Presiding Bishop reaches out to bishops attempting to withdraw dioceses

By Jan Nunley, October 31, 2007

[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is making public a letter of warning that is being sent to a bishop who is actively seeking to withdraw his diocese from the Episcopal Church, and has stated that letters to other bishops will follow.

"In this way the Presiding Bishop is reaching out with open arms once more to those bishops contemplating realignments for their dioceses, while also warning them of the consequences should they choose to follow through with their proposed actions," said the Rev. Dr. Charles Robertson, Canon to the Presiding Bishop.

The full text of the first of these letters, addressed to Bishop Robert Duncan of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, is included below.

In a private session of the Executive Council, meeting in Dearborn, Michigan, October 26-28, the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor, David Booth Beers, gave an extensive review of the state of property litigation and other legal issues and related disciplinary considerations confronting the Episcopal Church and articulated the policies of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori regarding those issues.

"This is hard. The concepts are hard," said Beers. "It is costly. And it requires a lot of pastoral care of those involved."

Beers talked about three types of situations confronting the church:

* When a group of congregants decides it no longer wants to be part of the Episcopal Church but intend to retain the church building and other parish assets;

* When a bishop and diocesan leadership determine to allow such a group to retain Episcopal Church property under certain circumstances;

* When a bishop and other diocesan leadership decide they no longer want to be part of the Episcopal Church.

In the first group of cases, Beers said, litigation has recently been successfully concluded in the dioceses of Missouri, North Carolina, and Rochester, while other court decisions in recent years favoring the Episcopal Church have been made in Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia, New York, and several other dioceses.

Favorable lower court decisions have been issued by a trial court in the Diocese of South Carolina and by an intermediate appeals court in three cases from the Diocese of Los Angeles. All of those decisions are being appealed. In Long Island, a decision is expected within a month in the case of a parish that sued the Episcopal Church and the diocese. Lawsuits are also pending in the Dioceses of Colorado, Connecticut, Northwest Texas, San Diego, and Virginia.

The Presiding Bishop has been asked to file an amicus brief in a lawsuit involving the Diocese of Colorado, where the dispute is complicated by the fact that the congregation's rector has been accused and found guilty by a diocesan court of embezzlement.

The lawsuit against a group of 11 breakaway Virginia groups is "robust" litigation, said Beers, which has raised interesting questions about the nature of the Anglican Communion itself.

Lawsuits could conceivably be forthcoming in Georgia, Nebraska, Northern California, Ohio, South Dakota, Southern Virginia and a few other dioceses, Beers said.

There have been several settlements, including one in Central New York, where the departing group promised not to invite a bishop from another Anglican jurisdiction until it had secured its own space.

Another settlement in the Diocese of Olympia is being revisited by the incoming bishop.

"What we do for the dioceses in these cases is to provide legal research and other materials such as expert statements, briefs, and advice on litigation strategy. Then we hold a conference with the bishop and other leaders of the diocese such as the chancellor and standing committee officers," said Beers. "We talk to them about what to do about the departing group, how to help those who remain with the Episcopal Church, what to do about the clergy involved, what to do if another Anglican bishop is involved, when it's best to settle, when to pursue litigation, and what works and what doesn't in litigation."

The costs are "heavy," said Beers, but national expenses generally have not exceeded those of some single dioceses in the church. By contrast, he said, it has been reported that the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) congregations in Virginia have spent at least $1 million to date on the pending litigation.

Beers predicted another year or so of lawsuits.

"The total number of parishes in active litigation is probably 20-25, at the outside," he said.

The second category of cases involves diocesan leadership negotiating with congregants who wish to leave with Episcopal Church property. Agreements have been made with congregations in Dallas, Kansas, Olympia, Quincy, Rhode Island, and Virginia.

Critical to these negotiations, in the Presiding Bishop's estimation, are the requirements that congregations not invite a primate or bishop from another province of the Anglican Communion to assume jurisdiction over the departing group and that the diocese be fairly compensated for the value of the real and personal property to be retained by the group of departing members.

And then there are the dioceses seeking to disaffiliate.

Beers stated that it is important for "the disciplinary process of the church to speak to the issues." Something like that has already been attempted with respect to Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin, after a group of California bishops claimed canonical violations when the diocese voted to take the first step to change its constitution in 2006 to qualify its agreement to submit to the Episcopal Church's Constitution and Canons. Article V, Section 1, of the Constitution says that a diocese's constitution must contain an “unqualified accession" to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.

