Bishop Alexander was my bishop and seminary professor. He is an individual of profound faith and insight. I share his hope for our common future.
Chris+
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!
Having just returned from a week in New Orleans for the fall meeting of the House of Bishops, I would like to offer a few brief reflections. You will find links to the post-meeting comuniqué and to another statement from the House of Bishops that responds to the Primates of the Anglican Communion. I urge you to read both of them.
At our meeting we were blessed to have with us the Archbishop of Canterbury and the General Secretary of the Anglican Communion, together with members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion. The Joint Standing Commitee is composed of laypersons, priests, bishops and primates from around the world. They came both to listen and to speak. The mutuality that implies was honored by all. The speaking and listening was not always easy, but it was a gift to be able to communicate directly with one another and not through the media, the Internet, or by way of intermediaries. The Archbishop was quite clear that there is no ultimatum on the table. The members of the Joint Standing Committee seemed hopeful that there is a way forward for the whole of the Anglican Communion joined together in mission and ministry in the name of Jesus for the sake of the world.
I believe the two statements from the House of Bishops speak for themselves and do not require extensive commentary. The statement in response to the Primates of the Anglican Communion was crafted after several days of prayer, conversation, honest speaking and careful listening. The bishops were nearly unanimous in their support of this statement. I do not believe that any bishop of this church is happy with every detail, but we found a place where the vast majority of us can live together. From my perspective, the statement honors the immediate concerns of the Primates of the Anglican Communion while being faithful to the fullness of the life of our church. I wondered before the meeting began if we could find such a place without losing our soul as a good and faithful church centered in the Gospel of Jesus. I believe that, with the prayerful support of our people and the aid of the Holy Spirit, we found just such a place.
A new consensus has emerged in the House of Bishops for the sake of the church’s mission. It is not a consensus built upon agreeing on all matters (that’s never been an Anglican charism!), but a willingness to give and take for the sake of the church’s larger mission. I believe that every bishop present gave up something – and not without considerable pain and agony at points – but we were able to arrive at a place where most of us can live together faithfully if not altogether comfortably. The depth of the conversations, arising as they did out of much prayer and contemplation, will sustain and enrich my own ministry for some time to come.
In the days to come, there will continue to be dire predictions from some corners about the state of The Episcopal Church and our life as a part of The Anglican Communion. Most of that will come from folks who have predetermined the outcome they desire. My counsel is that we delight in the ministries we share in the name of Jesus, be about the work of the church’s mission to a world in need, and rejoice in all that God has given to us in Jesus Christ our Lord!
Faithfully, in Christ,
The Right Reverend J. Neil Alexander
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Bishop Howe
Bishop John Howe is no lefty. I would argue that his relative satisfaction with the House of Bishops statement carries a lot of freight. I applaud his commitment to the conversation. He is a real Anglican.
Chris+
Dear Diocesan Family,
I said last month that I did not think there would be any surprises in the meeting of the House of Bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury. I was wrong. The House leaned much farther toward what the Archbishop and the Primates of the Anglican Communion asked of us than I believe anyone expected.
In the end we produced two statements (see links at left). One of them is a “contextual” narrative about the whole of our experience in New Orleans, touching upon a wide variety of specific topics. The other is our response to the requests made of us by the Primates in their Communiqué from Dar es Salaam last February.
In their Communiqué the Primates asked us to:
· Make an unequivocal covenant that the Bishops will not authorize any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their Dioceses or through the General Convention, and
· Confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention (in 2006) means that a candidate for Episcopal orders living in a same-sex relationship will not receive the necessary consents (from other Bishops) until or unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Anglican Communion as a whole.
In my opinion, we did not fully comply with either of these requests, but we came much closer than I ever thought we would.
The Bishops have made a careful distinction between “public Rites” and “private blessings.” In many Dioceses permission to use officially authorized public Rites has been withdrawn, and the House as a whole has, indeed, confirmed that until or unless there is a “new consensus” there will be no such authorization. There is an implicit acknowledgement that in some places private blessings are still being offered as part of the “pastoral response” the Primates themselves said might be called for.
In reaffirming B033 from last year’s General Convention, the Bishops stated that “exercising restraint” means withholding consent, and that specifically pertains to non-celibate gay and lesbian persons.
Many voices have already been raised, denouncing the Bishops’ Statement as “non-compliance.” I disagree. I would characterize the decisions of the House of Bishops as being in very substantial compliance with what the Primates asked of us, and I believe there was a far higher level of concern for the unity of the Communion evident throughout our meeting than I have ever witnessed previously. On behalf of all the Bishops, I thank you for your prayers.
With love to all of you in our Lord,
+ John
Chris+
Dear Diocesan Family,
I said last month that I did not think there would be any surprises in the meeting of the House of Bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury. I was wrong. The House leaned much farther toward what the Archbishop and the Primates of the Anglican Communion asked of us than I believe anyone expected.
In the end we produced two statements (see links at left). One of them is a “contextual” narrative about the whole of our experience in New Orleans, touching upon a wide variety of specific topics. The other is our response to the requests made of us by the Primates in their Communiqué from Dar es Salaam last February.
In their Communiqué the Primates asked us to:
· Make an unequivocal covenant that the Bishops will not authorize any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their Dioceses or through the General Convention, and
· Confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention (in 2006) means that a candidate for Episcopal orders living in a same-sex relationship will not receive the necessary consents (from other Bishops) until or unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Anglican Communion as a whole.
In my opinion, we did not fully comply with either of these requests, but we came much closer than I ever thought we would.
The Bishops have made a careful distinction between “public Rites” and “private blessings.” In many Dioceses permission to use officially authorized public Rites has been withdrawn, and the House as a whole has, indeed, confirmed that until or unless there is a “new consensus” there will be no such authorization. There is an implicit acknowledgement that in some places private blessings are still being offered as part of the “pastoral response” the Primates themselves said might be called for.
In reaffirming B033 from last year’s General Convention, the Bishops stated that “exercising restraint” means withholding consent, and that specifically pertains to non-celibate gay and lesbian persons.
Many voices have already been raised, denouncing the Bishops’ Statement as “non-compliance.” I disagree. I would characterize the decisions of the House of Bishops as being in very substantial compliance with what the Primates asked of us, and I believe there was a far higher level of concern for the unity of the Communion evident throughout our meeting than I have ever witnessed previously. On behalf of all the Bishops, I thank you for your prayers.
With love to all of you in our Lord,
+ John
Friday, September 28, 2007
Bishop Wolf
Dear Friends,
By now you may have read the various web-site and media reports regarding the House of Bishops' meeting in New Orleans. When read as a whole they portray a rich glimpse of our deliberations.
The highlights of the meeting, for me, were the reflections of Archbishop Rowan, the addresses from the four members of the Joint Standing Committee, the presentation by Bishop Jeffrey Steenson on his renunciation of orders, and our work day in the city.
The addresses from our Anglican partners were at times painful to hear. As they shared the spiritual and political shape of their dioceses, a sobering spirit descended upon the room. Each in turn, expressed sincere gratitude for the gifts that we have shared in Communion, and the continuing generosity of our Province. On several occasions we were reminded, "Your country and your Church have so much, and to those to whom much has been given, much is expected."
On more than one occasion we were reminded of our political power in the world arena, and how we wield it with little concern for others. One person reminded us that we infiltrate long-standing cultural norms through television, movies, internet, fast food restaurants, cigarettes; securing profits while compromising the fabric of other societies. Many contend that The Episcopal Church is doing the same.
Most of us were humbled by the comments, others thought they were too accusatory.
The process for addressing the issues before us: consent to non-celibate gays and lesbians to the episcopate, and the blessing of same-sex unions, was challenging in its own right. We tried to by-pass legislative action on resolutions, saving a vote for the final message from the House. It's a good idea in theory, but was quite cumbersome in practice.
The democratic process in which majorities make the ultimate decisions, was called into question when dealing with theology and global relationships. The call to honor dissident voices was strong, as I suspect that at times each one thought that their position was in the minority.
Most would agree that the final result was the best that we could do as a group.
Please come and share your thoughts, concerns, questions, Saturday morning, 9-11AM at the Cathedral. Your friends and parishioners are invited, as well. This will help me in hearing the mood of the diocese, and clarifying concerns you may have, to the best of my ability. Doors open at 8:30, with light breakfast offerings.
Thank you for all your prayers, and for the very civilized manner in which we have been able to discuss these concerns over the years. By the grace of God there is respect and kindness, sadness mixed with joy, and a secure, safe place to engage with each other. It only happens because all of you make it so. I am very grateful.
+GW
By now you may have read the various web-site and media reports regarding the House of Bishops' meeting in New Orleans. When read as a whole they portray a rich glimpse of our deliberations.
The highlights of the meeting, for me, were the reflections of Archbishop Rowan, the addresses from the four members of the Joint Standing Committee, the presentation by Bishop Jeffrey Steenson on his renunciation of orders, and our work day in the city.
