the whole ecumenical point) will be lost. So do we need some new institutions to enable the two tracks to talk to one another and to work together on shared ‘mission and service’ projects? This would constitute an unprecedented kind of internal ecumenism, fraught with frustrations and bad memories; yet perhaps it needs to be attempted.
(ii) The existing Institutions: And what about the existing Institutions? Paragraph 26 speaks of the present structures needing ‘serious rethinking in the near future’. This, presumably, will be a task for the newly constituted international Faith and Order Advisory Group – though, since some of that Group come from parts of the Communion which now appear likely to be in Track Two, that raises other difficult questions. (Why was the group chosen and named just before General Convention?) But the thought of the complex discussions that might swirl around any reshaping of Lambeth, ACC and Primates, and any ‘covering-both-tracks’ new institutions, is daunting. We already have a highly confusing situation both globally and nationally, with the ACO and Lambeth sitting uncomfortably side by side and with the shape and role of the existing Instruments remaining unclear. We need, if anything, to simplify and clarify, not to create more complexity. Complexity simply hands power to those with time on their hands and with well-developed skills in political manipulation.
Conclusion
19. Having worked very carefully through the Archbishop’s Reflections several times, having read what several others have said, and having had various conversations, I can understand the frustrations of those who wanted something more obviously crisp and clear. Yet at the heart of this document are two things which the Communion has badly needed to hear, hedged about with all kinds of assurances which make it clear that this is neither a knee-jerk reaction nor a mere statement of prejudice: a strong reaffirmation of the Anglican position on sexual behaviour, and a strong insistence on the Windsor point that global issues cannot be decided locally – and that the decision as to what is global and what is local cannot itself be decided locally. The ‘so what’ of all this needs now to be drawn out, and in my view this needs to happen more or less at once, not postponed until Section 4 of the Covenant is redrafted and ratified. In particular, the Communion Partner bishops, and parishes and individuals who take that stance, need to be assured that what is said rather briefly in paragraph 25 does indeed apply, and will indeed apply, to them, and that ways will be found very quickly to turn that into a reality.
20. How then can this ‘so what’ become a reality? We remind ourselves again that the ABC has no juridical authority outside his own Province, and that he is aware of himself being involved in the danger of trying, as a local Primate, to decide things for the whole Communion. Yet, as Archbishop of Canterbury, he carries within the whole Communion immense moral and pastoral authority, rooted in his exposition of scripture and articulation of the whole Christian tradition; and this, as he himself has insisted, is the real heart of all authority within the body of Christ. Too often in recent times legal and juridical ‘authority’ has been used, and perhaps abused, in the place of the genuine apostolic authority of the word of God and prayer. It is thus up to the Archbishop himself to move swiftly to implement what he himself has said, counting on support from bishops around his own Province and the whole Communion. The Covenant (which the ABC has repeatedly affirmed as the new instrument of our unity and common life) needs to be completed and offered to all Anglicans for signature. Those within TEC who sign it need appropriate Communion recognition and relatedness – if bishops, a Primatial relationship, if parishes or individuals, an episcopal relationship. Ways by which this can be done have been worked out by the Communion Partner bishops, and it is with them, first and foremost, that the Archbishop must work towards the necessary and urgent solutions. What now follows are some suggestions for how this might be attempted.
21. A Way Forward?
(i) How do ‘Communion Partners’ sign on? The question presses, as in the ABC’s paragraph 25, as to how dioceses, parishes and individuals within TEC will be able to sign the Covenant and thus not only align themselves, but be recognised by the wider Communion as aligning themselves, with that wider Communion itself. The ABC is certainly here referring to the ‘Communion Partner’ bishops, and to the parishes and individuals who take the same line that they do. As the ABC says, ‘there should be a clear answer to this question’, and actually the ABC himself is now the main person, if not the only person, in a position to give a clear and authoritative answer. But some proposals here may perhaps help.
(ii) The Anaheim Statement: In his second paragraph, the Archbishop notes that a substantial minority have indicated their dissent from the position taken by TEC as a whole. The document they have produced (‘the Anaheim Statement’) could now form something of a bridge between the present confusion and the not-too-distant future when the full Covenant will be available for signature. Some reports indicate that bishops who voted with the majority in Gen Con are now realising the predicament they’ve put themselves in and are starting to sign up to Anaheim instead.
(iii) What about Parishes and Individuals? But here’s the problem: it is one thing for bishops and their dioceses to be ‘Communion Partners’, recognised by Lambeth and the wider Communion as full ‘Track One’ members. (That carries its own problems, but if the diocese is the primary unit, as the ABC has insisted, it is clearly possible.) But how a parish in a non-signing diocese, or an individual in a non-signing parish or diocese, can become a ‘Track One’ Anglican, recognised as such globally, remains to be seen. Many in that position neither want nor intend to join a movement like ACNA, nor should they be put in a position where they have no other option. But a way forward must be found.
(iv) Getting from Here to There: Covenant Sections 1-3. The Covenant, when completed, will provide a line in the sand. However, we do not need to wait until Section 4 is redrafted. The first three sections are already completed and agreed, and they (especially Section Three) already prohibit the kinds of things which General Convention has done, and which many TEC bishops are doing. These three sections could be signed and adopted right away by CP bishops and dioceses as a signal of their intent.
(v) Getting from Here to There: Anaheim. The Anaheim Statement itself could also function as a preliminary rallying point around which more may gather than had initially been supposed. Perhaps, indeed, signing this statement, along with Sections 1-3 of the Covenant, could function, ahead of the availability of the final version of the Covenant, as a prerequisite for participation, from this moment on, in representative Anglican functions and bodies and, not least, in bodies that deal with the Covenant itself and the future of the Instruments. That would give actual and practical expression to what the ABC has now said. Indeed, unless something like this is implemented at once it will be hard to sustain trust in the ongoing process.
(vi) Interim Structures? We need some interim structures to get us from where we are to where we need to be – and not only in TEC, but also in Canada and perhaps elsewhere. But we need these now, not in six months, let alone six years. The Communion Partner bishops should perhaps restate their willingness to provide, with the permission of the relevant Diocesan, alternative episcopal relationship and cover for parishes in Dioceses whose bishops might find their relation to the wider Communion to have changed. The now largely discredited ‘DEPO’ system (‘Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight’) may have been a signpost, albeit one that didn’t seem to be capable of working well at the time, towards some kind of a solution. Issues of polity should, if possible, be dealt with at a provincial, not a global, level.
(vii) Urgent meetings? Ideally, the CP bishops, and perhaps some of the Rectors, should meet with the Archbishop to discuss some kind of a revived DEPO. The ABC could then invite others, including both representatives of TEC leadership on the one hand and ACNA on the other, to further meetings to work out agreements that would avoid future confusions or accusations. There is a need, perhaps, for a call to mutual respect, and maturity of decision-making, in recognition of where things now stand. There is no point pretending things are otherwise than they are. We have come to the tipping point, and wisdom suggests that all involved take counsel in recognition of that.
(viii) What about ACNA? All this raises, then, the question of ACNA itself (and, indeed, other would-be Anglican bodies). Without some kind of clear steer on the issues just raised, we can expect that ACNA will continue to attract individuals, congregations and perhaps even dioceses. This is, indeed, already happening. However, though the situation on the ground is often confused, ACNA has expressed a clear willingness to work with the Communion Partner bishops towards whatever greater good may come. And ACNA itself has shown itself eager to sign the Covenant when it is complete. All this will go into the melting pot of whatever new alignments the Communion will discover over the coming months. It is important that bridges, not fences, be built during this period.
22. These are only suggestions, designed to help those on the ground not only to think through the issues but to take concrete and immediate steps. I have said many times that, for all those involved in this whole messy situation, the main priority at the moment is prayer. That remains my conviction and my plea. Prayer for the church; for our beloved Communion and the many other Christians with whom we seek to deepen fellowship; for Archbishop Rowan; for wisdom, courage, clarity and vision; for God’s glory, the extension of his kingdom, and the power of the gospel and the Spirit at work in hearts, lives, communities and throughout our world.
The CANA Council kicks off today
HERNDON, Va. (July 27, 2009) – This week, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America will hold its annual council meeting featuring as keynote speakers Dr. Steve Garber of the Washington Institute for Faith, Vocation, and Culture and the Most Rev’d Ignatius Kattey, Regional Archbishop of the Church of Nigeria. The Rev’d Canon Julian Dobbs also will be a featured speaker, addressing the challenge of Islam to Christians in the U.S. As CANA continues to grow throughout the United States and serve as a leading voice in the orthodox Christian movement, speakers will tackle tough issues such as:
Threats to religious freedom
The growth of Islam in the U.S.
The future of CANA and the Anglican Church in North America
Caring for the poor and the jobless
Raising up new Anglican leaders and planting churches
“Since CANA continues to grow both spiritually and in the number of congregations, we must address the issues we face in modern society to ensure that orthodox Anglicanism remains a sanctuary for those wishing to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ and experience profound transformation through Him,” said the Rt. Rev’d Martyn Minns, Missionary Bishop of CANA, who will give a Friday address to the Council on the growth of CANA and orthodox Anglicanism in the U.S.
CANA Council is an annual gathering of clergy and lay delegates from member parishes across the county. The meeting will take place at CANA’s headquarters located at Church of the Epiphany in Herndon, Va., from July 30 – August 1, 2009. The Council will conclude with a festival Eucharist on Saturday that will include the ordination of several new CANA chaplains. More details can be found on the CANA website at www.canaconvocation.org.
The Convocation of Anglicans in North America currently consists of more than 75 congregations and 160 clergy in 21 states. CANA was established in 2005 to provide a means by which Anglicans living in the USA who were alienated by the actions and decisions of The Episcopal Church could continue to live out their faith without compromising their core convictions. Created as a missionary initiative of the Church of Nigeria, about a dozen of the congregations are primarily expatriate Nigerians. CANA is a founding member of the Anglican Church in North America, an emerging Anglican province that includes about 700 congregations.
PM UPDATE: What a day - a full day! The CANA Council continues to grow and this year the council seemed to move from "What's it all about?" to "We are family" - it did feel much more like a family this year, with not only reunions with friends from the past, but also lots of new faces - some I met at the ACNA Conference last month and other who have come into CANA since last year, as well as others who are in the process of transferring in.
The Legislation Session is not until Saturday morning when the real "news" will be made. Today was much more like Day One of a family reunion and meeting all the new members. Of course, much of the buzz is how we will work out being part of ACNA, not only as CANA but also as districts and individual parishes as well.
Daryl Fenton from Archbishop Bob Duncan's office is here and when I met up with him I said, "Ah, one of the Jedi!"
I don't think he's ever been called that before.
Tomorrow is CANA Bishop, Martyn Minns' "State of CANA" address. Kevin Kalsen of AnglicanTV is also here and we'll aim to put his videos. I will try to do some as well, so stay tuned!
Threats to religious freedom
The growth of Islam in the U.S.
The future of CANA and the Anglican Church in North America
Caring for the poor and the jobless
Raising up new Anglican leaders and planting churches
“Since CANA continues to grow both spiritually and in the number of congregations, we must address the issues we face in modern society to ensure that orthodox Anglicanism remains a sanctuary for those wishing to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ and experience profound transformation through Him,” said the Rt. Rev’d Martyn Minns, Missionary Bishop of CANA, who will give a Friday address to the Council on the growth of CANA and orthodox Anglicanism in the U.S.
CANA Council is an annual gathering of clergy and lay delegates from member parishes across the county. The meeting will take place at CANA’s headquarters located at Church of the Epiphany in Herndon, Va., from July 30 – August 1, 2009. The Council will conclude with a festival Eucharist on Saturday that will include the ordination of several new CANA chaplains. More details can be found on the CANA website at www.canaconvocation.org.