If approved at its second reading slated for the upcoming December 7-8 convention, the diocesan constitution would read that the diocese accedes "to the extent that such terms and provisions, and any amendments thereto, adopted by the authority of the General Convention, are not inconsistent with the terms and provisions of the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese of San Joaquin..."

If the Title IV Review Committee, which serves as a kind of "grand jury" in such cases, had determined that Schofield had abandoned the Communion of the Church under the terms of Canon IV.9, its decision would have begun a process that could have resulted in Schofield being liable to deposition and removal from office. But the committee agreed that the actions of the bishop at that time "did not constitute abandonment of the communion, as it is defined in the canon."

Appointed to the 2007-2009 Title IV Review Committee are Bishop Suffragan Bavi E. Rivera of Olympia, Bishop Suffragan David C. Jones of Virginia, Bishop C. Wallis Ohl Jr. of Northwest Texas, the Rev. Carolyn Kuhr of Montana, the Very Rev. Scott Kirby of Eau Claire, J.P. Causey Jr. of Virginia and Deborah J. Stokes of Southern Ohio. Causey, Kirby, Kuhr and Stokes served on the 2003-2006 Review Committee.

A charge of abandonment of the communion of the Episcopal Church is determined by vote in the House of Bishops. There is no appeal and no right of formal trial outside of a hearing before the House of Bishops. A proposed revision of Title IV would have changed that, but those provisions were not passed by General Convention 2006.

Of those dioceses considering "realignment," Springfield appears not to have yet acted, and Quincy declined in its recent diocesan convention to pass a proposed canonical revision.

Fort Worth's convention, meeting November 14-15,is set to consider the first reading of a constitutional amendment that would remove accession to the Constitution and Canons of the church, as well several canonical amendments that eliminate mention of the name of the Episcopal Church. Jefferts Schori intends to send a letter to Bishop Jack Iker, who advocates these changes, before the convention notifying him that such a step would force her to take action to bring the diocese and its leadership into line with the mandates of the national Church.

A similar canonical change is set to come before the Diocese of Pittsburgh's convention November 2-3, and Jefferts Schori has written to Pittsburgh's bishop in this regard (see link to letter cited above).

In December the Diocese of San Joaquin is scheduled to hear the second and final reading of its constitutional accession amendment, a proposed act that may prompt "more dramatic action" beforehand.

At some point, assuming that all these and other constitutional changes go forward, the Presiding Bishop could ask the Title IV Review Committee to consider whether the three diocesan bishops who have proposed and supported these changes have abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church.

Presentment charges were filed in 2005 against Connecticut Bishop Drew Smith, because he deposed a priest on the ground that he had abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church in rejecting the bishop's authority. The Title IV Review Committee upheld Smith's action, and Beers said the decision is "an important road map to where we are going."

If the Presiding Bishop were to present materials to the Review Committee regarding potential abandonment by the bishops in question, and if the Committee were to agree that abandonment had taken place, the bishops would have two months to recant their positions. If they failed to do so, the matter would go to the full House of Bishops.

If the House concurred, the Presiding Bishop would depose the bishops and declare the episcopates of those dioceses vacant. Those remaining in the Episcopal Church would be gathered to organize a new diocesan convention and elect a replacement Standing Committee, if necessary.

An assisting bishop would be appointed to provide episcopal ministry until a new diocesan bishop search process could be initiated and a new bishop elected and consecrated.

A lawsuit would be filed against the departed leadership and a representative sample of departing congregations if they attempted to retain Episcopal Church property.

"These are consequences, not punishments," Robertson said, "consequences that have long been clear, and are now being reiterated by the Presiding Bishop in the letters of warning. The goal is reconciliation, but also accountability."

Beers added, "The consequences can easily be avoided. But the Episcopal Church has the obligation to discipline its leaders under circumstances like this."