The addresses from our Anglican partners were at times painful to hear. As they shared the spiritual and political shape of their dioceses, a sobering spirit descended upon the room. Each in turn, expressed sincere gratitude for the gifts that we have shared in Communion, and the continuing generosity of our Province. On several occasions we were reminded, "Your country and your Church have so much, and to those to whom much has been given, much is expected."
On more than one occasion we were reminded of our political power in the world arena, and how we wield it with little concern for others. One person reminded us that we infiltrate long-standing cultural norms through television, movies, internet, fast food restaurants, cigarettes; securing profits while compromising the fabric of other societies. Many contend that The Episcopal Church is doing the same.
Most of us were humbled by the comments, others thought they were too accusatory.
The process for addressing the issues before us: consent to non-celibate gays and lesbians to the episcopate, and the blessing of same-sex unions, was challenging in its own right. We tried to by-pass legislative action on resolutions, saving a vote for the final message from the House. It's a good idea in theory, but was quite cumbersome in practice.
The democratic process in which majorities make the ultimate decisions, was called into question when dealing with theology and global relationships. The call to honor dissident voices was strong, as I suspect that at times each one thought that their position was in the minority.
Most would agree that the final result was the best that we could do as a group.
Please come and share your thoughts, concerns, questions, Saturday morning, 9-11AM at the Cathedral. Your friends and parishioners are invited, as well. This will help me in hearing the mood of the diocese, and clarifying concerns you may have, to the best of my ability. Doors open at 8:30, with light breakfast offerings.
Thank you for all your prayers, and for the very civilized manner in which we have been able to discuss these concerns over the years. By the grace of God there is respect and kindness, sadness mixed with joy, and a secure, safe place to engage with each other. It only happens because all of you make it so. I am very grateful.
+GW
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Statement From The Bishop OF Alabama
26 September 2007
The Feast of Lancelot Andrewes
To the Clergy and People of the Diocese of Alabama:
As I prepare to return to the diocese after participating in the House of Bishops Interim Meeting in New Orleans since last Wednesday, I am attaching hereto the communiqué that we have adopted in response to the requests of our partners in the Anglican Communion. Please read it carefully and know that it was written over a lengthy period of days and adopted by a very broad consensus of your bishops.
I believe that this communiqué represents a considerable spirit of compromise and collegiality in the House of Bishops, which I am pleased to see. There were only two voiced votes against its adoption and no minority report or open dissent. The communiqué will be "spun" in different ways no doubt in accordance with the biases of the press and the desires of different factions in the church. I lament this, but it is the way of the world in which we presently live. I was particularly disappointed by the inaccuracy of the New York Times article which appeared in the Birmingham News today. Let us not be misled by negative and ill-prepared comments.
A few of the elements of the document that I find encouraging are as follows. We are clear, in response to the request of the Primates' Meeting, that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom the General Convention Resolution B-033 pertains. We reaffirmed this resolution that calls upon bishops and Standing Committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion." An Anglican sub-committee had earlier found this resolution to comply with the force of the recommendation of the Windsor Report, as a footnote explains.
Secondly, we have said that the bishops pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same sex unions "until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action." This recognizes and affirms the common discernment of the Anglican Communion, which the Archbishop of Canterbury highlighted in his address to us and to which many of us have been trying to appeal for some time.
Thirdly, the Presiding Bishop has developed a way to have episcopal visitors provide pastoral care on her behalf for dioceses that request alternative oversight. Consultation with the Communion about this is encouraged, and an appeal is made for the interventions by uninvited bishops, which imperil common prayer and long-standing ecclesial principles of our Communion, is urged. We emphasize that "we appreciate and need to hear all voices in the Episcopal Church."
Throughout the communiqué we stress the love of God and of the church for persons of all sexual orientations and the dignity of every human being. Quoting the Primates' Meeting, “we have a pastoral duty to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations... [I] is necessary to maintain a breadth of pastoral response to situations of individual pastoral care." The listening process across the Communion on these matters is encouraged, and the important role of the Anglican Consultative Council is stressed. Our hope that the Lambeth Conference will include all duly-elected bishops is expressed.
There is more here to read and digest. I find the above points of our letter to be responsive to the concerns of the Communion and to members of our church who may have been unclear about certain things. Your bishops are not of one mind on every point of this document and we continue to struggle together with important and complex issues. But this provides a place of coming together which I find encouraging at this moment. I ask that you read the communiqué for its own merit and take care not to draw reductionist conclusions from what you may read in the press or on the Internet.
There will be opportunities for further discussion of these things in the days to come in our life together. I ask that you continue to pray for the unity and mission of the church throughout the world, and I wish you every blessing in your worship and service of God.
Faithfully in Christ,
Henry N. Parsley
The Feast of Lancelot Andrewes
To the Clergy and People of the Diocese of Alabama:
As I prepare to return to the diocese after participating in the House of Bishops Interim Meeting in New Orleans since last Wednesday, I am attaching hereto the communiqué that we have adopted in response to the requests of our partners in the Anglican Communion. Please read it carefully and know that it was written over a lengthy period of days and adopted by a very broad consensus of your bishops.
I believe that this communiqué represents a considerable spirit of compromise and collegiality in the House of Bishops, which I am pleased to see. There were only two voiced votes against its adoption and no minority report or open dissent. The communiqué will be "spun" in different ways no doubt in accordance with the biases of the press and the desires of different factions in the church. I lament this, but it is the way of the world in which we presently live. I was particularly disappointed by the inaccuracy of the New York Times article which appeared in the Birmingham News today. Let us not be misled by negative and ill-prepared comments.
A few of the elements of the document that I find encouraging are as follows. We are clear, in response to the request of the Primates' Meeting, that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom the General Convention Resolution B-033 pertains. We reaffirmed this resolution that calls upon bishops and Standing Committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion." An Anglican sub-committee had earlier found this resolution to comply with the force of the recommendation of the Windsor Report, as a footnote explains.
Secondly, we have said that the bishops pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same sex unions "until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action." This recognizes and affirms the common discernment of the Anglican Communion, which the Archbishop of Canterbury highlighted in his address to us and to which many of us have been trying to appeal for some time.
Thirdly, the Presiding Bishop has developed a way to have episcopal visitors provide pastoral care on her behalf for dioceses that request alternative oversight. Consultation with the Communion about this is encouraged, and an appeal is made for the interventions by uninvited bishops, which imperil common prayer and long-standing ecclesial principles of our Communion, is urged. We emphasize that "we appreciate and need to hear all voices in the Episcopal Church."
Throughout the communiqué we stress the love of God and of the church for persons of all sexual orientations and the dignity of every human being. Quoting the Primates' Meeting, “we have a pastoral duty to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations... [I] is necessary to maintain a breadth of pastoral response to situations of individual pastoral care." The listening process across the Communion on these matters is encouraged, and the important role of the Anglican Consultative Council is stressed. Our hope that the Lambeth Conference will include all duly-elected bishops is expressed.
There is more here to read and digest. I find the above points of our letter to be responsive to the concerns of the Communion and to members of our church who may have been unclear about certain things. Your bishops are not of one mind on every point of this document and we continue to struggle together with important and complex issues. But this provides a place of coming together which I find encouraging at this moment. I ask that you read the communiqué for its own merit and take care not to draw reductionist conclusions from what you may read in the press or on the Internet.
There will be opportunities for further discussion of these things in the days to come in our life together. I ask that you continue to pray for the unity and mission of the church throughout the world, and I wish you every blessing in your worship and service of God.
Faithfully in Christ,
Henry N. Parsley
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Opinion On The House of Bishops Statement
The House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans has concluded. The statement the bishops produced was posted here last night. The question is what does it mean, and what will happen now?
In my opinion, the outcome of the meeting is positive. The bishops addressed the concerns raised by some other members of the Anglican Communion. In their statement, the bishops agreed to not authorize rites for same-sex blessings and to withhold consent for bishops that present issues for the rest of the Communion. The qualifying phrase is, “until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action.”
This phrase has already made some nervous. I think their fear is that General convention will go ahead in the authorization of same-sex blessings. What will happen in that regard is anyone’s guess.
The statement addresses concerns about justice for gay and lesbian persons. There is concern for +New Hampshire’s role at Lambeth. Also included is a call to end the incursions of uninvited bishops.
If were pressed to offer a prediction, it would be that the diocese of Quincy, substantial portions of Fort Worth, San Joaquin and Pittsburgh will soon announce their departure. They will probably join a handful of provinces that will distance themselves from the rest of the Communion.
I would also guess that Canterbury will receive the House of Bishops’ statement as a good faith effort to stay in the Communion, and will accept it. The situation should be relatively stable until General Convention. Only time will tell.
I am unsure that the House of Bishops could have done anything to stop the departure of those that will probably leave. The divide appears too great. I will grieve their exit when it happens. It will mean the absence of challenging, valuable perspectives and voices.
In my opinion, the outcome of the meeting is positive. The bishops addressed the concerns raised by some other members of the Anglican Communion. In their statement, the bishops agreed to not authorize rites for same-sex blessings and to withhold consent for bishops that present issues for the rest of the Communion. The qualifying phrase is, “until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action.”