The Convocation of Anglicans in North America currently consists of more than 75 congregations and 160 clergy in 21 states. CANA was established in 2005 to provide a means by which Anglicans living in the USA who were alienated by the actions and decisions of The Episcopal Church could continue to live out their faith without compromising their core convictions. Created as a missionary initiative of the Church of Nigeria, about a dozen of the congregations are primarily expatriate Nigerians. CANA is a founding member of the Anglican Church in North America, an emerging Anglican province that includes about 700 congregations.
PM UPDATE: What a day - a full day! The CANA Council continues to grow and this year the council seemed to move from "What's it all about?" to "We are family" - it did feel much more like a family this year, with not only reunions with friends from the past, but also lots of new faces - some I met at the ACNA Conference last month and other who have come into CANA since last year, as well as others who are in the process of transferring in.
The Legislation Session is not until Saturday morning when the real "news" will be made. Today was much more like Day One of a family reunion and meeting all the new members. Of course, much of the buzz is how we will work out being part of ACNA, not only as CANA but also as districts and individual parishes as well.
Daryl Fenton from Archbishop Bob Duncan's office is here and when I met up with him I said, "Ah, one of the Jedi!"
I don't think he's ever been called that before.
Tomorrow is CANA Bishop, Martyn Minns' "State of CANA" address. Kevin Kalsen of AnglicanTV is also here and we'll aim to put his videos. I will try to do some as well, so stay tuned!
Anglican leader's concern for unity reflects Vatican concerns
Via BabyBlue:
By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Vatican concerns about how some recent decisions of the U.S. Episcopal Church will impact the search for full Anglican-Roman Catholic unity are echoed in a reflection by Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Communion.
Writing July 27 about the Episcopal Church's recent general convention, Archbishop Williams repeatedly referred to the need to keep in mind the ecumenical implications of local church decisions in addition to their impact on the unity of the Anglican Communion as a whole.
Archbishop Williams' reflection, titled "Communion, Covenant and Our Anglican Future," was published on the archbishop's Web site at http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2502.
In a statement July 29, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity noted Archbishop Williams' concern for maintaining the unity of the Anglican Communion through common faith and practice based on Scripture and tradition.
The Vatican office "supports the archbishop in his desire to strengthen these bonds of communion, and to articulate more fully the relationship between the local and the universal within the church," the statement said.
"It is our prayer that the Anglican Communion, even in this difficult situation, may find a way to maintain its unity and its witness to Christ as a worldwide communion," it added.
The Episcopal Church's general convention adopted two resolutions that may further strain relations within the Anglican Communion and with the Catholic Church: One affirmed that all ordained ministries, including the office of bishop, are open to all the baptized, including gays and lesbians; the other called for the collection and development of theological resources for the blessing of same-sex unions.
Last year the Lambeth Conference, a gathering of leaders from around the Anglican Communion, strongly urged all members of the communion to respect moratoriums on ordaining openly gay bishops and on blessing same-sex unions.
After their general convention, the leaders of the Episcopal Church wrote to Archbishop Williams, saying that their resolutions do not signal the end of the moratoriums, but rather describe the position of the U.S. church.
Pope Benedict XVI and his top ecumenical officer have said the Episcopal Church's position on homosexuality and its ordination of women as priests and bishops make full Anglican-Roman Catholic unity appear impossible.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, told the Lambeth Conference last year that what is at stake "is nothing other than our faithfulness to Christ himself."
While recognizing the Episcopalians' desire to respond to what they see as a pastoral need, he said the Catholic Church is convinced that its teaching that homosexual activity is sinful "is well-founded in the Old and in the New Testament" as well as in Christian tradition.
And, the cardinal said, the Catholic Church also believes the fact that Christ chose only men to be his apostles means the church is not authorized to ordain women.
Responding to challenges posed by modern sensitivities requires solutions that are clearly in line with the teaching of the Gospel and of Christian tradition, recognized not only by Roman Catholics, but also by the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, Cardinal Kasper had said.
In his reflection July 27, Archbishop Williams said the Anglican Communion clearly opposes prejudice against homosexual people and denounces any attempt to limit their civil liberties.
But, the archbishop said, "if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the church to change its discipline."
"In the light of the way in which the church has consistently read the Bible for the last 2,000 years," he said, any major change in church practice must have "a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding," as well as take into account "the teachings of ecumenical partners."
Recognizing the authority of and particular circumstances faced by local churches, the archbishop still insisted that a local church needs "some way of including in its discernment the judgment of the wider church. Without this, it risks becoming unrecognizable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe."
Accepting major changes to church discipline and practice without the consensus of the entire communion, he said, "would be to re-conceive the Anglican Communion as essentially a loose federation of local bodies with a cultural history in common, rather than a theologically coherent 'community of Christian communities.'"
Archbishop Williams' reflection theorized that the future of the Anglican Communion may involve two styles of relationships: one that fully shares "a vision of how the church should be and behave," and another less formal style of associated churches that work together in areas of common agreement.
Anglican Communion representatives to ecumenical and interfaith dialogues would be drawn only from members who fully share the communion's vision and teachings so that the Anglicans' ecumenical partners would know who they are talking to at the dialogue meetings, he said.
END
By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Vatican concerns about how some recent decisions of the U.S. Episcopal Church will impact the search for full Anglican-Roman Catholic unity are echoed in a reflection by Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Communion.
Writing July 27 about the Episcopal Church's recent general convention, Archbishop Williams repeatedly referred to the need to keep in mind the ecumenical implications of local church decisions in addition to their impact on the unity of the Anglican Communion as a whole.
Archbishop Williams' reflection, titled "Communion, Covenant and Our Anglican Future," was published on the archbishop's Web site at http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2502.
In a statement July 29, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity noted Archbishop Williams' concern for maintaining the unity of the Anglican Communion through common faith and practice based on Scripture and tradition.
The Vatican office "supports the archbishop in his desire to strengthen these bonds of communion, and to articulate more fully the relationship between the local and the universal within the church," the statement said.
"It is our prayer that the Anglican Communion, even in this difficult situation, may find a way to maintain its unity and its witness to Christ as a worldwide communion," it added.
The Episcopal Church's general convention adopted two resolutions that may further strain relations within the Anglican Communion and with the Catholic Church: One affirmed that all ordained ministries, including the office of bishop, are open to all the baptized, including gays and lesbians; the other called for the collection and development of theological resources for the blessing of same-sex unions.
Last year the Lambeth Conference, a gathering of leaders from around the Anglican Communion, strongly urged all members of the communion to respect moratoriums on ordaining openly gay bishops and on blessing same-sex unions.
After their general convention, the leaders of the Episcopal Church wrote to Archbishop Williams, saying that their resolutions do not signal the end of the moratoriums, but rather describe the position of the U.S. church.
Pope Benedict XVI and his top ecumenical officer have said the Episcopal Church's position on homosexuality and its ordination of women as priests and bishops make full Anglican-Roman Catholic unity appear impossible.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, told the Lambeth Conference last year that what is at stake "is nothing other than our faithfulness to Christ himself."
While recognizing the Episcopalians' desire to respond to what they see as a pastoral need, he said the Catholic Church is convinced that its teaching that homosexual activity is sinful "is well-founded in the Old and in the New Testament" as well as in Christian tradition.
And, the cardinal said, the Catholic Church also believes the fact that Christ chose only men to be his apostles means the church is not authorized to ordain women.
Responding to challenges posed by modern sensitivities requires solutions that are clearly in line with the teaching of the Gospel and of Christian tradition, recognized not only by Roman Catholics, but also by the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, Cardinal Kasper had said.
In his reflection July 27, Archbishop Williams said the Anglican Communion clearly opposes prejudice against homosexual people and denounces any attempt to limit their civil liberties.
But, the archbishop said, "if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the church to change its discipline."
"In the light of the way in which the church has consistently read the Bible for the last 2,000 years," he said, any major change in church practice must have "a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding," as well as take into account "the teachings of ecumenical partners."
Recognizing the authority of and particular circumstances faced by local churches, the archbishop still insisted that a local church needs "some way of including in its discernment the judgment of the wider church. Without this, it risks becoming unrecognizable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe."
Accepting major changes to church discipline and practice without the consensus of the entire communion, he said, "would be to re-conceive the Anglican Communion as essentially a loose federation of local bodies with a cultural history in common, rather than a theologically coherent 'community of Christian communities.'"
Archbishop Williams' reflection theorized that the future of the Anglican Communion may involve two styles of relationships: one that fully shares "a vision of how the church should be and behave," and another less formal style of associated churches that work together in areas of common agreement.
Anglican Communion representatives to ecumenical and interfaith dialogues would be drawn only from members who fully share the communion's vision and teachings so that the Anglicans' ecumenical partners would know who they are talking to at the dialogue meetings, he said.
END
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams speaks of 'two-tier' church
From The L.A. Times via BabyBlue:
He outlines a different role for the Episcopal Church within the worldwide Anglican Communion.
By Duke Helfand
9:54 PM PDT, July 27, 2009
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams suggested Monday that the Episcopal Church might have to accept a different role within the worldwide Anglican Communion amid U.S. leaders' decision to lift a de facto ban on gay bishops and to consider rites of blessing for same-sex unions.
Williams outlined his concerns in a statement to leaders throughout the communion, saying "very serious anxieties have already been expressed" among the 77 million Anglicans. The Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of Anglicanism, adopted the new policies during a 10-day convention in Anaheim that ended July 17.
"It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are -- two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out," Williams wrote.
Tensions between the U.S. church and global Anglicans have mounted since the 2003 consecration of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire. That led to the departure of dozens of churches and four dioceses, including one in Central California.
The church's presiding bishop, the Most. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, did not respond to Williams' letter Monday, a spokeswoman said.
But Jefferts Schori and another senior church leader tried to allay Anglican fears during the recent convention. In a letter to Williams and the communion's 38 other worldwide regional leaders, they described the resolution on gay bishops as "more descriptive than prescriptive in nature." They said the measure did not repeal an earlier ban on such ordinations, but instead reaffirmed commitments made by U.S. church laws, which bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.
"In adopting this resolution, it is not our desire to give offense," they wrote. "We remain keenly aware of the concerns and sensibilities of our brothers and sisters in other churches across the communion."
Episcopalians greeted Williams' letter with a range of emotions. Some criticized him, saying his proposals would relegate their church to second-class status. Others said they were gratified that Williams, who attended part of the recent convention, condemned persecution of gays and lesbians and recognized the U.S. church's commitment to the global communion.
"Now the question is, how do we proceed together as Anglicans across the globe," said Rebecca Wilson, communications director for the Chicago Consultation, an advocacy group that supports the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the worldwide communion.
He outlines a different role for the Episcopal Church within the worldwide Anglican Communion.
By Duke Helfand
9:54 PM PDT, July 27, 2009
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams suggested Monday that the Episcopal Church might have to accept a different role within the worldwide Anglican Communion amid U.S. leaders' decision to lift a de facto ban on gay bishops and to consider rites of blessing for same-sex unions.
Williams outlined his concerns in a statement to leaders throughout the communion, saying "very serious anxieties have already been expressed" among the 77 million Anglicans. The Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of Anglicanism, adopted the new policies during a 10-day convention in Anaheim that ended July 17.
"It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are -- two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out," Williams wrote.
Tensions between the U.S. church and global Anglicans have mounted since the 2003 consecration of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire. That led to the departure of dozens of churches and four dioceses, including one in Central California.
The church's presiding bishop, the Most. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, did not respond to Williams' letter Monday, a spokeswoman said.