---

Letter from the Presiding Bishop to Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan

The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA

Dear Bob,

There have been numerous public references in recent weeks regarding resolutions to be introduced at your forthcoming diocesan convention. Those resolutions, if adopted, would amend several of your diocesan canons and begin the process of amending one or more provisions of your diocesan Constitution. I have reviewed a number of these proposed resolutions, and it is evident to me that they would violate the Constitutional requirement that the Diocese conform to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. It is apparent from your pre-convention report that you endorse these proposed changes. I am also aware of other of your statements and actions in recent months that demonstrate an intention to lead your diocese into a position that would purportedly permit it to depart from The Episcopal Church. All these efforts, in my view, display a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between The Episcopal Church and its dioceses. Our Constitution explicitly provides that a diocese must accede to the Constitution and Canons of the Church.

I call upon you to recede from this direction and to lead your diocese on a new course that recognizes the interdependent and hierarchical relationship between the national Church and its dioceses and parishes. That relationship is at the heart of our mission, as expressed in our polity. Specifically, I sincerely hope that you will change your position and urge your diocese at its forthcoming convention not to adopt the resolutions that you have until now supported.

If your course does not change, I shall regrettably be compelled to see that appropriate canonical steps are promptly taken to consider whether you have abandoned the Communion of this Church -- by actions and substantive statements, however they may be phrased -- and whether you have committed canonical offences that warrant disciplinary action.

It grieves me that any bishop of this Church would seek to lead any of its members out of it. I would remind you of my open offer of an Episcopal Visitor if you wish to receive pastoral care from another bishop. I continue to pray for reconciliation of this situation, and I remain

Your servant in Christ,

Katharine Jefferts Schori

-- The Rev. Jan Nunley is executive editor of Episcopal Life Media.

Challenges Faced by Youth

September 10, 2007

Ventura, CA) - Recent research from The Barna Group revealed that parents are more worried about the future their children than other high-profile concerns. A new study released by the California-based research firm, conducted on behalf of media production company Good News Holdings, identifies the specific problems their children are facing today. Separating the views of parents by the age of their children, the study discovered that the parents of teenagers identified peer pressure as the biggest challenge faced by 13-to-18 year olds. The parents of pre-teens listed both peer pressure and school performance as the greatest struggles their younger children face.

Parents of Teens

When asked to identify the most significant or challenging issues facing their teenagers, parents listed peer pressure (42%), performance in school (16%), substance abuse (16%), and behavioral issues (15%). The only other issues mentioned by at least 5% of teenagers' parents were values development (6%), college choices and acceptance (5%), attitude (5%), and media use (5%). Challenges related to their teen's faith were listed by only 3% parents.

Parents of Young Children

When asked to identify the most significant or challenging issues facing their children under the age of 13, school performance topped the list (26%) along with peer pressure (24%). The other most common issues were behavioral challenges (10%), media use (6%), attitudes (6%), family-related struggles (5%), health-related struggles (5%), and issues related to their maturation (5%). Challenges pertaining to their faith were mentioned by only 3% of parents.

Specific Challenges Tested

Parents were then given a list of possible challenges their children might face, and asked to indicate how significant that issue is for their children. Of the 13 issues posed to parents, the most pressing issues for teenagers were deemed to be not having enough money (45% of parents said that was a "very" or "somewhat" significant issue to their teenager); feeling misunderstood by their family (43%); struggling with their self-image (40%); not owning the latest technology (37%); not wearing the "right" clothing (33%); and not feeling accepted by their peers (32%).

Among the parents of children younger than 13, by far the most serious issues were feeling misunderstood by their family (listed by 41% of pre-teen parents as a significant issue in the minds of their children); being made fun of by their peers (32%); struggling with their self-image (26%); and not feeling accepted by their peers (26%).

Opportunities for Parents and Youth Leaders

George Barna, who conducted the survey for Good News Holdings, noted that the volume of issues faced by teenagers rose dramatically when compared to the challenges facing pre-teens. Many of those teen issues relate to the relationships teenagers have with their peers.

"The percentage of young people plagued by peer pressure issues more than doubles once a child reaches high school," Barna revealed. "That pressure takes many forms: using drugs or alcohol, befriending certain groups of peers, owning specific media technologies, having sexual experiences, wearing particular types of clothing or brands, and possessing a certain attitude."

The research also showed that moms and dads weight the various issues differently. "Mothers are much more aware of peer pressure issues. Fathers are more cognizant of the academic pressure their children face," Barna pointed out. "This may reflect each parent's personal sensitivities. Mothers tend to be more sensitive to relationships, while fathers are more focused on marketplace performance."