This phrase has already made some nervous. I think their fear is that General convention will go ahead in the authorization of same-sex blessings. What will happen in that regard is anyone’s guess.
The statement addresses concerns about justice for gay and lesbian persons. There is concern for +New Hampshire’s role at Lambeth. Also included is a call to end the incursions of uninvited bishops.
If were pressed to offer a prediction, it would be that the diocese of Quincy, substantial portions of Fort Worth, San Joaquin and Pittsburgh will soon announce their departure. They will probably join a handful of provinces that will distance themselves from the rest of the Communion.
I would also guess that Canterbury will receive the House of Bishops’ statement as a good faith effort to stay in the Communion, and will accept it. The situation should be relatively stable until General Convention. Only time will tell.
I am unsure that the House of Bishops could have done anything to stop the departure of those that will probably leave. The divide appears too great. I will grieve their exit when it happens. It will mean the absence of challenging, valuable perspectives and voices.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
House of Bishops Speaks: Full Text
Episcopal News Service]
House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
New Orleans, Louisiana
September 25, 2007
A Response to Questions and Concerns Raised by our Anglican Communion Partners:
In accordance with Our Lord's high priestly prayer that we be one, and in the spirit of Resolution A159 of the 75th General Convention, and in obedience to his Great Commission to go into the world and make disciples, and in gratitude for the gift of the Anglican Communion as a sign of the Holy Spirit's ongoing work of reconciliation throughout the world, we offer the following to The Episcopal Church, the Primates, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), and the larger Communion, with the hope of "mending the tear in the fabric" of our common life in Christ.
"I do it all for the sake of the Gospel so that I might share in its blessings."
1 Corinthians 9:23.
Introduction
The House of Bishops expresses sincere and heartfelt thanks to the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates for accepting our invitation to join us in New Orleans. By their presence they have both honored us and assisted us in our discernment. Their presence was a living reminder of the unity that is Christ's promised gift in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Much of our meeting time was spent in continuing discernment of our relationships within the Anglican Communion. We engaged in careful listening and straightforward dialogue with our guests. We expressed our passionate desire to remain in communion. It is our conviction that The Episcopal Church needs the Anglican Communion, and we heard from our guests that the Anglican Communion needs The Episcopal Church.
The House of Bishops offers the following responses to our Anglican Communion partners. We believe they provide clarity and point toward next steps in an ongoing process of dialogue. Within The Episcopal Church the common discernment of God's call is a lively partnership among laypersons, bishops, priests, and deacons, and therefore necessarily includes the Presiding Bishop, the Executive Council, and the General Convention.
Summary
We reconfirm that resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 (The Election Of Bishops) calls upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion."
We pledge as a body not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.
We commend our Presiding Bishop's plan for episcopal visitors.
We deplore incursions into our jurisdictions by uninvited bishops and call for them to end.
We support the Presiding Bishop in seeking communion-wide consultation in a manner that is in accord with our Constitution and Canons.
We call for increasing implementation of the listening process across the Communion and for a report on its progress to Lambeth 2008.
We support the Archbishop of Canterbury in his expressed desire to explore ways for the Bishop of New Hampshire to participate in the Lambeth Conference.
We call for unequivocal and active commitment to the civil rights, safety, and dignity of gay and lesbian persons.
Discussion
Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention
The House of Bishops concurs with Resolution EC011 of the Executive Council. This Resolution commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention, calling upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion." The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.
Blessing of Same-Sex Unions
1We, the members of the House of Bishops, pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action. In the near future we hope to be able to draw upon the benefits of the Communion-wide listening process. In the meantime, it is important to note that no rite of blessing for persons living in same-sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention. In addition to not having authorized liturgies the majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions. We do note that in May 2003 the Primates said we have a pastoral duty "to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations." They further stated, "…[I]t is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care."
Episcopal Visitors
We affirm the Presiding Bishop's plan to appoint episcopal visitors for dioceses that request alternative oversight. Such oversight would be provided by bishops who are a part of and subject to the communal life of this province. We believe this plan is consistent with and analogous to Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) as affirmed by the Windsor Report (paragraph 152). We thank those bishops who have generously offered themselves for this ministry. We hope that dioceses will make use of this plan and that the Presiding Bishop will continue conversation with those dioceses that may feel the need for such ministries. We appreciate and need to hear all voices in The Episcopal Church.
Incursions by Uninvited Bishops
We call for an immediate end to diocesan incursions by uninvited bishops in accordance with the Windsor Report and consistent with the statements of past Lambeth Conferences and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Such incursions imperil common prayer and long-established ecclesial principles of our Communion. These principles include respect for local jurisdiction and recognition of the geographical boundaries of dioceses and provinces. As we continue to commit ourselves to honor both the spirit and the content of the Windsor Report, we call upon those provinces and bishops engaging in such incursions likewise to honor the Windsor Report by ending them. We offer assurance that delegated episcopal pastoral care is being provided for those who seek it.
Communion-wide ConsultationIn their communiqué of February 2007, the Primates proposed a "pastoral scheme." At our meeting in March 2007, we expressed our deep concern that this scheme would compromise the authority of our own primate and place the autonomy of The Episcopal Church at risk. The Executive Council reiterated our concerns and declined to participate. Nevertheless, we recognize a useful role for communion-wide consultation with respect to the pastoral needs of those seeking alternative oversight, as well as the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons in this and other provinces. We encourage our Presiding Bishop to continue to explore such consultation in a manner that is in accord with our Constitution and Canons.
The Listening ProcessThe 1998 Lambeth Conference called all the provinces of the Anglican Communion to engage in a "listening process" designed to bring gay and lesbian Anglicans fully into the Church's conversation about human sexuality. We look forward to receiving initial reports about this process at the 2008 Lambeth Conference and to participating with others in this crucial enterprise. We are aware that in some cultural contexts conversation concerning homosexuality is difficult. We see an important role for the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) in this listening process, since it represents both the lay and ordained members of our constituent churches, and so is well-placed to engage every part of the body in this conversation. We encourage the ACC to identify the variety of resources needed to accomplish these conversations.
The Lambeth Conference
Invitations to the Lambeth Conference are extended by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Those among us who have received an invitation to attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference look forward to that gathering with hope and expectation. Many of us are engaged in mission partnerships with bishops and dioceses around the world and cherish these relationships. Lambeth offers a wonderful opportunity to build on such partnerships.
We are mindful that the Bishop of New Hampshire has not yet received an invitation to the conference. We also note that the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a desire to explore a way for him to participate. We share the Archbishop's desire and encourage our Presiding Bishop to offer our assistance as bishops in this endeavor. It is our fervent hope that a way can be found for his full participation.
Justice and Dignity for Gay and Lesbian PersonsIt is of fundamental importance that, as we continue to seek consensus in matters of human sexuality, we also be clear and outspoken in our shared commitment to establish and protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons, and to name and oppose at every turn any action or policy that does violence to them, encourages violence toward them, or violates their dignity as children of God. We call all our partners in the Anglican Communion to recommit to this effort. As we stated at the conclusion of our meeting in March 2007: "We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion and peace. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God."
House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
New Orleans, Louisiana
September 25, 2007
A Response to Questions and Concerns Raised by our Anglican Communion Partners:
In accordance with Our Lord's high priestly prayer that we be one, and in the spirit of Resolution A159 of the 75th General Convention, and in obedience to his Great Commission to go into the world and make disciples, and in gratitude for the gift of the Anglican Communion as a sign of the Holy Spirit's ongoing work of reconciliation throughout the world, we offer the following to The Episcopal Church, the Primates, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), and the larger Communion, with the hope of "mending the tear in the fabric" of our common life in Christ.
"I do it all for the sake of the Gospel so that I might share in its blessings."
1 Corinthians 9:23.
Introduction
The House of Bishops expresses sincere and heartfelt thanks to the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates for accepting our invitation to join us in New Orleans. By their presence they have both honored us and assisted us in our discernment. Their presence was a living reminder of the unity that is Christ's promised gift in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Much of our meeting time was spent in continuing discernment of our relationships within the Anglican Communion. We engaged in careful listening and straightforward dialogue with our guests. We expressed our passionate desire to remain in communion. It is our conviction that The Episcopal Church needs the Anglican Communion, and we heard from our guests that the Anglican Communion needs The Episcopal Church.
The House of Bishops offers the following responses to our Anglican Communion partners. We believe they provide clarity and point toward next steps in an ongoing process of dialogue. Within The Episcopal Church the common discernment of God's call is a lively partnership among laypersons, bishops, priests, and deacons, and therefore necessarily includes the Presiding Bishop, the Executive Council, and the General Convention.
Summary
We reconfirm that resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 (The Election Of Bishops) calls upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion."
We pledge as a body not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.
We commend our Presiding Bishop's plan for episcopal visitors.
We deplore incursions into our jurisdictions by uninvited bishops and call for them to end.
We support the Presiding Bishop in seeking communion-wide consultation in a manner that is in accord with our Constitution and Canons.
We call for increasing implementation of the listening process across the Communion and for a report on its progress to Lambeth 2008.