But Jefferts Schori and another senior church leader tried to allay Anglican fears during the recent convention. In a letter to Williams and the communion's 38 other worldwide regional leaders, they described the resolution on gay bishops as "more descriptive than prescriptive in nature." They said the measure did not repeal an earlier ban on such ordinations, but instead reaffirmed commitments made by U.S. church laws, which bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.
"In adopting this resolution, it is not our desire to give offense," they wrote. "We remain keenly aware of the concerns and sensibilities of our brothers and sisters in other churches across the communion."
Episcopalians greeted Williams' letter with a range of emotions. Some criticized him, saying his proposals would relegate their church to second-class status. Others said they were gratified that Williams, who attended part of the recent convention, condemned persecution of gays and lesbians and recognized the U.S. church's commitment to the global communion.
"Now the question is, how do we proceed together as Anglicans across the globe," said Rebecca Wilson, communications director for the Chicago Consultation, an advocacy group that supports the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the worldwide communion.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Doing the theology
In the Integrity response to Rowan Williams Susan Russell laments that the ABC hasn't taken proper notice of the theological work that has already been done on the full inclusion of active homosexuals in the life of the Communion (see her post below). Perhaps the ABC is only reflecting on the shabby theology that Integrity et al has produced to this point. To Set Our Hope on Christ is the case in point. It was commissioned by pecusa and recognized almost immediately upon release by liberals and conservatives alike as a poor work of theology.
Rowan Williams has already commented on the inferior quality of theological reflection by Bishop John Spong. The theological underpinnings of Integrity's case aren't any better than Spong's Jr. High theology (as it was characterized by the ABC). So, when the Integrity crowd can produce some serious theology I'm sure the ABC, who generally stands on their side, will recognize it. At this point it seems likely that the Anglican Communion will soon devolve into a two-tier system with provinces like pecusa being downgraded in both place and authority. pecusa has placed autonomy over communion as the ABC has said and will be recognized in the gentle British way to be the heretics and apostates that they are. I wonder how many pecusa bishops are still opining that nothing has really changed in pecusa from GC09?
Rowan Williams has already commented on the inferior quality of theological reflection by Bishop John Spong. The theological underpinnings of Integrity's case aren't any better than Spong's Jr. High theology (as it was characterized by the ABC). So, when the Integrity crowd can produce some serious theology I'm sure the ABC, who generally stands on their side, will recognize it. At this point it seems likely that the Anglican Communion will soon devolve into a two-tier system with provinces like pecusa being downgraded in both place and authority. pecusa has placed autonomy over communion as the ABC has said and will be recognized in the gentle British way to be the heretics and apostates that they are. I wonder how many pecusa bishops are still opining that nothing has really changed in pecusa from GC09?
Two Tiers, One Cheer - Rowan Williams' Reflections on the Future of the Anglican Communion
Via VirtueOnline:
By Charles Raven
SPREAD
July 28, 2009
After having taken a rather long pause for thought, the Archbishop of Canterbury yesterday released his considered response to the decisions of the Episcopal Church at its General Convention, which rejected his personal plea for moderation and pressed ahead to officially authorise liturgies for the blessing of those in same sex unions and the ordination of those in such partnerships.
Despite a deeply unconvincing attempt by the Presiding Bishop to claim that the moratorium on such steps is actually still in place on the basis that the resolutions were descriptive rather than prescriptive (so why bother passing them?), this action was rightly seen as having destroyed any hopes of maintaining the unity of the Anglican Communion and has elicited from the Archbishop an unusually lucid damage limitation exercise, helpfully presented in twenty-six numbered paragraphs set out like theses.
At first reading, those who hold to classical Anglican teaching might be inclined to give 'three cheers' since the Archbishop appears to give a strong affirmation of traditional biblical teaching on sexuality and accepts that some form of institutional distance from revisionist Churches may be necessary.
Specifically, he recommends that the Anglican Communion should now accept the likelihood that it will have to operate as a two tier body, a core made up of those Churches which can coalesce around the Anglican Covenant and a less 'intensely' engaged cluster of Churches for whom local autonomy takes priority. On the specific presenting issue of sexuality he unambiguously aligns himself with the orthodox core and it is encouraging to find the erstwhile campaigner and theologian of the gay lesbian movement writing :
8. ...a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole. And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church's teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires'
and :
9. In other words, the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity...
In an English context, this is a remarkable statement from someone so close to the liberal establishment and may help to restrain a government in its dying days increasingly determined to promote gay rights at the expense of the rights of conscience and free speech.
So it is very much to be welcomed that Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury has now managed to so distance himself from Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Wales and advocate of 'gay ordination' (one cheer.), but the two tier strategy will not work because it reflects the deeper problem of the Archbishop's flawed theology of revelation. His characteristic reticence to speak of the Bible as God's Word reflects a persistent theological difficulty in speaking about the authority of Christian doctrine (see my article 'Shadow Gospel'), which only the GAFCON movement has begun to seriously address at a Communion wide level.
It is in this area of authority, ultimately Scriptural authority, that the Anglican Communion struggles when confronted by the 'new religion' of TEC and its associates. The Anglican Church of North America's (ACNA) Presiding Bishop Robert Duncan made it clear in his recent open letter 'Two Cities, One Choice' that the Communion's difficulties arise through trying to hold together fundamentally opposed visions of Christianity. Reflecting on the ACNA launch in Bedford, Texas, and TEC's General Convention in Anaheim , California, shortly afterwards he observed that:
'In the last month, the contrasting behaviors and values of the religious leaders who met in these two small cities made each a symbol of Anglicanism's inescapable choice. The two Anglican Churches in the United States represent two cities. Jerusalem and Babylon come to mind as the Scriptural cities which are enduring symbols of choices to be made by God's people.'
In contrast, for Rowan Williams the issue is not primarily about faithfulness to apostolic truth, but the willingness to intensify relationships within the given institutional structures. So he writes:
22. ... For those whose vision is not shaped by the desire to intensify relationships in this particular way [The Anglican Covenant], or whose vision of the Communion is different, there is no threat of being cast into outer darkness - existing relationships will not be destroyed that easily. But it means that there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance: that is, a 'covenanted' Anglican global body, fully sharing certain aspects of a vision of how the Church should be and behave, able to take part as a body in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue; and, related to this body, but in less formal ways with fewer formal expectations, there may be associated local churches in various kinds of mutual partnership and solidarity with one another and with 'covenanted' provinces.
The Archbishop's new found commitment to orthodoxy in sexual matters does not therefore flow from an understanding of the difference between teachings which are intrinsically right or wrong, but is to do with his understanding of proper process:
23. This has been called a 'two-tier' model, or, more disparagingly, a first- and second-class structure. But perhaps we are faced with the possibility rather of a 'two-track' model, two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage, one of which had decided that local autonomy had to be the prevailing value and so had in good faith declined a covenantal structure. If those who elect this model do not take official roles in the ecumenical interchanges and processes in which the 'covenanted' body participates, this is simply because within these processes there has to be clarity about who has the authority to speak for whom.
This emphasis on process rather than substance has been a weakness of the Windsor Covenant strategy from the start. It can only deal with symptoms. It cannot deal with the underlying chronic infection of false teaching. What Presiding Bishop Bob Duncan sees as 'Babylon' - the realm of those who reject God's rule - becomes in Rowan Williams' ecclesiology simply an alternative style:
24. It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are - two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out but which would not exclude co-operation in mission and service of the kind now shared in the Communion. .. The ideal is that both 'tracks' should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency.
At this point, I'm beginning to have doubts about the title of this piece. Should I even have given one cheer? It now becomes clear that what appeared to be surprisingly unambiguous statements by Rowan Williams on sexuality actually open up a deeper level of ambiguity. He affirms them not out of personal conviction (this would be an astonishing reversal), but because he is committed to an institutional process and adapts accordingly. If the clear teaching of Scripture can simply be reduced to a matter of style and the biblical discipline of excommunication is dubbed 'apocalyptic', where could the 'intensifying' of Anglican Covenant relationships eventually lead under Rowan Williams' leadership?
Depressed revisionists who believe that Rowan has betrayed the cause should read Susan Russell's perceptive comment on behalf of the pro-gay Episcopal group Integrity USA and cheer up. She takes the long view and argues 'we recognize that those who have been waiting for the casting-out-of-TEC-into-outer-darkness are not getting what they want. And as we continue to move forward in mission and ministry with those who embrace historic Anglican comprehensiveness, we believe those "outer darkness" threats are going to ring more and more hollow until they fade away altogether.' Some pieces on the chess board may have to go, but this will be in order all the more thoroughly to subvert the orthodox in the long run.
There is a subtle trap for the orthodox here. The Archbishop is speaking their language, but not for their reasons. If they support this proposal for a two-tier Communion they will have implicitly abandoned the claim to guard apostolic truth and will be progressively neutralised through interminable indaba. Only the GAFCON movement has the theological backbone to rescue the Communion because the Jerusalem Declaration is willing to state not only the positives, but also the necessary negatives - of the reality of false teaching and the need to reject the authority of those who deny the faith, in word or deed.
END
By Charles Raven
SPREAD
July 28, 2009
After having taken a rather long pause for thought, the Archbishop of Canterbury yesterday released his considered response to the decisions of the Episcopal Church at its General Convention, which rejected his personal plea for moderation and pressed ahead to officially authorise liturgies for the blessing of those in same sex unions and the ordination of those in such partnerships.
Despite a deeply unconvincing attempt by the Presiding Bishop to claim that the moratorium on such steps is actually still in place on the basis that the resolutions were descriptive rather than prescriptive (so why bother passing them?), this action was rightly seen as having destroyed any hopes of maintaining the unity of the Anglican Communion and has elicited from the Archbishop an unusually lucid damage limitation exercise, helpfully presented in twenty-six numbered paragraphs set out like theses.
At first reading, those who hold to classical Anglican teaching might be inclined to give 'three cheers' since the Archbishop appears to give a strong affirmation of traditional biblical teaching on sexuality and accepts that some form of institutional distance from revisionist Churches may be necessary.
Specifically, he recommends that the Anglican Communion should now accept the likelihood that it will have to operate as a two tier body, a core made up of those Churches which can coalesce around the Anglican Covenant and a less 'intensely' engaged cluster of Churches for whom local autonomy takes priority. On the specific presenting issue of sexuality he unambiguously aligns himself with the orthodox core and it is encouraging to find the erstwhile campaigner and theologian of the gay lesbian movement writing :
8. ...a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole. And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church's teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires'
and :
9. In other words, the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity...
In an English context, this is a remarkable statement from someone so close to the liberal establishment and may help to restrain a government in its dying days increasingly determined to promote gay rights at the expense of the rights of conscience and free speech.
So it is very much to be welcomed that Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury has now managed to so distance himself from Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Wales and advocate of 'gay ordination' (one cheer.), but the two tier strategy will not work because it reflects the deeper problem of the Archbishop's flawed theology of revelation. His characteristic reticence to speak of the Bible as God's Word reflects a persistent theological difficulty in speaking about the authority of Christian doctrine (see my article 'Shadow Gospel'), which only the GAFCON movement has begun to seriously address at a Communion wide level.
It is in this area of authority, ultimately Scriptural authority, that the Anglican Communion struggles when confronted by the 'new religion' of TEC and its associates. The Anglican Church of North America's (ACNA) Presiding Bishop Robert Duncan made it clear in his recent open letter 'Two Cities, One Choice' that the Communion's difficulties arise through trying to hold together fundamentally opposed visions of Christianity. Reflecting on the ACNA launch in Bedford, Texas, and TEC's General Convention in Anaheim , California, shortly afterwards he observed that:
'In the last month, the contrasting behaviors and values of the religious leaders who met in these two small cities made each a symbol of Anglicanism's inescapable choice. The two Anglican Churches in the United States represent two cities. Jerusalem and Babylon come to mind as the Scriptural cities which are enduring symbols of choices to be made by God's people.'