The issue that seemed to remain a constant and significant challenge across time is the nature of the connection between parent and child. "Feeling misunderstood is one of the most widespread and long-lasting difficulties felt by young people," according to Barna. "What's interesting is that kids who feel misunderstood generally maintain the belief that their family loves them. That's a critical bond that enables most of them to transcend the division and stay connected to their family."

Barna noted that as the new school year starts, the Good News research study could be useful to parents, teachers and church leaders as they try to relate to young people. "Understanding the tensions that kids are wrestling with enables an adult to connect with a child at a deeper level. Acknowledging the challenges, relating teaching to the issues they face, and even praying more specifically for these young people are ways of retaining and even deepening the relationship while providing tangible assistance to each child."

About the Research

This report is based upon a nationwide telephone survey conducted by The Barna Group in November 2006 among 601 parents of children 18 or younger, and who consider themselves to be Christian. These adults were randomly selected from households in the 48 continental states. The sample has a maximum margin of sampling error of ±4.1 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. In total, the survey included 279 parents of teenagers, and 327 parents of children younger than 13. The maximum margin of sampling error for those segments is about ±6 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

TAILGATE PARTY!!!

Denise Wadsworth and Friends threw a wonderful sports-themed Tailgate Party and Auction for us Saturday evening October 13th!

Joel Athey was our quick-witted, bright and engaging auctioner, and John Ulin's Band 'Cottage Industry' provided dancing and entertainment while we all dined on Tri-Tip, BBQ chicken, corn, beans, salad and dessert, quaffing our beverages of choice!

Gratitude is owed to many!  Ron Harrington, Kevin Kostlan and Michael Harrigian hung the outdoor lights, Natalie Pawley and Margaret Campbell gathered splendid Silent Auction items.  Bob Dini kicked things off with a musical set "Pennies From Heaven" and John Ulin punched out fine tunes with his band Cottage Industry!  Debra Spauling handled bar equipment, kegs, bartenders and set-up for two bars, Donna Packer created our room decors and outdoor designs, and Cynthia Woodman arranged the appetizer table, arranged catering, and baked our dessert!  The kitchen crew consisted of Eli and Maggie Moreton and MaryBeth Grannell.  Rebecca Duguid assisted with auction tally, and Robin Puri, with help from Rebecca, managed basket packing, check-in, check-out and auction set-up!

Here are some scenes of the Fiesta:

 

 

Ed Leason contests a bid with Jorge DeLaMora

 

 

 Ken and Maggie Sabbag appear elegantly attired prior to a Poly event on a double booked evening!

 

 

 

 

 Ron and Darlene Porter front and center!

 

 

 

Spencer Woodman and Father Ni enjoy conversation!

 

 

 

  Peter Brockett tries for an in with auctioneer Joel Athey!

 

 

and I don't really know how to manage this system all that well, so we get to gaze twice.

 

 

 

Margaret Cambell enjoys conversation with Debra Spaulding!

 

 

 John Ulin's band rocks the house!

 

 

 Andy and Alisha Dagis and Jon and Natalie Pawley rejoicing!

 

 

 A happy table!

 

 

 

 

 

 Our entire Chinese congregation turns out in force!

 

 

THE Auctioneer!!!  Trying to maintain Team nuetrality in his referee get-up!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Denise honors her hard workers with floral bouquets!

 

 

The gang's all here!

 

 

 

MORE PHOTOS TO COME AS PARISHIONERS SEND ME THEIR DIGITAL SHOTS!  RETURN FOR UPDATES!

From the London Times

October 7, 2007

Religion and science are twin beacons of humanity

 

by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

 

In 1997 a group of scientists issued a declaration in which, among other things, they argued that “human capabilities appear to differ in degree, not in kind, from those found among the higher animals. Humankind’s rich repertoire of thoughts, feelings, aspirations and hopes seems to arise from electrochemical brain processes, not from an immaterial soul”.

Is that all we are? Where, on this definition, will we place the book of Psalms, King Lear, Monet’s water lilies or the Bodleian Library, Oxford? Where will we locate the individuals who risked their lives to save lives during the massacre in Rwanda, or the Buddhist monks today who confront the military regime in Burma in the name of freedom? Do we adequately capture the parameters of the human spirit by reducing it to “electrochemical brain processes”? Clearly not.