We support the Archbishop of Canterbury in his expressed desire to explore ways for the Bishop of New Hampshire to participate in the Lambeth Conference.
We call for unequivocal and active commitment to the civil rights, safety, and dignity of gay and lesbian persons.
Discussion
Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention
The House of Bishops concurs with Resolution EC011 of the Executive Council. This Resolution commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention, calling upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion." The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.
Blessing of Same-Sex Unions
1We, the members of the House of Bishops, pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action. In the near future we hope to be able to draw upon the benefits of the Communion-wide listening process. In the meantime, it is important to note that no rite of blessing for persons living in same-sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention. In addition to not having authorized liturgies the majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions. We do note that in May 2003 the Primates said we have a pastoral duty "to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations." They further stated, "…[I]t is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care."
Episcopal Visitors
We affirm the Presiding Bishop's plan to appoint episcopal visitors for dioceses that request alternative oversight. Such oversight would be provided by bishops who are a part of and subject to the communal life of this province. We believe this plan is consistent with and analogous to Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) as affirmed by the Windsor Report (paragraph 152). We thank those bishops who have generously offered themselves for this ministry. We hope that dioceses will make use of this plan and that the Presiding Bishop will continue conversation with those dioceses that may feel the need for such ministries. We appreciate and need to hear all voices in The Episcopal Church.
Incursions by Uninvited Bishops
We call for an immediate end to diocesan incursions by uninvited bishops in accordance with the Windsor Report and consistent with the statements of past Lambeth Conferences and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Such incursions imperil common prayer and long-established ecclesial principles of our Communion. These principles include respect for local jurisdiction and recognition of the geographical boundaries of dioceses and provinces. As we continue to commit ourselves to honor both the spirit and the content of the Windsor Report, we call upon those provinces and bishops engaging in such incursions likewise to honor the Windsor Report by ending them. We offer assurance that delegated episcopal pastoral care is being provided for those who seek it.
Communion-wide ConsultationIn their communiqué of February 2007, the Primates proposed a "pastoral scheme." At our meeting in March 2007, we expressed our deep concern that this scheme would compromise the authority of our own primate and place the autonomy of The Episcopal Church at risk. The Executive Council reiterated our concerns and declined to participate. Nevertheless, we recognize a useful role for communion-wide consultation with respect to the pastoral needs of those seeking alternative oversight, as well as the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons in this and other provinces. We encourage our Presiding Bishop to continue to explore such consultation in a manner that is in accord with our Constitution and Canons.
The Listening ProcessThe 1998 Lambeth Conference called all the provinces of the Anglican Communion to engage in a "listening process" designed to bring gay and lesbian Anglicans fully into the Church's conversation about human sexuality. We look forward to receiving initial reports about this process at the 2008 Lambeth Conference and to participating with others in this crucial enterprise. We are aware that in some cultural contexts conversation concerning homosexuality is difficult. We see an important role for the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) in this listening process, since it represents both the lay and ordained members of our constituent churches, and so is well-placed to engage every part of the body in this conversation. We encourage the ACC to identify the variety of resources needed to accomplish these conversations.
The Lambeth Conference
Invitations to the Lambeth Conference are extended by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Those among us who have received an invitation to attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference look forward to that gathering with hope and expectation. Many of us are engaged in mission partnerships with bishops and dioceses around the world and cherish these relationships. Lambeth offers a wonderful opportunity to build on such partnerships.
We are mindful that the Bishop of New Hampshire has not yet received an invitation to the conference. We also note that the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a desire to explore a way for him to participate. We share the Archbishop's desire and encourage our Presiding Bishop to offer our assistance as bishops in this endeavor. It is our fervent hope that a way can be found for his full participation.
Justice and Dignity for Gay and Lesbian PersonsIt is of fundamental importance that, as we continue to seek consensus in matters of human sexuality, we also be clear and outspoken in our shared commitment to establish and protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons, and to name and oppose at every turn any action or policy that does violence to them, encourages violence toward them, or violates their dignity as children of God. We call all our partners in the Anglican Communion to recommit to this effort. As we stated at the conclusion of our meeting in March 2007: "We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion and peace. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God."
The House of Bishops Speaks
House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
New Orleans, Louisiana
September 25, 2007
A Response to Questions and Concerns Raised by our Anglican Communion Partners:
In accordance with Our Lord's high priestly prayer that we be one, and in the spirit of Resolution A159 of the 75th General Convention, and in obedience to his Great Commission to go into the world and make disciples, and in gratitude for the gift of the Anglican Communion as a sign of the Holy Spirit's ongoing work of reconciliation throughout the world, we offer the following to The Episcopal Church, the Primates, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), and the larger Communion, with the hope of "mending the tear in the fabric" of our common life in Christ.
"I do it all for the sake of the Gospel so that I might share in its blessings."
1 Corinthians 9:23.
Introduction
The House of Bishops expresses sincere and heartfelt thanks to the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates for accepting our invitation to join us in New Orleans. By their presence they have both honored us and assisted us in our discernment. Their presence was a living reminder of the unity that is Christ's promised gift in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Much of our meeting time was spent in continuing discernment of our relationships within the Anglican Communion. We engaged in careful listening and straightforward dialogue with our guests. We expressed our passionate desire to remain in communion. It is our conviction that The Episcopal Church needs the Anglican Communion, and we heard from our guests that the Anglican Communion needs The Episcopal Church.
The House of Bishops offers the following responses to our Anglican Communion partners. We believe they provide clarity and point toward next steps in an ongoing process of dialogue. Within The Episcopal Church the common discernment of God's call is a lively partnership among laypersons, bishops, priests, and deacons, and therefore necessarily includes the Presiding Bishop, the Executive Council, and the General Convention.
Summary
* We reconfirm that resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 (The Election Of Bishops) calls upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion."
* We pledge as a body not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.
* We commend our Presiding Bishop's plan for episcopal visitors.
* We deplore incursions into our jurisdictions by uninvited bishops and call for them to end.
* We support the Presiding Bishop in seeking communion-wide consultation in a manner that is in accord with our Constitution and Canons.
* We call for increasing implementation of the listening process across the Communion and for a report on its progress to Lambeth 2008.
* We support the Archbishop of Canterbury in his expressed desire to explore ways for the Bishop of New Hampshire to participate in the Lambeth Conference.
* We call for unequivocal and active commitment to the civil rights, safety, and dignity of gay and lesbian persons.
Discussion
Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention
The House of Bishops concurs with Resolution EC011 of the Executive Council. This Resolution commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention, calling upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion." The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.
Blessing of Same-Sex Unions
We, the members of the House of Bishops, pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action. In the near future we hope to be able to draw upon the benefits of the Communion-wide listening process. In the meantime, it is important to note that no rite of blessing for persons living in same-sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention. In addition to not having authorized liturgies the majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions. We do note that in May 2003 the Primates said we have a pastoral duty "to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations." They further stated, "…[I]t is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care."
Episcopal Visitors
We affirm the Presiding Bishop's plan to appoint episcopal visitors for dioceses that request alternative oversight. Such oversight would be provided by bishops who are a part of and subject to the communal life of this province. We believe this plan is consistent with and analogous to Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) as affirmed by the Windsor Report (paragraph 152). We thank those bishops who have generously offered themselves for this ministry. We hope that dioceses will make use of this plan and that the Presiding Bishop will continue conversation with those dioceses that may feel the need for such ministries. We appreciate and need to hear all voices in The Episcopal Church.
Incursions by Uninvited Bishops
We call for an immediate end to diocesan incursions by uninvited bishops in accordance with the Windsor Report and consistent with the statements of past Lambeth Conferences and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Such incursions imperil common prayer and long-established ecclesial principles of our Communion. These principles include respect for local jurisdiction and recognition of the geographical boundaries of dioceses and provinces. As we continue to commit ourselves to honor both the spirit and the content of the Windsor Report, we call upon those provinces and bishops engaging in such incursions likewise to honor the Windsor Report by ending them. We offer assurance that delegated episcopal pastoral care is being provided for those who seek it.
Communion-wide Consultation
In their communiqué of February 2007, the Primates proposed a "pastoral scheme." At our meeting in March 2007, we expressed our deep concern that this scheme would compromise the authority of our own primate and place the autonomy of The Episcopal Church at risk. The Executive Council reiterated our concerns and declined to participate. Nevertheless, we recognize a useful role for communion-wide consultation with respect to the pastoral needs of those seeking alternative oversight, as well as the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons in this and other provinces. We encourage our Presiding Bishop to continue to explore such consultation in a manner that is in accord with our Constitution and Canons.
The Listening Process
The 1998 Lambeth Conference called all the provinces of the Anglican Communion to engage in a "listening process" designed to bring gay and lesbian Anglicans fully into the Church's conversation about human sexuality. We look forward to receiving initial reports about this process at the 2008 Lambeth Conference and to participating with others in this crucial enterprise. We are aware that in some cultural contexts conversation concerning homosexuality is difficult. We see an important role for the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) in this listening process, since it represents both the lay and ordained members of our constituent churches, and so is well-placed to engage every part of the body in this conversation. We encourage the ACC to identify the variety of resources needed to accomplish these conversations.