In contrast, for Rowan Williams the issue is not primarily about faithfulness to apostolic truth, but the willingness to intensify relationships within the given institutional structures. So he writes:
22. ... For those whose vision is not shaped by the desire to intensify relationships in this particular way [The Anglican Covenant], or whose vision of the Communion is different, there is no threat of being cast into outer darkness - existing relationships will not be destroyed that easily. But it means that there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance: that is, a 'covenanted' Anglican global body, fully sharing certain aspects of a vision of how the Church should be and behave, able to take part as a body in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue; and, related to this body, but in less formal ways with fewer formal expectations, there may be associated local churches in various kinds of mutual partnership and solidarity with one another and with 'covenanted' provinces.
The Archbishop's new found commitment to orthodoxy in sexual matters does not therefore flow from an understanding of the difference between teachings which are intrinsically right or wrong, but is to do with his understanding of proper process:
23. This has been called a 'two-tier' model, or, more disparagingly, a first- and second-class structure. But perhaps we are faced with the possibility rather of a 'two-track' model, two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage, one of which had decided that local autonomy had to be the prevailing value and so had in good faith declined a covenantal structure. If those who elect this model do not take official roles in the ecumenical interchanges and processes in which the 'covenanted' body participates, this is simply because within these processes there has to be clarity about who has the authority to speak for whom.
This emphasis on process rather than substance has been a weakness of the Windsor Covenant strategy from the start. It can only deal with symptoms. It cannot deal with the underlying chronic infection of false teaching. What Presiding Bishop Bob Duncan sees as 'Babylon' - the realm of those who reject God's rule - becomes in Rowan Williams' ecclesiology simply an alternative style:
24. It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are - two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out but which would not exclude co-operation in mission and service of the kind now shared in the Communion. .. The ideal is that both 'tracks' should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency.
At this point, I'm beginning to have doubts about the title of this piece. Should I even have given one cheer? It now becomes clear that what appeared to be surprisingly unambiguous statements by Rowan Williams on sexuality actually open up a deeper level of ambiguity. He affirms them not out of personal conviction (this would be an astonishing reversal), but because he is committed to an institutional process and adapts accordingly. If the clear teaching of Scripture can simply be reduced to a matter of style and the biblical discipline of excommunication is dubbed 'apocalyptic', where could the 'intensifying' of Anglican Covenant relationships eventually lead under Rowan Williams' leadership?
Depressed revisionists who believe that Rowan has betrayed the cause should read Susan Russell's perceptive comment on behalf of the pro-gay Episcopal group Integrity USA and cheer up. She takes the long view and argues 'we recognize that those who have been waiting for the casting-out-of-TEC-into-outer-darkness are not getting what they want. And as we continue to move forward in mission and ministry with those who embrace historic Anglican comprehensiveness, we believe those "outer darkness" threats are going to ring more and more hollow until they fade away altogether.' Some pieces on the chess board may have to go, but this will be in order all the more thoroughly to subvert the orthodox in the long run.
There is a subtle trap for the orthodox here. The Archbishop is speaking their language, but not for their reasons. If they support this proposal for a two-tier Communion they will have implicitly abandoned the claim to guard apostolic truth and will be progressively neutralised through interminable indaba. Only the GAFCON movement has the theological backbone to rescue the Communion because the Jerusalem Declaration is willing to state not only the positives, but also the necessary negatives - of the reality of false teaching and the need to reject the authority of those who deny the faith, in word or deed.
END
Integrity Press Release: response to ABC
via Stand Firm:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Archbishop of Canterbury issued a statement this morning entitled "Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future" and subtitled: Reflections on the Episcopal Church's 2009 General Convention from the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion. In it, +Rowan Williams does what he believes he is called to do as an "Instrument of Unity" for the whole communion: He trys to keep as many as possible at the table doing the work of the gospel. Integrity does not envy him that task.
Integrity regrets the Archbishop's categorization of TEC's commitment to full inclusion of the LGBT baptized as a "rights" issue rather than a "theological" issue -- believing that it falls sadly short of recognizing all the theological reflection that has both moved and motivated this church over the years.
"We are frankly tired of being told we 'haven't done the theology,'" said Integrity President Susan Russell, "when the truth is that there are those in our wider Anglican family who do not agree with the theology we have done. But what we can do is keep doing it. We can keep reaching out. We can keep working together with our communion partners on mission and ministry all over this Worldwide Anglican Family of ours with those who will work with us. And we can stay in conversation with those who won't.
Because we recognize that those who have been waiting for the casting-out-of-TEC-into-outer-darkness are not getting what they want. And as we continue to move forward in mission and ministry with those who embrace historic Anglican comprehensiveness, we believe those "outer darkness" threats are going to ring more and more hollow until they fade away altogether.
And meanwhile, we can live into the liberated-for-mission message our General Convention sent home from Anaheim and bless those who come to us asking for the church's blessing on their already-blessed-by-God relationships and raising up into ALL orders of ministry those who God calls into vocations of deacon, priest and bishop.
Because, as the closing word's of +Rowan Williams' statement assure us:
If the present structures that have safeguarded our unity turn out to need serious rethinking in the near future, this is not the end of the Anglican way and it may bring its own opportunities. Of course it is problematic; and no-one would say that new kinds of structural differentiation are desirable in their own right.
But the different needs and priorities identified by different parts of our family, and in the long run the different emphases in what we want to say theologically about the Church itself, are bound to have consequences. We must hope that, in spite of the difficulties, this may yet be the beginning of a new era of mission and spiritual growth for all who value the Anglican name and heritage.
As American Anglicans, we've "rethought structures" before (see also: "1789" and the birth American Episcopal Church) and lived to tell about it! And -- at the end of the day -- that may in fact be the good news and great hope we have to offer our worldwide Anglican Communion family as we move forward together into God's future."
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Archbishop of Canterbury issued a statement this morning entitled "Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future" and subtitled: Reflections on the Episcopal Church's 2009 General Convention from the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion. In it, +Rowan Williams does what he believes he is called to do as an "Instrument of Unity" for the whole communion: He trys to keep as many as possible at the table doing the work of the gospel. Integrity does not envy him that task.
Integrity regrets the Archbishop's categorization of TEC's commitment to full inclusion of the LGBT baptized as a "rights" issue rather than a "theological" issue -- believing that it falls sadly short of recognizing all the theological reflection that has both moved and motivated this church over the years.
"We are frankly tired of being told we 'haven't done the theology,'" said Integrity President Susan Russell, "when the truth is that there are those in our wider Anglican family who do not agree with the theology we have done. But what we can do is keep doing it. We can keep reaching out. We can keep working together with our communion partners on mission and ministry all over this Worldwide Anglican Family of ours with those who will work with us. And we can stay in conversation with those who won't.
Because we recognize that those who have been waiting for the casting-out-of-TEC-into-outer-darkness are not getting what they want. And as we continue to move forward in mission and ministry with those who embrace historic Anglican comprehensiveness, we believe those "outer darkness" threats are going to ring more and more hollow until they fade away altogether.
And meanwhile, we can live into the liberated-for-mission message our General Convention sent home from Anaheim and bless those who come to us asking for the church's blessing on their already-blessed-by-God relationships and raising up into ALL orders of ministry those who God calls into vocations of deacon, priest and bishop.
Because, as the closing word's of +Rowan Williams' statement assure us:
If the present structures that have safeguarded our unity turn out to need serious rethinking in the near future, this is not the end of the Anglican way and it may bring its own opportunities. Of course it is problematic; and no-one would say that new kinds of structural differentiation are desirable in their own right.
But the different needs and priorities identified by different parts of our family, and in the long run the different emphases in what we want to say theologically about the Church itself, are bound to have consequences. We must hope that, in spite of the difficulties, this may yet be the beginning of a new era of mission and spiritual growth for all who value the Anglican name and heritage.
As American Anglicans, we've "rethought structures" before (see also: "1789" and the birth American Episcopal Church) and lived to tell about it! And -- at the end of the day -- that may in fact be the good news and great hope we have to offer our worldwide Anglican Communion family as we move forward together into God's future."
Whimpers from across the ocean
From the Dean and President of Nashotah House (seminary) via TitusOneNine:
Monday, July 27, 2009
A number of literary sayings crossed my mind when I saw that the Archbishop of Canterbury has (finally, today) issued a statement in response to the actions of the Episcopal Church's General Convention, which ended ten days ago. The first thought that came to me was a paraphrase of T.S. Eliot's line, "This is the way the Communion dies, not with a bang but a whimper." Because, although I pray that I am wrong, there isn't nearly enough in Rowan Williams' statement to reassure me that this isn't the Anglican Communion's fate. Indeed, the very weakness (and studied ambiguity) of Dr. Williams' statement may be a factor in pushing the Communion toward that end.
Regarding the Archbishop's delay in issuing his response, I have no doubt that he has spent most of the past ten days laboring and consulting with trusted advisers on this statement. It might well be the defining statement of his career. But when it comes to the actual effect this statement might have on the Communion he is supposed to lead, the saying that comes to mind is, "The mountain labored and brought forth a mouse." The statement is thoroughly considered, carefully crafted, finely nuanced--and, in the end, says very little and accomplishes even less.
When a sizable majority in both houses of the Episcopal Church's General Convention passed resolutions ending restraint in the matter of consecrating non-celibate homosexuals to the episcopate and agreeing to provide a "generous pastoral response" (i.e., blessing marriages) for gay and lesbian couples, it was not a matter of making merely hypothetical statements. There are bishops and deputies who are coming away from the General Convention intending to act on those resolutions.
There is nothing in Rowan Williams' statement that would deter those in the liberal camp from acting on those resolutions; and his words are cold comfort to conservatives who have been deeply wounded by their passage, and who will be further wounded and alienated when their intent is carried out.
To be sure, the statement from Canterbury could say something. When Rowan starts down the path of "there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance" it could mean that his relationship to the Episcopal church has suffered damage, just as the fabric of the Communion has been torn by the Episcopal church's unilateral actions. It could even mean that he is going to turn around next week and recognize the Anglican Church in North America and/or the Communion Partner dioceses as a separate ecclesial reality. It could mean all that--but I would be astounded if it did.
Of course, the Covenant to which Rowan alludes could be in place and could be already defining the "Anglican Future" with which Rowan seems concerned. Except that--oh, my--Rowan himself saw to it that the Covenant didn't make it out of the Jamaica conference, but was given to the Joint Standing Committee, from which it will almost certainly emerge as a gelding and not a stallion.
On second thought, I am going to go back to my first thought: This is the way the Communion dies, not with a bang but a whimper.
posted by Robert S. Munday @ 9:13 PM
Monday, July 27, 2009
A number of literary sayings crossed my mind when I saw that the Archbishop of Canterbury has (finally, today) issued a statement in response to the actions of the Episcopal Church's General Convention, which ended ten days ago. The first thought that came to me was a paraphrase of T.S. Eliot's line, "This is the way the Communion dies, not with a bang but a whimper." Because, although I pray that I am wrong, there isn't nearly enough in Rowan Williams' statement to reassure me that this isn't the Anglican Communion's fate. Indeed, the very weakness (and studied ambiguity) of Dr. Williams' statement may be a factor in pushing the Communion toward that end.
Regarding the Archbishop's delay in issuing his response, I have no doubt that he has spent most of the past ten days laboring and consulting with trusted advisers on this statement. It might well be the defining statement of his career. But when it comes to the actual effect this statement might have on the Communion he is supposed to lead, the saying that comes to mind is, "The mountain labored and brought forth a mouse." The statement is thoroughly considered, carefully crafted, finely nuanced--and, in the end, says very little and accomplishes even less.