The declaration is guilty of an elementary mistake of logic, the genetic fallacy, the belief that because Y “arises from” X, Y is no more than X. An oak arises from an acorn, a butterfly from a caterpillar, but they are not the same things. Music arises from a disturbance of airwaves, but that does not make music mere noise. Everything that lives can be traced back to the first ribo-organisms. But that does not mean that all forms of life are essentially the same.

Any account of the human condition that reduces the human spirit to an accidental by-product of evolutionary pressures tells less than half the story of who we are. We may be — on this, the Bible and neo-Darwinism agree — “dust of the earth”, the reconfigured debris of exploded stars. But within us is the breath of God. Scientists call this “emergence”: the process whereby systems of self-organising complexity yield something new, more than the sum of its parts. That is where religion and science both began: when life became conscious, then self-conscious, then able to ask the question: “Why?”

The current argument between “religion” and “science” is deeply unnecessary. It involves a caricature of religion and a parody of science. It is structured around a set of absurd oppositions, between science and superstition, reason and revelation, knowledge and wishful thinking, as if scientists and religious believers were incapable of realising the limits of their respective domains. We need both: science to tell us how the world is, religion (and philosophy) to tell us how it ought to be.

In Judaism we have a special blessing — it goes back some 2,000 years — that we say on meeting a great scientist. Religion is not, or should not be, opposed to science. On the contrary, it is part of God’s gift to humanity of insight and understanding. That, for us, is what the Bible means when it says that the human person is “in the image and likeness” of God. What we disagree with is not science but scientism, the belief that what we can see and measure is all there is.

We are objects, beings in physical space, subject to the same causal laws as other biological organisms. But we are also subjects, capable of thought, speech, self-expression and imagination. All life is mortal but only humans contemplate their mortality. All genes produce other genes, but not all yield creatures capable of love, Shakespeare’s sonnets or the Song of Songs.

One of the most glorious periods in European history occurred when religion, science and the arts came together in the Renaissance. Its manifesto, Pico della Mirandola’s Oration of the Dignity of Man, was a deeply religious document. In Italy it gave rise to Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael and Brunelleschi; in England to Francis Bacon, Marlowe, Shakespeare and Milton. This was religious humanism at its best.

Then came the confrontation between the religious authorities and Galileo, and the synthesis was lost. Religion and science began to go their separate ways, to the detriment of both. We need to declare a truce in this war between two equally quintessential aspects of the human condition.

Religion and science are like the two hemispheres of the brain, one analytical, the other integrative, one speaking prose, the other poetry. Religion without science is blind to the workings of the world. Science without religion is deaf to the music of creation.

Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks is the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth

Jon Pawley, with help from sidekicks Ron Linderman, John Payne and Matt DeLaMora, arranged for a happy bus full of fifty or so parishioners to make a tasting pilgrimage to the Santa Ynez Valley on September 29th, 2007.

Our first stop was Firestone Vineyard, recently purchased by the excellent Foley Vineyards, where we toured the grounds and fermentation facilities and saw the processes used in production.  Then it was on to a second vineyard, where we lunched, concluding later that day at Gainey Vineyard. 

As photos show, a good time was had by all, and most turned up in Church for services next day!  GFW+

---

A MIND OF THE HOUSE RESOLUTION (draft)
[I propose that the document we release at the end of our meeting address the basic points below, some of which have to be filled out as the meeting unfolds. The first three seem to me to be obviously needed, The other points also seem necessary: some description of the actual state of The Episcopal church, to help people around the world hear what is actually happening among us: addressing the issue of authority in the Communion, particularly relating to the ACC; affirming the essential unity of all the baptized, despite how we might feel about other people at times; and addressing the matters of the Primatial Vicar, B033, and rites of same-sex blessings.

I offer some language for these latter points, in parts quite strong. It isn’t in my usual style, but I think we cannot mince words. Some reiteration of basics of the faith seems necessary, since people around the globe will be reading what we have to say.
Pierre Whalon]

I. Introduction
II. Thanksgiving for the rebuilding of New Orleans and commendation of the efforts of the people of the Diocese of Louisiana and their Bishop.
III. Gratitude for the meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Joint Standing Committee (regrets that Abp Orombi chose to absent himself)
a. Results of our conversations
IV. Before we turn to our comment on the Primates Communiqué, we must set the record straight about the actual state of The Episcopal Church. E.g.,

Number of parishes is 7,115; numbers of parishes seeking to leave TEC is around 160, or about 2.2%. This is a major tragedy, but not the massive movement that some would claim.