The Lambeth Conference
Invitations to the Lambeth Conference are extended by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Those among us who have received an invitation to attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference look forward to that gathering with hope and expectation. Many of us are engaged in mission partnerships with bishops and dioceses around the world and cherish these relationships. Lambeth offers a wonderful opportunity to build on such partnerships.
We are mindful that the Bishop of New Hampshire has not yet received an invitation to the conference. We also note that the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a desire to explore a way for him to participate. We share the Archbishop's desire and encourage our Presiding Bishop to offer our assistance as bishops in this endeavor. It is our fervent hope that a way can be found for his full participation.
Justice and Dignity for Gay and Lesbian Persons
It is of fundamental importance that, as we continue to seek consensus in matters of human sexuality, we also be clear and outspoken in our shared commitment to establish and protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons, and to name and oppose at every turn any action or policy that does violence to them, encourages violence toward them, or violates their dignity as children of God. We call all our partners in the Anglican Communion to recommit to this effort. As we stated at the conclusion of our meeting in March 2007: "We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion and peace. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God."
New Orleans, Louisiana
September 25, 2007
A Response to Questions and Concerns Raised by our Anglican Communion Partners:
In accordance with Our Lord's high priestly prayer that we be one, and in the spirit of Resolution A159 of the 75th General Convention, and in obedience to his Great Commission to go into the world and make disciples, and in gratitude for the gift of the Anglican Communion as a sign of the Holy Spirit's ongoing work of reconciliation throughout the world, we offer the following to The Episcopal Church, the Primates, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), and the larger Communion, with the hope of "mending the tear in the fabric" of our common life in Christ.
"I do it all for the sake of the Gospel so that I might share in its blessings."
1 Corinthians 9:23.
Introduction
The House of Bishops expresses sincere and heartfelt thanks to the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates for accepting our invitation to join us in New Orleans. By their presence they have both honored us and assisted us in our discernment. Their presence was a living reminder of the unity that is Christ's promised gift in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Much of our meeting time was spent in continuing discernment of our relationships within the Anglican Communion. We engaged in careful listening and straightforward dialogue with our guests. We expressed our passionate desire to remain in communion. It is our conviction that The Episcopal Church needs the Anglican Communion, and we heard from our guests that the Anglican Communion needs The Episcopal Church.
The House of Bishops offers the following responses to our Anglican Communion partners. We believe they provide clarity and point toward next steps in an ongoing process of dialogue. Within The Episcopal Church the common discernment of God's call is a lively partnership among laypersons, bishops, priests, and deacons, and therefore necessarily includes the Presiding Bishop, the Executive Council, and the General Convention.
Summary
* We reconfirm that resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 (The Election Of Bishops) calls upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion."
* We pledge as a body not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.
* We commend our Presiding Bishop's plan for episcopal visitors.
* We deplore incursions into our jurisdictions by uninvited bishops and call for them to end.
* We support the Presiding Bishop in seeking communion-wide consultation in a manner that is in accord with our Constitution and Canons.
* We call for increasing implementation of the listening process across the Communion and for a report on its progress to Lambeth 2008.
* We support the Archbishop of Canterbury in his expressed desire to explore ways for the Bishop of New Hampshire to participate in the Lambeth Conference.
* We call for unequivocal and active commitment to the civil rights, safety, and dignity of gay and lesbian persons.
Discussion
Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention
The House of Bishops concurs with Resolution EC011 of the Executive Council. This Resolution commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention, calling upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion." The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.
Blessing of Same-Sex Unions
We, the members of the House of Bishops, pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action. In the near future we hope to be able to draw upon the benefits of the Communion-wide listening process. In the meantime, it is important to note that no rite of blessing for persons living in same-sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention. In addition to not having authorized liturgies the majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions. We do note that in May 2003 the Primates said we have a pastoral duty "to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations." They further stated, "…[I]t is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care."
Episcopal Visitors
We affirm the Presiding Bishop's plan to appoint episcopal visitors for dioceses that request alternative oversight. Such oversight would be provided by bishops who are a part of and subject to the communal life of this province. We believe this plan is consistent with and analogous to Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) as affirmed by the Windsor Report (paragraph 152). We thank those bishops who have generously offered themselves for this ministry. We hope that dioceses will make use of this plan and that the Presiding Bishop will continue conversation with those dioceses that may feel the need for such ministries. We appreciate and need to hear all voices in The Episcopal Church.
Incursions by Uninvited Bishops
We call for an immediate end to diocesan incursions by uninvited bishops in accordance with the Windsor Report and consistent with the statements of past Lambeth Conferences and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Such incursions imperil common prayer and long-established ecclesial principles of our Communion. These principles include respect for local jurisdiction and recognition of the geographical boundaries of dioceses and provinces. As we continue to commit ourselves to honor both the spirit and the content of the Windsor Report, we call upon those provinces and bishops engaging in such incursions likewise to honor the Windsor Report by ending them. We offer assurance that delegated episcopal pastoral care is being provided for those who seek it.
Communion-wide Consultation
In their communiqué of February 2007, the Primates proposed a "pastoral scheme." At our meeting in March 2007, we expressed our deep concern that this scheme would compromise the authority of our own primate and place the autonomy of The Episcopal Church at risk. The Executive Council reiterated our concerns and declined to participate. Nevertheless, we recognize a useful role for communion-wide consultation with respect to the pastoral needs of those seeking alternative oversight, as well as the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons in this and other provinces. We encourage our Presiding Bishop to continue to explore such consultation in a manner that is in accord with our Constitution and Canons.
The Listening Process
The 1998 Lambeth Conference called all the provinces of the Anglican Communion to engage in a "listening process" designed to bring gay and lesbian Anglicans fully into the Church's conversation about human sexuality. We look forward to receiving initial reports about this process at the 2008 Lambeth Conference and to participating with others in this crucial enterprise. We are aware that in some cultural contexts conversation concerning homosexuality is difficult. We see an important role for the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) in this listening process, since it represents both the lay and ordained members of our constituent churches, and so is well-placed to engage every part of the body in this conversation. We encourage the ACC to identify the variety of resources needed to accomplish these conversations.
The Lambeth Conference
Invitations to the Lambeth Conference are extended by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Those among us who have received an invitation to attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference look forward to that gathering with hope and expectation. Many of us are engaged in mission partnerships with bishops and dioceses around the world and cherish these relationships. Lambeth offers a wonderful opportunity to build on such partnerships.
We are mindful that the Bishop of New Hampshire has not yet received an invitation to the conference. We also note that the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a desire to explore a way for him to participate. We share the Archbishop's desire and encourage our Presiding Bishop to offer our assistance as bishops in this endeavor. It is our fervent hope that a way can be found for his full participation.
Justice and Dignity for Gay and Lesbian Persons
It is of fundamental importance that, as we continue to seek consensus in matters of human sexuality, we also be clear and outspoken in our shared commitment to establish and protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons, and to name and oppose at every turn any action or policy that does violence to them, encourages violence toward them, or violates their dignity as children of God. We call all our partners in the Anglican Communion to recommit to this effort. As we stated at the conclusion of our meeting in March 2007: "We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion and peace. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God."
Monday, September 24, 2007
Stand Firm Offers Report of Press Conference
Press Conference:
Bishop Alexander: there is no draft document at this point. we have made enourmous progress today building a strong consus. It is our hope that the document we've been working on will be redrawn tonight and tomorrow we will hvae a full response
Bishop Alverez: This is a continuing process with regard to our relationship wiht rhe rest of the communion dealing with polity, our consecration of VGR and other matters that have arisen. But through this process we have proven the quality of this church in whcih we can differ, talk openly, and pray together. As Bishop Alexander said we are working on a document that will offer a good respnose
Bruno: we are a passionate group of humans we are working on being passionate and clear., My two fellow bishops have said everything that needs to be said. WE are men and women of integrity and strneght and we work hard to respect one another
Question: Is there a consensus and what is it
Bruno: we have agreed that we need to haev a statement that responds with clarity. IT must be clear and unambiguous and we are working in that direction. We really do intend to come out wiht a statement that will speak clearly to the communion and to the church.
Nolan from NO Picyune: We've been told tere are a number of resolutions, how are they going to be incorporated?
Bruno: Nothing is sidetracked. tHere have been several different methods set forth for our response and there is debate about that. But it is importatn that it be clear.
Alexander: bishops have all contributed to the conversation. Many have put forward resolutions and proposals and this is good. People work better if they don't just have a blank sheet of paper
Bishop Alexander: there is no draft document at this point. we have made enourmous progress today building a strong consus. It is our hope that the document we've been working on will be redrawn tonight and tomorrow we will hvae a full response
Bishop Alverez: This is a continuing process with regard to our relationship wiht rhe rest of the communion dealing with polity, our consecration of VGR and other matters that have arisen. But through this process we have proven the quality of this church in whcih we can differ, talk openly, and pray together. As Bishop Alexander said we are working on a document that will offer a good respnose
Bruno: we are a passionate group of humans we are working on being passionate and clear., My two fellow bishops have said everything that needs to be said. WE are men and women of integrity and strneght and we work hard to respect one another
Question: Is there a consensus and what is it
Bruno: we have agreed that we need to haev a statement that responds with clarity. IT must be clear and unambiguous and we are working in that direction. We really do intend to come out wiht a statement that will speak clearly to the communion and to the church.