When a sizable majority in both houses of the Episcopal Church's General Convention passed resolutions ending restraint in the matter of consecrating non-celibate homosexuals to the episcopate and agreeing to provide a "generous pastoral response" (i.e., blessing marriages) for gay and lesbian couples, it was not a matter of making merely hypothetical statements. There are bishops and deputies who are coming away from the General Convention intending to act on those resolutions.
There is nothing in Rowan Williams' statement that would deter those in the liberal camp from acting on those resolutions; and his words are cold comfort to conservatives who have been deeply wounded by their passage, and who will be further wounded and alienated when their intent is carried out.
To be sure, the statement from Canterbury could say something. When Rowan starts down the path of "there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance" it could mean that his relationship to the Episcopal church has suffered damage, just as the fabric of the Communion has been torn by the Episcopal church's unilateral actions. It could even mean that he is going to turn around next week and recognize the Anglican Church in North America and/or the Communion Partner dioceses as a separate ecclesial reality. It could mean all that--but I would be astounded if it did.
Of course, the Covenant to which Rowan alludes could be in place and could be already defining the "Anglican Future" with which Rowan seems concerned. Except that--oh, my--Rowan himself saw to it that the Covenant didn't make it out of the Jamaica conference, but was given to the Joint Standing Committee, from which it will almost certainly emerge as a gelding and not a stallion.
On second thought, I am going to go back to my first thought: This is the way the Communion dies, not with a bang but a whimper.
posted by Robert S. Munday @ 9:13 PM
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
From the Diocese of Albany
Reflections on The 76th General Convention (Part I of II)
By Bishop William Love
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
It is wonderful to be home. The Albany Deputation and I returned home late Saturday night, July 18th, after having spent 13 days (including travel time) in Anaheim, CA, attending the 76th General Convention of The Episcopal Church. I am very thankful for and appreciative of each member of our Deputation, all of whom did an outstanding job representing not only the Diocese of Albany, but also the conservative orthodox voice still in The Episcopal Church. Although clearly in the minority, we spoke with conviction, but also with love and charity. The Albany Deputation was represented by Fr. Scott Garno, The Rev. Canon Robert Haskell, Mother Ellen Neufeld, Fr. John Scott, Dave Beaulac, Debbie Fish, Sue Ellen Ruetsch and Beth Strickland. While not part of the official deputation, Fr. Chip Strickland (our Diocesan Chancellor) and Sarah Garno also attended and were a real blessing, supporting the team in a variety of ways. Fr. Chip did an excellent job in his daily updates, helping to keep each of you informed about what was occurring at General Convention.
In writing this, I have struggled with knowing how much detail to add versus just giving my reflections. Recognizing that not everyone will have access to as much information as others, I have decided to err on the side of those who may need more background information. For those who don’t need as much information, please forgive me if I am covering things you already know. While I encourage you to read this in its entirety, the last couple of pages contain my thoughts about the potential impact some of the actions of the 76th General Convention may have on the Diocese of Albany and the larger Church.
For those who may not be familiar with the legislative process of the General Convention, it is made up of two Houses, The House of Bishops and the House of Deputies. Currently any bishop active or retired has a seat, voice and vote in the House of Bishops. The House of Deputies is comprised of eight representatives (4 clergy and 4 laity) from each of the 110 dioceses (foreign and domestic) making up The Episcopal Church. For any piece of legislation to be enacted, it must receive a majority affirmative vote in both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops.
By the end of the tenth and final day of General Convention, if the report I heard is accurate, (personally I lost count), we had dealt with over 400 separate resolutions. Many were passed, some defeated, and all the rest referred back to committee either to die in committee or be brought back at some future time. Many of the resolutions, although important to those who moved them, in the grand scheme of things will have little if any impact especially in areas of national and international affairs. Consequently we spent a great deal of time debating and voting on resolutions that will do little more than provide a written record in the Convention Journal of the mood and opinion of the majority of those attending the 76th General Convention.
With that said, there were resolutions and pieces of legislation that do impact us as a Diocese, as well as impacting The Episcopal Church at large and the wider Anglican Communion. While I can’t reference each of them, I will try to touch on some of the more significant resolutions. The two resolutions that ultimately captured the most headlines and will most likely have the greatest impact on The Episcopal Church’s relationship with the wider Anglican Communion are D025 and C056. Both resolutions deal with different aspects of the ongoing debate concerning those individuals living in homosexual relationships. The text of these two resolutions, B033 from the 75th General Convention in 2009, and the Anaheim Statement (House of Bishops minority report on D025 and C056) is included at the very end of this statement.
The first three resolves of D025 speak of The Episcopal Church’s desire to remain part of and “live into the highest degree of communion possible” with the wider Anglican Communion. The fourth resolve reaffirms the value of “listening to the experience of homosexual persons,” and The Episcopal Church’s commitment to that process. Unfortunately, based on the actions of this church, I believe we don’t seem quite as committed to listening to our brothers and sisters in Christ within The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion, and the wider Body of Christ who in good conscience cannot support or embrace homosexual relationships (making a clear distinction between individuals of homosexual orientation and homosexual relationships or lifestyles). The fifth and sixth resolves speak of the part homosexuals living in life long committed relationships have played in the life and ministry of the Church, stating that “God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church.” The final resolve acknowledges the ongoing division over these issues within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, stating that we “are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.”
Unlike B033 (passed at the 2006 General Convention) which urged The Episcopal Church to “exercise restraint” in giving further consents to any bishops “whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church,” D025 makes no mention of “exercising restraint” and essentially opens the door for the election and consent of future bishops “whose manner of life” would present a challenge to the wider church, as has already been witnessed by the repeated requests of the vast majority of the Primates of the wider Anglican Communion not to ordain individuals living in homosexual relationships or to bless such relationships.
Resolution C056 calls for the “Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops [to] collect and develop theological and liturgical resources” for the blessing of same gender relationships, and report to the 77th General Convention. In addition it states, “That bishops, particularly in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral responses to meet the needs of members of this Church.”
There is great concern by many to include myself, that D025 and C056, while not officially calling for the repeal of B033 (as some had wanted), does in effect repudiate B033 by allowing for the ordination of individuals living in homosexual relationships; calling for the development of liturgies for the blessing of homosexual relationships; and for officially authorizing bishops to “provide generous pastoral responses” i.e. allow for the blessing of homosexual relationships in whatever form that might take. All of these are in direct opposition to that which was asked of us in the Windsor Report, not to mention by the four Instruments of Communion (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates of the Anglican Communion, the Anglican Consultative Council, and Lambeth Conference). While proclaiming our desire to remain part of the Anglican Communion, D025 and C056 make it clear that it will be on our terms. Actions speak louder than words.
B033, as imperfect as it was, offered enough to keep the Archbishop of Canterbury from breaking ties with The Episcopal Church. It is still yet to be seen, what impact the passage of D025 and C056 will have regarding The Episcopal Church’s future relationship with Archbishop Rowan Williams and the wider Anglican Communion. Addressing the 76th General Convention, the Archbishop cautioned against making “decisions…that could push us further apart.” Unfortunately, with the passage of these two resolutions, The Episcopal Church has done exactly what the Archbishop cautioned us not to do. Twenty two of the 37 other Provinces of the Anglican Communion have already declared themselves to be in a state of impaired or broken communion with the majority of The Episcopal Church. Others, to include the Archbishop of Canterbury, may very well follow as a result of the above actions. Time will tell.
There has been an ongoing call throughout the Anglican Communion, for The Episcopal Church to provide “clarity” as to what it truly believes and its response to that which has been asked of it by the wider Anglican Communion regarding the issues which divide us. The passage of D025 and C056 would seem to provide the clarity that many have been asking for. However, the spin from some deputies and bishops concerning these resolutions continues to muddy the water and send mixed messages. It was stated by several bishops during the debate on D025, that while the resolution does allow for a person living in a homosexual relationship to be elected and serve as bishop, until such a person is elected and ordained, B033 has not been overturned. Unfortunately, I believe such mixed signals will only add to the growing charge of hypocrisy aimed at The Episcopal Church, as a result of our saying one thing, but doing something different.
So what does the passage of these two resolutions mean for the Diocese of Albany? In the sense of providing clarity, it clarifies what we already knew – the theologically conservative and orthodox views of the two-thirds majority of the Diocese of Albany are clearly in the minority when compared to the current leadership of the rest of The Episcopal Church. I believe it will make it more difficult for some who have contemplated leaving The Episcopal Church over these issues to stay, thus jeopardizing the stability and health of our parishes and the Diocese as a whole. I believe it will further frustrate those in the Diocese who favor D025 and C056 wishing that Albany would go in a more liberal direction – something that I cannot and will not support as your bishop because I do not believe it is in accordance with God’s will or in the best interest of His Church. I believe it will tempt some on both sides of these issues to withhold financial support, out of protest, thus negatively impacting the life and ministry of the local parishes and the Diocese. Ultimately, I believe it is going to make my job as your bishop all the more difficult as I try to discern God’s will in knowing how best to lead the Diocese during these difficult and confusing times, sharing “in the leadership of the Church” with my fellow bishops in The Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican Communion as “one with the apostles…called to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church.”(BCP 517). I value and ask for your continued prayers. Finally, I believe it could jeopardize the Diocese of Albany’s communion status with the wider Anglican Communion, if our Anglican brothers and sisters in Christ fail to differentiate between those in The Episcopal Church who have honored and upheld that which has been asked of us by the Anglican Communion and those who have gone in a different direction.
Admittedly, I have just painted a less than favorable, but what I believe to be an honest assessment of what could happen as a result of the passage of D025 and C056. The good news is that what could happen, DOES NOT have to happen. Ultimately, the impact D025 and C056 has on each of us individually; our parishes and the Diocese will be dependent upon how we choose to respond. While both resolutions open the door for The Episcopal Church to continue to go in a direction that I believe is problematic for all the reasons listed above, neither resolution changes the Constitution or Canons of The Episcopal Church, nor do they require us, as the Diocese of Albany, to be anything other than who and what we are.
By the grace of God, the Diocese of Albany will: continue to uphold the traditional orthodox teachings of the Church; fulfilling the Great Commandment and the Great Commission, moving from membership to discipleship, equipping, emboldening, and sending disciples to make disciples; proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of the world – the Way, the Truth and the Life, the only One through whom salvation is possible; recognizing the authority of Holy Scripture; continuing in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship; upholding the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed; teaching that marriage was designed and intended by God to be a life long covenant relationship between a man and a woman and that it is only within the confines of marriage between a man and woman that the gift of sexual intimacy is appropriately shared; reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury, and our commitment to preserve these relationships; reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the instruments of Communion; and reaffirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion Covenant process, with the hope of working toward its implementation once completed. In addition, I will be talking to the Standing Committee about ways in which the Diocese of Albany can be intentional about working more closely with those dioceses that share similar conservative, orthodox theological views. While we may be in the minority, we are not alone. It is important that we support and uphold one another, sharing God’s truth as best we understand it, in order that we might be an instrument of His love and healing grace in this broken and hurting world in which we live.