While the Windsor Report commended our plan of Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (§152), we have seen an organized strategy of congregations refusing any and all provision of alternative oversight and then claiming that they are being persecuted. When parishes have been willing to engage in the process, DEPO has worked effectively. We noted with frustration that DEPO, offered at great cost, did not receive any recognition in the Primates Communiqué.

It should be noted that parishes and dioceses in The Episcopal Church do not exist apart from it. We respect that some people feel bound by conscience to leave the Church and go elsewhere, though such partings of friends have been extremely painful to live through. Some parishes have challenged their dioceses in the secular courts for retention of properties that do not belong to them. These properties are most often the result of the hard work of generations of faithful Episcopalians, and the lawsuits have resulted in serious wasteful diversion of funds that should be consecrated for the mission of God to pay for secular legal representation. While we are listening to the leaders of a few dioceses who say they must leave, and would dread that eventuality, it is clear that they would leave as people, not dioceses. As Bishops of this Church. We implore those who feel they need to leave to reconsider.

Three years before the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire, two Primates ordained two priests of this Church to serve as “missionary bishops” to the United States. They persuaded a few congregations to join their schism and have worked to set up new churches purporting to be “true Anglican.” The climate of distrust deplored by the Primates is not just due to recent actions of The Episcopal Church The present ‘Convocation” in Virginia, as well as new consecrations of "missionary bishops” in Uganda and Kenya, therefore, do not appear to be pastoral responses to a situation engendered by the General Convention in 2003, but rather the expansion of a willingness to create a schism.

It appears to us that these multiple consecrations of bishops intended to set up new jurisdictions in the United States, along with the actions of individual bishops such as the Bishop of Bolivia and the deposed bishop of Recife, Brazil, are clearer expressions of contempt for the life of our Communion than certain decisions of our Church are said to be. Creating several non-geographical jurisdictions aligned with different provinces in our Church cannot be seen by any reasonable people, whatever their convictions, to be anything but disastrous for us all.

We are grateful to the Archbishop of Canterbury for indicating that such jurisdictional schemes are not part of the recognized structures of the Communion.

V. Authority in the Anglican Communion

One question that has long exercised people across the Communion since the first Lambeth Conference is authority: who decides important matters for the worldwide Communion?

The Archbishop of Canterbury remains for us the hub through whom our communion with each other is effected. We are alarmed that one province has recently removed communion with the See of Canterbury from their constitution as part of their province’s identity. For us and for The Episcopal Church. There is no question that communion with the See of Canterbury remains part of our identity as Anglican Christians.

The Lambeth Conference is an outgrowth of the primordial role of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The work of the various Conferences has over the years contributed not only to our Communion but to the mission of the wider Church and indeed, the welfare of the entire human race. We look expectantly to the Conference next year, and we plead that all bishops of the Communion attend.

We give thanks and praise to God that the Communion has grown explosively since Mutual ResponsihEh4’ and Interdependence was agreed upon unanimously by the then-seventeen provinces in Toronto in 1963. This growth has brought upon us “growing pains,” of which the present crisis is an example. The 1968 Lambeth Conference called for, and all the provinces agreed to, the creation of the Anglican Consultative Council, a representative body not just of bishop of the Communion, but clergy and laypeople as well. All Anglicans recognize the fine work done by this body since its first meeting in 1970 advancing the mission of God in the world. We are also grateful for the servant leadership exercised by the various Secretaries-General for the whole Communion, including the present Secretary-General.

The Primates of the various provinces began meeting for prayer and consultation at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1978. This meeting has taken on more and more authority for itself than just a prayer meeting. The 1998 Lambeth Conference suggested that the Primates Meeting could serve as a kind of Council of Advice to the Archbishop of Canterbury (Resolution 111.6). Recent meetings have seemed to take on an even larger dimension than that.
Collectively these have become known. as “the Instruments of Communion” (formerly “the Instruments of Unity”) of the Anglican Communion.