Nolan from NO Picyune: We've been told tere are a number of resolutions, how are they going to be incorporated?
Bruno: Nothing is sidetracked. tHere have been several different methods set forth for our response and there is debate about that. But it is importatn that it be clear.
Alexander: bishops have all contributed to the conversation. Many have put forward resolutions and proposals and this is good. People work better if they don't just have a blank sheet of paper
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Bishop Wright Interview From Christianity Today
Bishop Wright offers an important message about the relationship of Christianity to the world.
Chris+
Mere Mission
N.T. Wright talks about how to present the gospel in a postmodern world.
Interview by Tim Stafford | posted 1/05/2007 04:00PM
N.T. Wright is a world-renowned New Testament scholar—author of Jesus and the Victory of God, The Resurrection of the Son of God—and bishop of Durham in the Church of England. He is also a keen observer of culture. ct senior writer Tim Stafford caught up with Wright as he drove from meetings at Windsor Castle to his diocese in Durham. They talked about communicating the gospel in a post-Christian society.
Related articles and links
Your book Simply Christian speaks to people outside the faith, in what must be a conscious imitation of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. What made you want to write to that audience?
I suppose I've always wanted to say to my contemporaries in the wider world, "This stuff matters; it's life transforming; it's world transforming." Much of my academic life has been spent exploring underlying issues, particularly about the central events in the gospel. But now it really is time to say, "So what does it mean?"
Because I've done all that historical work, my view of the gospel and how it works out in the real world has been deepened and enriched in all kinds of ways that I would never have guessed 25 years ago when I was starting out writing about Jesus. So in Simply Christian there's a lot about justice, what it means to be human in the mandate to work, the putting to rights of God's world, generating beauty, alleviating poverty, working with ecology. Thirty years ago I would have said those were secondary issues.
There's an old evangelical saying, "If he's not Lord of all, he's not Lord at all." That was always applied personally and pietistically. I want to say exactly the same thing but apply it to the world. We're talking about Jesus as the Lord of the world—not the Lord of people's private spiritual interiority only, but of what they do with their money, with their homes, with the wealth of nations, and with the planet.
Lewis's Mere Christianity presents itself as inescapably rational. It's an apologetic that traps you in its logic, a very modern approach. But you present a different kind of rationality that seems more attuned to a postmodern world.
I'm quite sure that Lewis would be rather cross at being told that he was some kind of modernist, because his self-description was that he was the last surviving dinosaur from the pre-Enlightenment period. But he was an Oxford-trained philosopher from the early years of the 20th century, and he was conscious of the need to explain things to people who thought in a certain way.
I'm sure Lewis would say he was talking about something that would blow apart the assumptions of modernity, nevertheless addressing people who were within those assumptions. In the same way, I wouldn't want to be thought of as a postmodern writer, but I'm addressing people who live in that world.
And if the argument has a compelling force, it's not the force of A plus B equals C, where there's no escape. I want you to try seeing yourself as part of the picture that we've painted. Or try humming one of the parts of this symphony that we're writing, and see if it doesn't make an awful lot of sense while nonetheless being very challenging. And that's the apologist's dilemma, that if you simply address the God-shaped blank that people think they've got, the God you end up with is the God shaped by the blank. The real God specializes in taking the blanks in people's lives and pulling and tugging and turning them into a new shape.
One of Lewis's classic maneuvers is this: Jesus said he was God, and you either believe that or that he was a madman on the level of someone who thinks he is a poached egg. It's a powerful argument that has had a strong effect on a lot of people, but modern source criticism of the Bible has undermined the idea that Jesus claimed to be God.
My major work has been designed to refute the wilder claims made by some so-called historical critical scholarship. Because now we see only too clearly that the whole historical critical movement was not, as it tried to claim, a neutral, objective, scientific account of the Gospels. It had its own agendas that were heavily driven by the philosophy of the Enlightenment. The movement really started out with the assumption that if there is a God, this God does not intervene in human affairs. In other words, the Enlightenment has already settled Lewis's question one way. It has decided that any Jesus who said John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life," would be completely out of his skull. Therefore, Jesus couldn't have said it, because we know he was a good man and we want to follow him for other reasons. It becomes a circular argument. Lewis breaks into the circle by simply ignoring the critical possibility.
You put less emphasis on Jesus' claims to be God-come-to-earth, and more on his forceful activity, doing what only God can do.
It is possible to say more or less all the orthodox Christian affirmations, but to join them up in the wrong story. It's possible to tick the boxes that say Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection, Spirit, Second Coming, and yet it's like a child's follow-the-dots. The great story—and after all the Bible is fundamentally a story—we've got to pay attention to that, rather than abstracting dogmatic points from it. The dogmas matter, they are true, but you have to join them up the right way.
There's a certain kind of modernist would-be orthodoxy, which uses the word God in something like the old Deist sense. He's a distant, absentee landlord who suddenly decides to intervene in the world after all, and he looks like Jesus. But we already know who God is; now I want you to believe that this God became human in Jesus. The New Testament routinely puts it the other way around. We don't actually know who God is. We have some idea, the God of Israel, or of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Creator God. But until we look hard at Jesus, we really haven't understood who God is.
That's precisely what John says at the end of the prologue: No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the father, he has made him known. John's provided an exegesis for who God is. And in Colossians 1 as well, he is the image of the invisible God. In other words, don't assume that you've got God taped, and fit Jesus into that. Do it the other way. We all come with some ideas of God. Allow those ideas to be shaped around Jesus. That is the real challenge of New Testament Christology.
What happened with the Enlightenment is the denarrativization of the Bible. And then within postmodernity, people have tried to pay attention to the narrative without paying attention to the fact that it's a true story. It's the story of Creator God with his world. The great biblical story is fundamentally not like a parable of Jesus, which is true whether or not there was a farmer who had two sons. The overarching story of who Jesus was, the story of God and Israel and the coming of Jesus, has to have a historical purchase on reality. Otherwise, it is colluding with the very Gnosticism it is opposing. This particular story is about the Creator and the real world; it's not about a God who is only interested in our interior reflections or our spiritual progress, the Gnostic worldview.
I've just written a book on the Gospel of Judas. I wanted to write the book because the people who published the Gospel of Judas make the most extraordinary and grandiose claims for it and for the whole worldview of Gnosticism that it represents. They're trying to claim that this worldview beats orthodox Christianity hands down. [They say] orthodox Christianity is boring and dull and miserable and restrictive, whereas Gnosticism is exciting and dynamic and vibrant and countercultural. I'm fascinated at why all sorts of people in America and elsewhere badly want this to be true.
What do you make of the popularity of this stuff?
The Gnostic conspiracy theory says that orthodoxy hushed up the really exciting thing and promoted this boring sterile thing with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And of course there's a great lie underneath that. In the second and third centuries, the people being thrown to the lions and burned at the stake and sawed in two were not the ones reading Thomas and Judas and the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary. They were the ones reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Because the empire is perfectly happy with Gnosticism. Gnosticism poses no threat to the empire. Whereas Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John do. It's the church's shame that in the last 200 years, the church has muzzled Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and turned them into instruments of a controlling, sterile orthodoxy. But the texts themselves are explosive.
But why has Gnosticism become so attractive just now? What is it about our times?
When does Gnosticism flourish? In the middle and late second century, what's just happened? The failure of the second Jewish revolt in A.D. 135. Jewish people who have clung fiercely to their Scriptures, as the desperate side of hope when everything seems to be going wrong, have lost. Then the failure of the Bar Kochba revolt, and Rabbi Akiba himself is killed, and what are you going to do? Well, you can go off and be a pagan. Or, in this wonderfully cynical way, you can take your own Bible and read it upside down. So Cain becomes the hero and Abel becomes the villain. And the God who made the world is a bad god, so you tell the story of the creation of the world as the Fall.
Jewish Gnosticism emerges out of that failure, and is sustained at a time when the imperial power of Rome has stamped on Judaism and is now doing its best to stamp on Christianity. So you say, there is no hope in the world, the world is a dark place run by evil, wicked forces who have no fear of God, no sense of spirituality. Therefore, the only thing is to turn inward.
Now, look at the rise of the great powers in the 20th century and situate the rise of Freudian and Jungian psychology within those movements. People are looking outside, and it's chaos. People are doing awful things. You say there must be very interesting things going on inside. One of Carl Jung's famous sayings was, "Who looks outside dreams; who looks inside awakens." That's 20th-century Gnosticism. When you get the rise of the modern American empire, the post-Holocaust world and all the anomie of modernity, people are asking, "What is it all about?" Gnosticism seems to many people like a place to find something good about oneself in the face of a hostile world.