I realize that what I have put forward is not going to be easy, given the current state of crisis within The Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion. I don’t pretend to know how everything will turn out, or whether The Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion will even survive as we now know them. What I do know, is that what we are experiencing now is nothing new. As I have often said in the past, if you study Church history, you will discover that the Church has had problems from the very beginning. If you are looking for the perfect Church, you won’t find it this side of heaven, because the Church is made up of imperfect people. There have always been times of conflict resulting from arguments about theological understandings, false teaching and other concerns introduced by Satan through our fallen human nature. Satan is delighted with the division and fighting going on within the Church. The more he can distract us and turn us against one another, the less effective we will be in sharing the Gospel and bringing people to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Despite the brokenness found in the different parts of the Church down through the centuries, there has always been that faithful remnant in which the Holy Spirit has and will continue to work until our Lord returns. My prayer is that the Diocese of Albany will be part of that faithful remnant, in whatever form that might take. If we are to do so, it is essential that we stick together and keep our focus on Christ and Christ alone. In so doing we will get through to the other side. If we focus on the storm, it will destroy us. The decision is ours! It is imperative that what ever decisions we make in response to the current crisis within The Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion, be done in prayer, truly seeking God’s will and the grace to respond in obedience to His will. Ultimately, our wants and desires are of little consequence. What matters most is what God wants. It is only when we are acting in accordance with His will that we will find true peace and fulfillment.
There were other resolutions and actions taken at the 76th General Convention that I need to briefly comment on, however, I will save those for Part II of my reflections on General Convention, to be issued later this week.
Faithfully Yours in Christ,
+Bill
The following statement was prepared as a minority report by those bishops who could not support D025 and C056. An open invitation was offered to any other bishops who felt called to sign the statement.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Anaheim Statement, General Convention, 2009
At this convention, the House of Bishops has heard repeated calls for honesty and clarity. As the conversation has proceeded within the House of Bishops, repeated attempts to modify wording which would have been preferable to the minority in the vote were respectfully heard and discussed, but in the end most of these amendments were found unacceptable to the majority in the House. Many in the majority believed the amendments would make the stated position of this House less honest about where they believe we are as The Episcopal Church.
It is apparent that a substantial majority of this Convention believes that The Episcopal Church should move forward on matters of human sexuality. We recognize this reality and understand the clarity with which the majority has expressed itself. We are grateful for those who have reached out to the minority, affirming our place in the Church.
We seek to provide the same honesty and clarity. We invite all bishops who share the following commitments to join us in this statement as we seek to find a place in the Church we continue to serve.
· We reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury, and our commitment to preserving these relationships.
· We reaffirm our commitment to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them (BCP 526, 538).
· We reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the Instruments of Communion.
· We reaffirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion Covenant process currently underway, with the hope of working toward its implementation across the Communion once a Covenant is completed.
· We reaffirm our commitment to “continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship” which is foundational to our baptismal covenant, and to be one with the apostles in “interpreting the Gospel” which is essential to our work as bishops of the Church of God.
The Rt. Rev’d James Adams, Western Kansas
The Rt. Rev’d Lloyd Allen, Honduras
The Rt. Rev’d David Alvarez, Puerto Rico
The Rt. Rev’d John Bauerschmidt, Tennessee
The Rt. Rev’d Peter Beckwith, Springfield
The Rt. Rev’d Frank Brookhart, Montana
The Rt. Rev’d Andrew Doyle, Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Philip Duncan, Central Gulf Coast
The Rt. Rev’d Dan Edwards, Nevada
The Rt. Rev’d William Frey, Rio Grande
The Rt. Rev’d Dena Harrison, Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Dorsey Henderson, Upper South Carolina
The Rt. Rev’d Julio Holguin, Dominican Republic
The Rt. Rev’d John Howe, Central Florida
The Rt. Rev’d Russell Jacobus, Fond du Lac
The Rt. Rev’d Don Johnson, West Tennessee
The Rt. Rev’d Paul Lambert, Dallas
The Rt. Rev’d Mark Lawrence, South Carolina
The Rt. Rev’d Gary Lillibridge, West Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Edward Little, Northern Indiana
The Rt. Rev’d William Love, Albany
The Rt. Rev’d Bruce MacPherson, Western Louisiana
The Rt. Rev’d Alfredo Morante, Litoral Ecuador
The Rt. Rev’d Henry Parsley, Alabama
The Rt. Rev’d David Reed, West Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Sylvestre Romero, El Camino Real
The Rt. Rev’d Jeffrey Rowthorn, Europe
The Rt. Rev’d William Skilton, Dominican Republic
The Rt. Rev’d John Sloan, Alabama
The Rt. Rev’d Dabney Smith, Southwest Florida
The Rt. Rev’d Michael Smith, North Dakota
The Rt. Rev’d James Stanton, Dallas
The Rt. Rev’d Pierre Whalon, Europe
The Rt. Rev’d, Don Wimberly, Texas
Final Version - B033 – 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (2006)
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further
Resolved, That this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction 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.
Final Version – D025 – 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (2009)
Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm the continued participation of The Episcopal Church as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion; give thanks for the work of the bishops at the Lambeth Conference of 2008; reaffirm the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention encourage dioceses, congregations, and members of The Episcopal Church to participate to the fullest extent possible in the many instruments, networks and relationships of the Anglican Communion; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm its financial commitment to the Anglican Communion and pledge to participate fully in the Inter-Anglican Budget; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm the value of "listening to the experience of homosexual persons," as called for by the Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988, and 1998, and acknowledge that through our own listening the General Convention has come to recognize that the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships "characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God" (2000-D039); and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention recognize that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God's call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, and that God's call to the ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church is a mystery which the Church attempts to discern for all people through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge that members of The Episcopal Church as of the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.
Current Version* – C056 – 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (2009)
* A final version is not listed on the General Convention Website as of Monday, July 27, 2009
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge the changing circumstances in the United States and in other nations, as legislation authorizing or forbidding marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian persons is passed in various civil jurisdictions that call forth a renewed pastoral response from this Church, and for an open process for the consideration of theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same gender relationships; and be it further
Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, collect and develop theological and liturgical resources, and report to the 77th General Convention; and be it further
Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, devise an open process for the conduct of its work inviting participation from provinces, dioceses, congregations, and individuals who are engaged in such theological work, and inviting theological reflection from throughout the Anglican Communion; and be it further
Resolved, That bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church; and be it further
Resolved, That this Convention honor the theological diversity of this Church in regard to matters of human sexuality; and be it further
Resolved, That the members of this Church be encouraged to engage in this effort.
By Bishop William Love
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
It is wonderful to be home. The Albany Deputation and I returned home late Saturday night, July 18th, after having spent 13 days (including travel time) in Anaheim, CA, attending the 76th General Convention of The Episcopal Church. I am very thankful for and appreciative of each member of our Deputation, all of whom did an outstanding job representing not only the Diocese of Albany, but also the conservative orthodox voice still in The Episcopal Church. Although clearly in the minority, we spoke with conviction, but also with love and charity. The Albany Deputation was represented by Fr. Scott Garno, The Rev. Canon Robert Haskell, Mother Ellen Neufeld, Fr. John Scott, Dave Beaulac, Debbie Fish, Sue Ellen Ruetsch and Beth Strickland. While not part of the official deputation, Fr. Chip Strickland (our Diocesan Chancellor) and Sarah Garno also attended and were a real blessing, supporting the team in a variety of ways. Fr. Chip did an excellent job in his daily updates, helping to keep each of you informed about what was occurring at General Convention.
In writing this, I have struggled with knowing how much detail to add versus just giving my reflections. Recognizing that not everyone will have access to as much information as others, I have decided to err on the side of those who may need more background information. For those who don’t need as much information, please forgive me if I am covering things you already know. While I encourage you to read this in its entirety, the last couple of pages contain my thoughts about the potential impact some of the actions of the 76th General Convention may have on the Diocese of Albany and the larger Church.
For those who may not be familiar with the legislative process of the General Convention, it is made up of two Houses, The House of Bishops and the House of Deputies. Currently any bishop active or retired has a seat, voice and vote in the House of Bishops. The House of Deputies is comprised of eight representatives (4 clergy and 4 laity) from each of the 110 dioceses (foreign and domestic) making up The Episcopal Church. For any piece of legislation to be enacted, it must receive a majority affirmative vote in both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops.
By the end of the tenth and final day of General Convention, if the report I heard is accurate, (personally I lost count), we had dealt with over 400 separate resolutions. Many were passed, some defeated, and all the rest referred back to committee either to die in committee or be brought back at some future time. Many of the resolutions, although important to those who moved them, in the grand scheme of things will have little if any impact especially in areas of national and international affairs. Consequently we spent a great deal of time debating and voting on resolutions that will do little more than provide a written record in the Convention Journal of the mood and opinion of the majority of those attending the 76th General Convention.
With that said, there were resolutions and pieces of legislation that do impact us as a Diocese, as well as impacting The Episcopal Church at large and the wider Anglican Communion. While I can’t reference each of them, I will try to touch on some of the more significant resolutions. The two resolutions that ultimately captured the most headlines and will most likely have the greatest impact on The Episcopal Church’s relationship with the wider Anglican Communion are D025 and C056. Both resolutions deal with different aspects of the ongoing debate concerning those individuals living in homosexual relationships. The text of these two resolutions, B033 from the 75th General Convention in 2009, and the Anaheim Statement (House of Bishops minority report on D025 and C056) is included at the very end of this statement.
The first three resolves of D025 speak of The Episcopal Church’s desire to remain part of and “live into the highest degree of communion possible” with the wider Anglican Communion. The fourth resolve reaffirms the value of “listening to the experience of homosexual persons,” and The Episcopal Church’s commitment to that process. Unfortunately, based on the actions of this church, I believe we don’t seem quite as committed to listening to our brothers and sisters in Christ within The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion, and the wider Body of Christ who in good conscience cannot support or embrace homosexual relationships (making a clear distinction between individuals of homosexual orientation and homosexual relationships or lifestyles). The fifth and sixth resolves speak of the part homosexuals living in life long committed relationships have played in the life and ministry of the Church, stating that “God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church.” The final resolve acknowledges the ongoing division over these issues within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, stating that we “are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.”
Unlike B033 (passed at the 2006 General Convention) which urged The Episcopal Church to “exercise restraint” in giving further consents to any bishops “whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church,” D025 makes no mention of “exercising restraint” and essentially opens the door for the election and consent of future bishops “whose manner of life” would present a challenge to the wider church, as has already been witnessed by the repeated requests of the vast majority of the Primates of the wider Anglican Communion not to ordain individuals living in homosexual relationships or to bless such relationships.
Resolution C056 calls for the “Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops [to] collect and develop theological and liturgical resources” for the blessing of same gender relationships, and report to the 77th General Convention. In addition it states, “That bishops, particularly in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral responses to meet the needs of members of this Church.”
There is great concern by many to include myself, that D025 and C056, while not officially calling for the repeal of B033 (as some had wanted), does in effect repudiate B033 by allowing for the ordination of individuals living in homosexual relationships; calling for the development of liturgies for the blessing of homosexual relationships; and for officially authorizing bishops to “provide generous pastoral responses” i.e. allow for the blessing of homosexual relationships in whatever form that might take. All of these are in direct opposition to that which was asked of us in the Windsor Report, not to mention by the four Instruments of Communion (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates of the Anglican Communion, the Anglican Consultative Council, and Lambeth Conference). While proclaiming our desire to remain part of the Anglican Communion, D025 and C056 make it clear that it will be on our terms. Actions speak louder than words.
B033, as imperfect as it was, offered enough to keep the Archbishop of Canterbury from breaking ties with The Episcopal Church. It is still yet to be seen, what impact the passage of D025 and C056 will have regarding The Episcopal Church’s future relationship with Archbishop Rowan Williams and the wider Anglican Communion. Addressing the 76th General Convention, the Archbishop cautioned against making “decisions…that could push us further apart.” Unfortunately, with the passage of these two resolutions, The Episcopal Church has done exactly what the Archbishop cautioned us not to do. Twenty two of the 37 other Provinces of the Anglican Communion have already declared themselves to be in a state of impaired or broken communion with the majority of The Episcopal Church. Others, to include the Archbishop of Canterbury, may very well follow as a result of the above actions. Time will tell.