We believe that, first of all, the unity of the Anglican Communion is due to the action of the Holy Spirit, under our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Despite the pain all Anglicans are feeling because of the current situation, the fact remains that we are in communion with one another because it is the will of God that it should be so. Through Baptism we have all died with Christ, been buried with Christ, and being raised to new and eternal life with Christ (Romans 6:3-4) and are members of Christ’s Body. In the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, all boundaries of time and distance, gender, race, and culture, even life and death, dissolve as we are one in the communion of saints, worshipping the Triune God in the Both and Blood of Christ, given for us. No decree or action by any human group—even a bishops’ council or synod of the Church—can undo this unity that God has given to us all.

It follows that the authority to be exercised in the Communion must derive from the authority of Jesus Christ. We come to know the will of God through the Word of God which are the Old and New Testaments and “contain all things necessary to salvation” (Article VT). We use the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds as authoritative summaries of the witness of the apostles found in the Scriptures. We obey the command of Christ to make disciples among all nations, and indeed, The Episcopal Church now stretches from Taiwan to Germany in answer to his call. We baptize and celebrate the Holy Eucharist in faithfulness to Christ, in order to accomplish the mission of reconciliation we have been given to do. Through the regular reading of the Scriptures and prayer and worship through the historic formularies of the Book of Common Prayer, our lives are patterned to grow in grace and holiness.

Some have accused The Episcopal Church of abandoning the Faith once delivered to the saints and taking up some new “pagan” religion. This is nothing but propaganda On the contrary, we have sought as best we can to have the mind of Christ through prayer and the study of Scripture, through reasoned deliberation and recourse to the accumulated wisdom of our ancestors in the Faith.

We are also committed to the ideal of authority as we have inherited it from our ancestors. Authority in the Anglican Communion flows from the edges to the center, according to the Report on Authority to the 1948 Lambeth Conference. While we have nothing but the deepest respect for the Primates, including our own, we do not believe that the Primates Meeting exercises ultimate authority in the Communion. It is rather the consensus fidelium to which Anglicans have always looked, a consensus that appears as the provinces around the world consider in prayer, study of Scripture and deliberation, developments which in the long run “seem good to us and the Holy Spirit” (Acts 15:28). Traditionally, Anglicans, among other Christian traditions, have heeded the advice of Gamaliel for testing new ideas: what is of merely human origin will fail, but if it is of God it shall prevail. (Acts 5:38-39)

Agreement among the ‘instruments of Communion” could be said to express with authority what the Anglican churches discern together to be the mind of Christ in this or that disputed question. This is not the case at present. Furthermore, there is among the provinces a difference of emphasis that we believe is complicating our life together even more.

We as bishops exercise our office differently than bishops in some other provinces, particularly with respect to the authority of our decisions as a House of Bishops. Like the Lambeth Conference, the decisions we take in our meetings as a House are only recommendatory. In order for these decisions to become mandatory, the House of Deputies meeting in General Convention, or the Executive Council, must concur.

Many other provinces, however, give to the office of bishop, and especially their chief bishop, powers which we do not have. When the Primates gather, people in those provinces in particular may see in the decisions of their meetings the same authority that they vest in the decisions of their primate.

We uphold the traditional view of authority in the Communion. All the provinces are mutually responsible to one another and interdependent, as agreed in Toronto in 1963, while remaining autonomous, or as our Eastern Orthodox friends would say, “autocephalous.” The only decision-making body at present in the Communion to which all provinces belong, whose constitution all provinces have approved, and which contains lay and clergy delegates as well as bishops, is the Anglican Consultative Council. We submit that the Council is the best forum for deliberating and deciding the way forward, while recognizing that its constitution does not explicitly make it the means for resolution of conflict. It is arguably the only body that can help us all move forward together.

VI. Another comment on the Dar es-Salaam Communiqué

We believe we are right to say that the Primates Meeting, as matters stand today, remains in essence what Archbishop Donald Coggan wanted it to be in 1978: a way for the primates to gather in prayer and mutual consultation. However, out of respect for those bishops who bear the heavy weight of primacy in their provinces, including our own Presiding Bishop, we want to comment further on the Communiqué which seeks to address us as a House of Bishops.

Specifically, the Communiqué proposed a “Pastoral Scheme,” “for those who feel they cannot accept the direct ministry of their bishop or Presiding Bishop,” some of whom have directly appealed to other jurisdictions and provinces for intervention. Secondly, we were asked to give assurances that we would not consent to the consecration of a bishop living in a same-sex relationship, pursuant to Resolution B-033 passed by the General Convention 2006; and that bishops of this Church would not authorize liturgical rites for blessing such relationships.