[Like the second century,] we have neo-paganisms of the Right and the Left. On the Right you've got war and money, Mars and Mammon, calling the shots. If you oppose the necessity of going to war, you're not quite sane. And if you say you've just been offered a job at double the salary but you're going to stay with what you are doing, people will look at you as though you are mad, because the money imperative is just assumed to be all important. It's not just that they disagree or think you're stupid, they just cannot understand what you're talking about.
And the same paganism is on the Left. Obviously sex, the goddess Aphrodite, makes demands. To resist those demands for whatever reason is just assumed to be completely incomprehensible. Somebody falls in love with the wrong person, off they go, and it's just a shoulder-shrugging thing. Of course you've got to do that because this is the imperative, this is what our culture is all about.
How do you see the church's mission in this context?
For generations the church has been polarized between those who see the main task being the saving of souls for heaven and the nurturing of those souls through the valley of this dark world, on the one hand, and on the other hand those who see the task of improving the lot of human beings and the world, rescuing the poor from their misery.
The longer that I've gone on as a New Testament scholar and wrestled with what the early Christians were actually talking about, the more it's been borne in on me that that distinction is one that we modern Westerners bring to the text rather than finding in the text. Because the great emphasis in the New Testament is that the gospel is not how to escape the world; the gospel is that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Lord of the world. And that his death and Resurrection transform the world, and that transformation can happen to you. You, in turn, can be part of the transforming work. That draws together what we traditionally called evangelism, bringing people to the point where they come to know God in Christ for themselves, with working for God's kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. That has always been at the heart of the Lord's Prayer, and how we've managed for years to say the Lord's Prayer without realizing that Jesus really meant it is very curious. Our Western culture since the 18th century has made a virtue of separating out religion from real life, or faith from politics.When I lecture about this, people will pop up and say, "Surely Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world." And the answer is no, what Jesus said in John 18 is, "My kingdom is not from this world." That's ek tou kosmoutoutou. It's quite clear in the text that Jesus' kingdom doesn't start with this world. It isn't a worldly kingdom, but it is for this world. It's from somewhere else, but it's for this world.
The key to mission is always worship. You can only be reflecting the love of God into the world if you are worshiping the true God who creates the world out of overflowing self-giving love. The more you look at that God and celebrate that love, the more you have to be reflecting that overflowing self-giving love into the world.
Copyright © 2007 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
Chris+
Mere Mission
N.T. Wright talks about how to present the gospel in a postmodern world.
Interview by Tim Stafford | posted 1/05/2007 04:00PM
N.T. Wright is a world-renowned New Testament scholar—author of Jesus and the Victory of God, The Resurrection of the Son of God—and bishop of Durham in the Church of England. He is also a keen observer of culture. ct senior writer Tim Stafford caught up with Wright as he drove from meetings at Windsor Castle to his diocese in Durham. They talked about communicating the gospel in a post-Christian society.
Related articles and links
Your book Simply Christian speaks to people outside the faith, in what must be a conscious imitation of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. What made you want to write to that audience?
I suppose I've always wanted to say to my contemporaries in the wider world, "This stuff matters; it's life transforming; it's world transforming." Much of my academic life has been spent exploring underlying issues, particularly about the central events in the gospel. But now it really is time to say, "So what does it mean?"
Because I've done all that historical work, my view of the gospel and how it works out in the real world has been deepened and enriched in all kinds of ways that I would never have guessed 25 years ago when I was starting out writing about Jesus. So in Simply Christian there's a lot about justice, what it means to be human in the mandate to work, the putting to rights of God's world, generating beauty, alleviating poverty, working with ecology. Thirty years ago I would have said those were secondary issues.
There's an old evangelical saying, "If he's not Lord of all, he's not Lord at all." That was always applied personally and pietistically. I want to say exactly the same thing but apply it to the world. We're talking about Jesus as the Lord of the world—not the Lord of people's private spiritual interiority only, but of what they do with their money, with their homes, with the wealth of nations, and with the planet.
Lewis's Mere Christianity presents itself as inescapably rational. It's an apologetic that traps you in its logic, a very modern approach. But you present a different kind of rationality that seems more attuned to a postmodern world.
I'm quite sure that Lewis would be rather cross at being told that he was some kind of modernist, because his self-description was that he was the last surviving dinosaur from the pre-Enlightenment period. But he was an Oxford-trained philosopher from the early years of the 20th century, and he was conscious of the need to explain things to people who thought in a certain way.
I'm sure Lewis would say he was talking about something that would blow apart the assumptions of modernity, nevertheless addressing people who were within those assumptions. In the same way, I wouldn't want to be thought of as a postmodern writer, but I'm addressing people who live in that world.
And if the argument has a compelling force, it's not the force of A plus B equals C, where there's no escape. I want you to try seeing yourself as part of the picture that we've painted. Or try humming one of the parts of this symphony that we're writing, and see if it doesn't make an awful lot of sense while nonetheless being very challenging. And that's the apologist's dilemma, that if you simply address the God-shaped blank that people think they've got, the God you end up with is the God shaped by the blank. The real God specializes in taking the blanks in people's lives and pulling and tugging and turning them into a new shape.
One of Lewis's classic maneuvers is this: Jesus said he was God, and you either believe that or that he was a madman on the level of someone who thinks he is a poached egg. It's a powerful argument that has had a strong effect on a lot of people, but modern source criticism of the Bible has undermined the idea that Jesus claimed to be God.
My major work has been designed to refute the wilder claims made by some so-called historical critical scholarship. Because now we see only too clearly that the whole historical critical movement was not, as it tried to claim, a neutral, objective, scientific account of the Gospels. It had its own agendas that were heavily driven by the philosophy of the Enlightenment. The movement really started out with the assumption that if there is a God, this God does not intervene in human affairs. In other words, the Enlightenment has already settled Lewis's question one way. It has decided that any Jesus who said John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life," would be completely out of his skull. Therefore, Jesus couldn't have said it, because we know he was a good man and we want to follow him for other reasons. It becomes a circular argument. Lewis breaks into the circle by simply ignoring the critical possibility.
You put less emphasis on Jesus' claims to be God-come-to-earth, and more on his forceful activity, doing what only God can do.
It is possible to say more or less all the orthodox Christian affirmations, but to join them up in the wrong story. It's possible to tick the boxes that say Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection, Spirit, Second Coming, and yet it's like a child's follow-the-dots. The great story—and after all the Bible is fundamentally a story—we've got to pay attention to that, rather than abstracting dogmatic points from it. The dogmas matter, they are true, but you have to join them up the right way.
There's a certain kind of modernist would-be orthodoxy, which uses the word God in something like the old Deist sense. He's a distant, absentee landlord who suddenly decides to intervene in the world after all, and he looks like Jesus. But we already know who God is; now I want you to believe that this God became human in Jesus. The New Testament routinely puts it the other way around. We don't actually know who God is. We have some idea, the God of Israel, or of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Creator God. But until we look hard at Jesus, we really haven't understood who God is.
That's precisely what John says at the end of the prologue: No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the father, he has made him known. John's provided an exegesis for who God is. And in Colossians 1 as well, he is the image of the invisible God. In other words, don't assume that you've got God taped, and fit Jesus into that. Do it the other way. We all come with some ideas of God. Allow those ideas to be shaped around Jesus. That is the real challenge of New Testament Christology.
What happened with the Enlightenment is the denarrativization of the Bible. And then within postmodernity, people have tried to pay attention to the narrative without paying attention to the fact that it's a true story. It's the story of Creator God with his world. The great biblical story is fundamentally not like a parable of Jesus, which is true whether or not there was a farmer who had two sons. The overarching story of who Jesus was, the story of God and Israel and the coming of Jesus, has to have a historical purchase on reality. Otherwise, it is colluding with the very Gnosticism it is opposing. This particular story is about the Creator and the real world; it's not about a God who is only interested in our interior reflections or our spiritual progress, the Gnostic worldview.
I've just written a book on the Gospel of Judas. I wanted to write the book because the people who published the Gospel of Judas make the most extraordinary and grandiose claims for it and for the whole worldview of Gnosticism that it represents. They're trying to claim that this worldview beats orthodox Christianity hands down. [They say] orthodox Christianity is boring and dull and miserable and restrictive, whereas Gnosticism is exciting and dynamic and vibrant and countercultural. I'm fascinated at why all sorts of people in America and elsewhere badly want this to be true.
What do you make of the popularity of this stuff?
The Gnostic conspiracy theory says that orthodoxy hushed up the really exciting thing and promoted this boring sterile thing with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And of course there's a great lie underneath that. In the second and third centuries, the people being thrown to the lions and burned at the stake and sawed in two were not the ones reading Thomas and Judas and the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary. They were the ones reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Because the empire is perfectly happy with Gnosticism. Gnosticism poses no threat to the empire. Whereas Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John do. It's the church's shame that in the last 200 years, the church has muzzled Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and turned them into instruments of a controlling, sterile orthodoxy. But the texts themselves are explosive.
But why has Gnosticism become so attractive just now? What is it about our times?