There has been an ongoing call throughout the Anglican Communion, for The Episcopal Church to provide “clarity” as to what it truly believes and its response to that which has been asked of it by the wider Anglican Communion regarding the issues which divide us. The passage of D025 and C056 would seem to provide the clarity that many have been asking for. However, the spin from some deputies and bishops concerning these resolutions continues to muddy the water and send mixed messages. It was stated by several bishops during the debate on D025, that while the resolution does allow for a person living in a homosexual relationship to be elected and serve as bishop, until such a person is elected and ordained, B033 has not been overturned. Unfortunately, I believe such mixed signals will only add to the growing charge of hypocrisy aimed at The Episcopal Church, as a result of our saying one thing, but doing something different.
So what does the passage of these two resolutions mean for the Diocese of Albany? In the sense of providing clarity, it clarifies what we already knew – the theologically conservative and orthodox views of the two-thirds majority of the Diocese of Albany are clearly in the minority when compared to the current leadership of the rest of The Episcopal Church. I believe it will make it more difficult for some who have contemplated leaving The Episcopal Church over these issues to stay, thus jeopardizing the stability and health of our parishes and the Diocese as a whole. I believe it will further frustrate those in the Diocese who favor D025 and C056 wishing that Albany would go in a more liberal direction – something that I cannot and will not support as your bishop because I do not believe it is in accordance with God’s will or in the best interest of His Church. I believe it will tempt some on both sides of these issues to withhold financial support, out of protest, thus negatively impacting the life and ministry of the local parishes and the Diocese. Ultimately, I believe it is going to make my job as your bishop all the more difficult as I try to discern God’s will in knowing how best to lead the Diocese during these difficult and confusing times, sharing “in the leadership of the Church” with my fellow bishops in The Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican Communion as “one with the apostles…called to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church.”(BCP 517). I value and ask for your continued prayers. Finally, I believe it could jeopardize the Diocese of Albany’s communion status with the wider Anglican Communion, if our Anglican brothers and sisters in Christ fail to differentiate between those in The Episcopal Church who have honored and upheld that which has been asked of us by the Anglican Communion and those who have gone in a different direction.
Admittedly, I have just painted a less than favorable, but what I believe to be an honest assessment of what could happen as a result of the passage of D025 and C056. The good news is that what could happen, DOES NOT have to happen. Ultimately, the impact D025 and C056 has on each of us individually; our parishes and the Diocese will be dependent upon how we choose to respond. While both resolutions open the door for The Episcopal Church to continue to go in a direction that I believe is problematic for all the reasons listed above, neither resolution changes the Constitution or Canons of The Episcopal Church, nor do they require us, as the Diocese of Albany, to be anything other than who and what we are.
By the grace of God, the Diocese of Albany will: continue to uphold the traditional orthodox teachings of the Church; fulfilling the Great Commandment and the Great Commission, moving from membership to discipleship, equipping, emboldening, and sending disciples to make disciples; proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of the world – the Way, the Truth and the Life, the only One through whom salvation is possible; recognizing the authority of Holy Scripture; continuing in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship; upholding the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed; teaching that marriage was designed and intended by God to be a life long covenant relationship between a man and a woman and that it is only within the confines of marriage between a man and woman that the gift of sexual intimacy is appropriately shared; reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury, and our commitment to preserve these relationships; reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the instruments of Communion; and reaffirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion Covenant process, with the hope of working toward its implementation once completed. In addition, I will be talking to the Standing Committee about ways in which the Diocese of Albany can be intentional about working more closely with those dioceses that share similar conservative, orthodox theological views. While we may be in the minority, we are not alone. It is important that we support and uphold one another, sharing God’s truth as best we understand it, in order that we might be an instrument of His love and healing grace in this broken and hurting world in which we live.
I realize that what I have put forward is not going to be easy, given the current state of crisis within The Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion. I don’t pretend to know how everything will turn out, or whether The Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion will even survive as we now know them. What I do know, is that what we are experiencing now is nothing new. As I have often said in the past, if you study Church history, you will discover that the Church has had problems from the very beginning. If you are looking for the perfect Church, you won’t find it this side of heaven, because the Church is made up of imperfect people. There have always been times of conflict resulting from arguments about theological understandings, false teaching and other concerns introduced by Satan through our fallen human nature. Satan is delighted with the division and fighting going on within the Church. The more he can distract us and turn us against one another, the less effective we will be in sharing the Gospel and bringing people to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Despite the brokenness found in the different parts of the Church down through the centuries, there has always been that faithful remnant in which the Holy Spirit has and will continue to work until our Lord returns. My prayer is that the Diocese of Albany will be part of that faithful remnant, in whatever form that might take. If we are to do so, it is essential that we stick together and keep our focus on Christ and Christ alone. In so doing we will get through to the other side. If we focus on the storm, it will destroy us. The decision is ours! It is imperative that what ever decisions we make in response to the current crisis within The Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion, be done in prayer, truly seeking God’s will and the grace to respond in obedience to His will. Ultimately, our wants and desires are of little consequence. What matters most is what God wants. It is only when we are acting in accordance with His will that we will find true peace and fulfillment.
There were other resolutions and actions taken at the 76th General Convention that I need to briefly comment on, however, I will save those for Part II of my reflections on General Convention, to be issued later this week.
Faithfully Yours in Christ,
+Bill
The following statement was prepared as a minority report by those bishops who could not support D025 and C056. An open invitation was offered to any other bishops who felt called to sign the statement.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Anaheim Statement, General Convention, 2009
At this convention, the House of Bishops has heard repeated calls for honesty and clarity. As the conversation has proceeded within the House of Bishops, repeated attempts to modify wording which would have been preferable to the minority in the vote were respectfully heard and discussed, but in the end most of these amendments were found unacceptable to the majority in the House. Many in the majority believed the amendments would make the stated position of this House less honest about where they believe we are as The Episcopal Church.
It is apparent that a substantial majority of this Convention believes that The Episcopal Church should move forward on matters of human sexuality. We recognize this reality and understand the clarity with which the majority has expressed itself. We are grateful for those who have reached out to the minority, affirming our place in the Church.
We seek to provide the same honesty and clarity. We invite all bishops who share the following commitments to join us in this statement as we seek to find a place in the Church we continue to serve.
· We reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury, and our commitment to preserving these relationships.
· We reaffirm our commitment to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them (BCP 526, 538).
· We reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the Instruments of Communion.
· We reaffirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion Covenant process currently underway, with the hope of working toward its implementation across the Communion once a Covenant is completed.
· We reaffirm our commitment to “continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship” which is foundational to our baptismal covenant, and to be one with the apostles in “interpreting the Gospel” which is essential to our work as bishops of the Church of God.
The Rt. Rev’d James Adams, Western Kansas
The Rt. Rev’d Lloyd Allen, Honduras
The Rt. Rev’d David Alvarez, Puerto Rico
The Rt. Rev’d John Bauerschmidt, Tennessee
The Rt. Rev’d Peter Beckwith, Springfield
The Rt. Rev’d Frank Brookhart, Montana
The Rt. Rev’d Andrew Doyle, Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Philip Duncan, Central Gulf Coast
The Rt. Rev’d Dan Edwards, Nevada
The Rt. Rev’d William Frey, Rio Grande
The Rt. Rev’d Dena Harrison, Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Dorsey Henderson, Upper South Carolina
The Rt. Rev’d Julio Holguin, Dominican Republic
The Rt. Rev’d John Howe, Central Florida
The Rt. Rev’d Russell Jacobus, Fond du Lac
The Rt. Rev’d Don Johnson, West Tennessee
The Rt. Rev’d Paul Lambert, Dallas
The Rt. Rev’d Mark Lawrence, South Carolina
The Rt. Rev’d Gary Lillibridge, West Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Edward Little, Northern Indiana
The Rt. Rev’d William Love, Albany
The Rt. Rev’d Bruce MacPherson, Western Louisiana
The Rt. Rev’d Alfredo Morante, Litoral Ecuador
The Rt. Rev’d Henry Parsley, Alabama
The Rt. Rev’d David Reed, West Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Sylvestre Romero, El Camino Real
The Rt. Rev’d Jeffrey Rowthorn, Europe
The Rt. Rev’d William Skilton, Dominican Republic
The Rt. Rev’d John Sloan, Alabama
The Rt. Rev’d Dabney Smith, Southwest Florida
The Rt. Rev’d Michael Smith, North Dakota
The Rt. Rev’d James Stanton, Dallas
The Rt. Rev’d Pierre Whalon, Europe
The Rt. Rev’d, Don Wimberly, Texas
Final Version - B033 – 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (2006)
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further
Resolved, That this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction 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.
Final Version – D025 – 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (2009)
Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm the continued participation of The Episcopal Church as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion; give thanks for the work of the bishops at the Lambeth Conference of 2008; reaffirm the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention encourage dioceses, congregations, and members of The Episcopal Church to participate to the fullest extent possible in the many instruments, networks and relationships of the Anglican Communion; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm its financial commitment to the Anglican Communion and pledge to participate fully in the Inter-Anglican Budget; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm the value of "listening to the experience of homosexual persons," as called for by the Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988, and 1998, and acknowledge that through our own listening the General Convention has come to recognize that the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships "characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God" (2000-D039); and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention recognize that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God's call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, and that God's call to the ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church is a mystery which the Church attempts to discern for all people through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge that members of The Episcopal Church as of the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.
Current Version* – C056 – 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (2009)
* A final version is not listed on the General Convention Website as of Monday, July 27, 2009
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge the changing circumstances in the United States and in other nations, as legislation authorizing or forbidding marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian persons is passed in various civil jurisdictions that call forth a renewed pastoral response from this Church, and for an open process for the consideration of theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same gender relationships; and be it further
Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, collect and develop theological and liturgical resources, and report to the 77th General Convention; and be it further
Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, devise an open process for the conduct of its work inviting participation from provinces, dioceses, congregations, and individuals who are engaged in such theological work, and inviting theological reflection from throughout the Anglican Communion; and be it further
Resolved, That bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church; and be it further
Resolved, That this Convention honor the theological diversity of this Church in regard to matters of human sexuality; and be it further
Resolved, That the members of this Church be encouraged to engage in this effort.
Restructuring, not schism, ahead for Anglicans
From USA Today via TitusOneNine:
Updated 11h 48m ago
The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams called homophobic violence and prejudice "sinful and disgraceful," but said the church's Bible-based teachings on homosexuality could not be overturned easily.
By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
The head of the Anglican Communion said Monday that restructuring the world's third-largest Christian denomination appears inevitable in the face of irreconcilable differences on sexuality and the Bible.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams forecast a "two-track" model that could leave the U.S. branch of the Communion, the Episcopal Church, out of decisive roles and without standing as a representative voice in the 77-million-member global Anglican church.
His statement comes two weeks after clergy and lay leaders at the Episcopal governing meeting voted by 2-1 margins to welcome the election of gay and lesbian bishops and to give "generous discretion" to blessing same-sex weddings.
Leaders of the USA's Anglican traditionalists and Episcopal gay activists had similar reactions to Williams' statement.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Local churches | Katharine Jefferts Schori | Gene Robinson | Rowan Williams | Robert Duncan
Both Archbishop Robert Duncan, of the new Anglican Church in North America, and the Rev. Susan Russell, head of the gay Episcopal group Integrity, say they will keep "being church" (working on evangelism, service and missions) exactly as before, and see when the institution catches up to reality.
The U.S. Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, declined to comment.
Williams has pushed for several years for a "covenant" clarifying that membership in the Communion is for those churches that are "theologically coherent" and agree on how they'll work together, rather than "a loose federation of local bodies with a cultural history in common."