First. for several reasons which we spelled out in our Mind of the House Resolution of March 2007, we could not recommend to the Presiding Bishop and
Executive Council that the proposed scheme be accepted.

There is also a significant problem with a diocese of this Church asking for “alternative primatial oversight.” Our Primate does not possess the oversight powers that many other primates have. Therefore, this seems to ask for something which does not (yet) exist.

However, since the Presiding Bishop has repeatedly expressed a desire to provide a way for those seven dioceses of our one—hundred ten who say they cannot accept her direct ministry, we endorse her proposal, which follows...

[...]

Second, concerning how this House intends to follow Resolution B-033, we do not have the power, individually or collectively, to overturn that decision in giving consents to episcopal elections. We recognize that among those described “whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains or communion’ include partnered gay people.

The Communiqué misquotes the Windsor Report when it asks that we continue to refuse such consents, “unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cfTWR, §134)” The actual wording is “until some new consensus emerges.” That is a significant difference of emphasis. While we have offered repeated and sincere apologies for the way in which we have proceeded, we expect that the Holy Spirit is still leading all of us into all truth, and has not finished with the Church as a whole. For us, the participation in the Listening Process, decided upon by successive Lambeth Conferences since 1978 and presently under the direction of Canon Philip Groves, is crucIal to allowing the movement of the Spirit it has hitherto proceeded far too slowly.

Furthermore, we have been horrified to learn that some members of the Anglican Communion are promoting legislation in their countries that promotes the demonization of human beings and prescribes legal punishments merely for being the way they are. Dealing with our own shameful history of legislation that dehumanized African-Americans, as we continue to do, only sharpens our revulsion. We ask that any support for criminalization of homosexuality be withdrawn, in accordance first of all with the teaching of Jesus concerning the marginalized, and all the decisions of the Anglican Communion’s Instruments of Communion since the mid-1970s.

The General Conventions of 2003 and 2006 specifically refused to authorize the creation of official rites of same-sex blessing. From a purely procedural point of view, this means that such rites could not be authorized for this Church before 2015. it is clear that individual diocesan bishops do not have the power to create and authorize such rites, which only the General Convention can do. We note with gratitude the position taken by the St. Michael’s Report of the Anglican Church of Canada, that points out that the doctrinal question of the blessing of same-sex unions is important, but does not impact upon the Faith expressed in the Creeds ( 1). Furthermore, we accept as our own the position taken by the Canadian House of Bishops and approved by the General Synod of that Church (2007; A224) that each diocesan bishop should be free to make “pastoral responses” to the needs of same-sex couples, which has long been the position of this House.

All provinces of the Communion are learning how to inculturate the Gospel, and the rapid changes of recent years has oniy made this even more difficult. This House has learned a great deal about the impact of its decisions upon other people who are geographically distant, but, thanks to modem communications, are in fact quite close. We pledge to be more sensitive to that in the future. We hope that others will recognize our sincere efforts to follow Jesus as his disciples in our own context. We all seek to serve God’s mission with God’s people. But we do so in vastly different contexts, and this calls for patience all around.

Finally, the world continues to wonder whether we are any example of the hope that we proclaim in Jesus Christ—while we Anglicans have been expending our energies on matters essentially of an internal nature,. We are beset on every side, everywhere in the workt Wars rage, epidemics decimate, the Earth suffers, the rich grow richer and more callous, and the poor grow poorer and more hopeless.

In particular, while we have argued with each other, we have not noticed the emptying out of our lands in the Middle East where Christians have ministered since the first centuries—an unprecedented disaster for all of Christianity. Millions of Iraqis, including almost a million of our sisters and brothers in Christ languish in appalling refugee conditions. Palestinians continue to groan under an occupation, Israelis continue to retreat in fear behind a fortress, and Christians just flee. The country of Lebanon is torn asunder, with Christians on both sides. While the West and iran struggle, their Christians also are choosing exile. If nothing changes, only museums will mark where once we worshipped the Holy Trinity in the lands of the Bible.

Huge energy and money have gone into our inter-Anglican struggles. Distrust has poisoned our relationships. Who profits from this, other than the Evil One? Let us step back from the brink of the grievous sin of schism, and reaffirm that though “all have sinned and frllen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), nevertheless at the foot of the Cross of Jesus we are—even despite ourselves, at times—One in Christ.