But the Episcopal Church cannot wander alone off the theological reservation, becoming isolated and "unrecognizable," he said.
Referencing a biblical curse on heretics, Williams said, "There is no threat of being cast into outer darkness — existing relationships will not be destroyed that easily."
Still, he foresees a future "not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication, but plainly as what they are: "two styles of being Anglican" pursuing their mission "with greater integrity and consistency," even as they work out issues.
Russell was untroubled by this idea. Ever since the Revolutionary War, when the U.S church broke with the Church of England, "American Anglicans are used to re-inventing structures in order to proclaim the Gospel and move forward," she said.
And Duncan said Communion divisions already "outpace Williams. The speed at which the Archbishop of Canterbury has dealt with the crisis in the Anglican Communion is something faster than glacial — but it's not too much faster. We'll see where the whole Communion goes, but we are far more interested in doing the mission of the church in society than occupying ourselves with what the old structures will do."
Updated 11h 48m ago
The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams called homophobic violence and prejudice "sinful and disgraceful," but said the church's Bible-based teachings on homosexuality could not be overturned easily.
By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
The head of the Anglican Communion said Monday that restructuring the world's third-largest Christian denomination appears inevitable in the face of irreconcilable differences on sexuality and the Bible.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams forecast a "two-track" model that could leave the U.S. branch of the Communion, the Episcopal Church, out of decisive roles and without standing as a representative voice in the 77-million-member global Anglican church.
His statement comes two weeks after clergy and lay leaders at the Episcopal governing meeting voted by 2-1 margins to welcome the election of gay and lesbian bishops and to give "generous discretion" to blessing same-sex weddings.
Leaders of the USA's Anglican traditionalists and Episcopal gay activists had similar reactions to Williams' statement.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Local churches | Katharine Jefferts Schori | Gene Robinson | Rowan Williams | Robert Duncan
Both Archbishop Robert Duncan, of the new Anglican Church in North America, and the Rev. Susan Russell, head of the gay Episcopal group Integrity, say they will keep "being church" (working on evangelism, service and missions) exactly as before, and see when the institution catches up to reality.
The U.S. Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, declined to comment.
Williams has pushed for several years for a "covenant" clarifying that membership in the Communion is for those churches that are "theologically coherent" and agree on how they'll work together, rather than "a loose federation of local bodies with a cultural history in common."
But the Episcopal Church cannot wander alone off the theological reservation, becoming isolated and "unrecognizable," he said.
Referencing a biblical curse on heretics, Williams said, "There is no threat of being cast into outer darkness — existing relationships will not be destroyed that easily."
Still, he foresees a future "not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication, but plainly as what they are: "two styles of being Anglican" pursuing their mission "with greater integrity and consistency," even as they work out issues.
Russell was untroubled by this idea. Ever since the Revolutionary War, when the U.S church broke with the Church of England, "American Anglicans are used to re-inventing structures in order to proclaim the Gospel and move forward," she said.
And Duncan said Communion divisions already "outpace Williams. The speed at which the Archbishop of Canterbury has dealt with the crisis in the Anglican Communion is something faster than glacial — but it's not too much faster. We'll see where the whole Communion goes, but we are far more interested in doing the mission of the church in society than occupying ourselves with what the old structures will do."
Episcopal gay moves risk schism
From The Washington Times via Thinking Anglicans:
Stance could open fissures throughout religious spectrum
By the Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali
Originally published 04:45 a.m., July 26, 2009, updated 10:14 a.m., July 27, 2009
The Episcopal Church in the United States has done it again. Having marched out of step with the majority of the worldwide Anglican Communion, American Episcopalians have declared their intention to walk even further apart.
The world knows about the ordination of a bishop in a same-sex relationship and the ways in which that has torn the fabric of the communion, as the primates have said, at its deepest level. (This, by the way, is also a classic description of schism.) It also is widely known that people have their same-sex unions "blessed" in many parts of the Episcopal Church and such people also can be candidates for ordination.
All this continues despite the clear teaching of the 1998 Lambeth Conference that it should not.
So what is new? In passing Resolution DO25, the General Convention has openly stated that ordination should be open to those living in same-sex unions, which it also regards as exemplifying "holy love." In a further resolution, CO56, the Episcopal Church has agreed to bring liturgies for blessing same-sex relationships to the next General Convention, in 2012, for final approval.
Why are all of these developments important? Are they not simply a formalizing of what happens anyway, and is the church not just reflecting the culture in which it is set?
Let it be said, straightaway, that this issue is not a second- or lower-order one on which Christians can agree to disagree. It profoundly has to do with how men and women are created together in God's image and together given a common mission in the world. This mission they fulfill in ways that are both distinctive and complementary.
No Bible-believing Christian can say that "men are from Mars and women from Venus." They are not distinct species but have been made for each other in their distinctiveness and complement each other. This is the burden of the earliest chapters of Genesis that are strongly and unambiguously affirmed in the teaching of Jesus himself. As a whole, the Bible's teaching on human sexuality clearly affirms that the proper expression of our sexual nature is within the context of married love. The alternative, for those who have this gift, is dedicated singleness in the fulfillment of God's purposes.
In the pagan world, in which the Bible was written, such a view was vigorously countercultural. Many of Israel's neighbors tolerated both heterosexual and homosexual practices that are rejected by the Bible because they violate the holiness of God, the order of creation and respect for persons.
It is often the case that where the fundamental teaching of the Bible regarding marriage is not upheld, the status of women, in particular, suffers and they are reduced to being either a source for male self-gratification or chattel who maintain the home while men seek gratification elsewhere.
Today also, in the context of permissive cultures, the church has sometimes to take a countercultural stand so that the dignity of persons, made in God's image, is not debased.
As to same-sex attraction, there may be a predisposition toward it, even if we do not know all the reasons for it. That does not mean it must be gratified. Not every desire can or should be given active expression.
There may be relationship issues with a parent or a seeking of the man or the woman "I want to be" in others of the same sex. Those in such situations need to be cared for and to know that God loves them. They need to be helped so they can conform their lives to the stature of the fullness of Christ.
As they are welcomed to church and hear God's word, they will meet with Christ and be transformed by the renewal of their minds, spirits and bodies. They will be nurtured by word and sacrament but also by friendship.
Again and again, people say it is the affirmation of Christian friends, the role model of a wise, perhaps older Christian and the fellowship of the church family that have brought them to a new place in their discipleship.
None of this seems to bother the decision-makers in the Episcopal Church (though it may bother the faithful more than we think). They will have caused a schism despite repeated entreaties by the rest of the communion not to take unilateral action that contravenes the teaching of the Bible, the unanimous teaching of the church down the ages and the understanding of the vast majority of Christians today.
There can be little doubt that the latest moves in the Episcopal Church will further damage the fellowship among Anglicans. There will be more talk of the rupture, impairment of communion and the like. The moves also will further damage ecumenical relations with other churches, such as the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and various evangelical and Pentecostal bodies. Interfaith dialogue, especially with Muslims, also has been adversely affected, with dialogue partners asking how what they have hitherto regarded as a "heavenly religion" can sanction a practice that most religions do not permit.
In all this, those who remain orthodox in faith and morals will need to remember that any disruption of fellowship is for the sake of discipline and the eventual restoration of those who have chosen to go their own way to the common faith and life of the church. It is for this that we must work and pray.
The Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali is Anglican bishop of Rochester in England. The bishop was born in Pakistan and ministered there as well as in Britain and elsewhere. He has both a Muslim and a Christian family background.
Stance could open fissures throughout religious spectrum
By the Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali
Originally published 04:45 a.m., July 26, 2009, updated 10:14 a.m., July 27, 2009
The Episcopal Church in the United States has done it again. Having marched out of step with the majority of the worldwide Anglican Communion, American Episcopalians have declared their intention to walk even further apart.
The world knows about the ordination of a bishop in a same-sex relationship and the ways in which that has torn the fabric of the communion, as the primates have said, at its deepest level. (This, by the way, is also a classic description of schism.) It also is widely known that people have their same-sex unions "blessed" in many parts of the Episcopal Church and such people also can be candidates for ordination.
All this continues despite the clear teaching of the 1998 Lambeth Conference that it should not.
So what is new? In passing Resolution DO25, the General Convention has openly stated that ordination should be open to those living in same-sex unions, which it also regards as exemplifying "holy love." In a further resolution, CO56, the Episcopal Church has agreed to bring liturgies for blessing same-sex relationships to the next General Convention, in 2012, for final approval.
Why are all of these developments important? Are they not simply a formalizing of what happens anyway, and is the church not just reflecting the culture in which it is set?
Let it be said, straightaway, that this issue is not a second- or lower-order one on which Christians can agree to disagree. It profoundly has to do with how men and women are created together in God's image and together given a common mission in the world. This mission they fulfill in ways that are both distinctive and complementary.
No Bible-believing Christian can say that "men are from Mars and women from Venus." They are not distinct species but have been made for each other in their distinctiveness and complement each other. This is the burden of the earliest chapters of Genesis that are strongly and unambiguously affirmed in the teaching of Jesus himself. As a whole, the Bible's teaching on human sexuality clearly affirms that the proper expression of our sexual nature is within the context of married love. The alternative, for those who have this gift, is dedicated singleness in the fulfillment of God's purposes.
In the pagan world, in which the Bible was written, such a view was vigorously countercultural. Many of Israel's neighbors tolerated both heterosexual and homosexual practices that are rejected by the Bible because they violate the holiness of God, the order of creation and respect for persons.
It is often the case that where the fundamental teaching of the Bible regarding marriage is not upheld, the status of women, in particular, suffers and they are reduced to being either a source for male self-gratification or chattel who maintain the home while men seek gratification elsewhere.
Today also, in the context of permissive cultures, the church has sometimes to take a countercultural stand so that the dignity of persons, made in God's image, is not debased.
As to same-sex attraction, there may be a predisposition toward it, even if we do not know all the reasons for it. That does not mean it must be gratified. Not every desire can or should be given active expression.
There may be relationship issues with a parent or a seeking of the man or the woman "I want to be" in others of the same sex. Those in such situations need to be cared for and to know that God loves them. They need to be helped so they can conform their lives to the stature of the fullness of Christ.
As they are welcomed to church and hear God's word, they will meet with Christ and be transformed by the renewal of their minds, spirits and bodies. They will be nurtured by word and sacrament but also by friendship.
Again and again, people say it is the affirmation of Christian friends, the role model of a wise, perhaps older Christian and the fellowship of the church family that have brought them to a new place in their discipleship.
None of this seems to bother the decision-makers in the Episcopal Church (though it may bother the faithful more than we think). They will have caused a schism despite repeated entreaties by the rest of the communion not to take unilateral action that contravenes the teaching of the Bible, the unanimous teaching of the church down the ages and the understanding of the vast majority of Christians today.
There can be little doubt that the latest moves in the Episcopal Church will further damage the fellowship among Anglicans. There will be more talk of the rupture, impairment of communion and the like. The moves also will further damage ecumenical relations with other churches, such as the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and various evangelical and Pentecostal bodies. Interfaith dialogue, especially with Muslims, also has been adversely affected, with dialogue partners asking how what they have hitherto regarded as a "heavenly religion" can sanction a practice that most religions do not permit.
In all this, those who remain orthodox in faith and morals will need to remember that any disruption of fellowship is for the sake of discipline and the eventual restoration of those who have chosen to go their own way to the common faith and life of the church. It is for this that we must work and pray.
The Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali is Anglican bishop of Rochester in England. The bishop was born in Pakistan and ministered there as well as in Britain and elsewhere. He has both a Muslim and a Christian family background.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)