When does Gnosticism flourish? In the middle and late second century, what's just happened? The failure of the second Jewish revolt in A.D. 135. Jewish people who have clung fiercely to their Scriptures, as the desperate side of hope when everything seems to be going wrong, have lost. Then the failure of the Bar Kochba revolt, and Rabbi Akiba himself is killed, and what are you going to do? Well, you can go off and be a pagan. Or, in this wonderfully cynical way, you can take your own Bible and read it upside down. So Cain becomes the hero and Abel becomes the villain. And the God who made the world is a bad god, so you tell the story of the creation of the world as the Fall.
Jewish Gnosticism emerges out of that failure, and is sustained at a time when the imperial power of Rome has stamped on Judaism and is now doing its best to stamp on Christianity. So you say, there is no hope in the world, the world is a dark place run by evil, wicked forces who have no fear of God, no sense of spirituality. Therefore, the only thing is to turn inward.
Now, look at the rise of the great powers in the 20th century and situate the rise of Freudian and Jungian psychology within those movements. People are looking outside, and it's chaos. People are doing awful things. You say there must be very interesting things going on inside. One of Carl Jung's famous sayings was, "Who looks outside dreams; who looks inside awakens." That's 20th-century Gnosticism. When you get the rise of the modern American empire, the post-Holocaust world and all the anomie of modernity, people are asking, "What is it all about?" Gnosticism seems to many people like a place to find something good about oneself in the face of a hostile world.
[Like the second century,] we have neo-paganisms of the Right and the Left. On the Right you've got war and money, Mars and Mammon, calling the shots. If you oppose the necessity of going to war, you're not quite sane. And if you say you've just been offered a job at double the salary but you're going to stay with what you are doing, people will look at you as though you are mad, because the money imperative is just assumed to be all important. It's not just that they disagree or think you're stupid, they just cannot understand what you're talking about.
And the same paganism is on the Left. Obviously sex, the goddess Aphrodite, makes demands. To resist those demands for whatever reason is just assumed to be completely incomprehensible. Somebody falls in love with the wrong person, off they go, and it's just a shoulder-shrugging thing. Of course you've got to do that because this is the imperative, this is what our culture is all about.
How do you see the church's mission in this context?
For generations the church has been polarized between those who see the main task being the saving of souls for heaven and the nurturing of those souls through the valley of this dark world, on the one hand, and on the other hand those who see the task of improving the lot of human beings and the world, rescuing the poor from their misery.
The longer that I've gone on as a New Testament scholar and wrestled with what the early Christians were actually talking about, the more it's been borne in on me that that distinction is one that we modern Westerners bring to the text rather than finding in the text. Because the great emphasis in the New Testament is that the gospel is not how to escape the world; the gospel is that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Lord of the world. And that his death and Resurrection transform the world, and that transformation can happen to you. You, in turn, can be part of the transforming work. That draws together what we traditionally called evangelism, bringing people to the point where they come to know God in Christ for themselves, with working for God's kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. That has always been at the heart of the Lord's Prayer, and how we've managed for years to say the Lord's Prayer without realizing that Jesus really meant it is very curious. Our Western culture since the 18th century has made a virtue of separating out religion from real life, or faith from politics.When I lecture about this, people will pop up and say, "Surely Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world." And the answer is no, what Jesus said in John 18 is, "My kingdom is not from this world." That's ek tou kosmoutoutou. It's quite clear in the text that Jesus' kingdom doesn't start with this world. It isn't a worldly kingdom, but it is for this world. It's from somewhere else, but it's for this world.
The key to mission is always worship. You can only be reflecting the love of God into the world if you are worshiping the true God who creates the world out of overflowing self-giving love. The more you look at that God and celebrate that love, the more you have to be reflecting that overflowing self-giving love into the world.
Copyright © 2007 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
Bishop Howe Strikes Again
Interesting proposal that seeks relationship and space.........
Chris+
To My Fellow Bishops:
We are deeply, tragically, horribly "stuck," not only in The Episcopal Church, but in the Anglican Communion as a whole. In the past three days we have heard again what we already knew, that we have damaged our relationships with many parts of the Communion by failing to give sufficient attention to "common discernment," and by moving ahead with decisions in the area of human sexuality before the rest of the Anglican family is able to accept those decisions. It is clear that the great majority of our Bishops cannot retreat from what they believe to be not only a matter of justice, but a "Gospel imperative." But, in the light of that, we are squandering members, finances, and energy in our deadlock.
What we need is a comprehensive solution that will end the international interventions, end the defections, end the property disputes, end the litigation, and end the ravaging of our witness and mission to the outside world simultaneously. I believe there is such a solution, but it will require great sacrifice on all sides.
I propose that we:
1) Put the Resolution of the "Windsor Bishops" to a vote. It calls for full compliance with the requests of the Primates in their Communique from Tanzania last February.
2) Those who cannot, for conscience' sake, abide by the acknowledged teaching and discipline of the Communion (Lambeth I:10) will then voluntarily withdraw (at least temporarily) from the official councils of the Communion (as per Professor Katherine Grieb's much appreciated proposal to us in March at Camp Allen ).
3) Those committed to the Communion's teaching and discipline will continue their participation in the councils of the Communion.
4) Perhaps we will then adopt the Archbishop of Canterbury's terminology of "constituent" and "associate" membership for our dioceses. "Constituent" = fully Windsor-compliant. "Associate" = committed to remaining Anglican, but unable to accept the Windsor proposals.
5) Those congregations and clergy which are in "associate" dioceses, who wish to continue in "constituent" membership will be transferred to the oversight and care of "constituent" dioceses and Bishops - and vice-versa.
6) We will then request the Primates who have established extra-geographical oversight in this country to give that up, and fold any congregations under their care back into "constituent" dioceses.
7) We will endeavor to fold any American clergy who have been consecrated by international jurisdictions into Suffragan and Assistant Episcopal positions in "constituent" dioceses.
8) Without relinquishing their membership in The Episcopal Church, the "constituent" dioceses will elect their own Coordinator, and function as a parallel provincial entity for a period of 5 years (or perhaps 6 = two General Conventions, or 10 = the next Lambeth Conference).
9) After 5, 6, or 10 years we determine whether or not a "new consensus" has emerged within the Anglican Communion, and in the light of that determination -
10) We either recombine as a single jurisdiction, or we fully separate.
Warmest regards in our Lord,
The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida
1017 East Robinson Street
Orlando , Florida 32801
407-423-3567
Chris+
To My Fellow Bishops:
We are deeply, tragically, horribly "stuck," not only in The Episcopal Church, but in the Anglican Communion as a whole. In the past three days we have heard again what we already knew, that we have damaged our relationships with many parts of the Communion by failing to give sufficient attention to "common discernment," and by moving ahead with decisions in the area of human sexuality before the rest of the Anglican family is able to accept those decisions. It is clear that the great majority of our Bishops cannot retreat from what they believe to be not only a matter of justice, but a "Gospel imperative." But, in the light of that, we are squandering members, finances, and energy in our deadlock.
What we need is a comprehensive solution that will end the international interventions, end the defections, end the property disputes, end the litigation, and end the ravaging of our witness and mission to the outside world simultaneously. I believe there is such a solution, but it will require great sacrifice on all sides.
I propose that we:
1) Put the Resolution of the "Windsor Bishops" to a vote. It calls for full compliance with the requests of the Primates in their Communique from Tanzania last February.
2) Those who cannot, for conscience' sake, abide by the acknowledged teaching and discipline of the Communion (Lambeth I:10) will then voluntarily withdraw (at least temporarily) from the official councils of the Communion (as per Professor Katherine Grieb's much appreciated proposal to us in March at Camp Allen ).
3) Those committed to the Communion's teaching and discipline will continue their participation in the councils of the Communion.
4) Perhaps we will then adopt the Archbishop of Canterbury's terminology of "constituent" and "associate" membership for our dioceses. "Constituent" = fully Windsor-compliant. "Associate" = committed to remaining Anglican, but unable to accept the Windsor proposals.
5) Those congregations and clergy which are in "associate" dioceses, who wish to continue in "constituent" membership will be transferred to the oversight and care of "constituent" dioceses and Bishops - and vice-versa.
6) We will then request the Primates who have established extra-geographical oversight in this country to give that up, and fold any congregations under their care back into "constituent" dioceses.
7) We will endeavor to fold any American clergy who have been consecrated by international jurisdictions into Suffragan and Assistant Episcopal positions in "constituent" dioceses.
8) Without relinquishing their membership in The Episcopal Church, the "constituent" dioceses will elect their own Coordinator, and function as a parallel provincial entity for a period of 5 years (or perhaps 6 = two General Conventions, or 10 = the next Lambeth Conference).
9) After 5, 6, or 10 years we determine whether or not a "new consensus" has emerged within the Anglican Communion, and in the light of that determination -
10) We either recombine as a single jurisdiction, or we fully separate.
Warmest regards in our Lord,
The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida
1017 East Robinson Street
Orlando , Florida 32801
407-423-3567
Saturday, September 22, 2007
A Changing Country and A Changing Church
The Rev. Kitchin and I would probably find much to disagree about in terms of ecclesiology and theology, but he seems to get Jesus.
Chris+
The New York Times
The World Comes to Georgia, and an Old Church Adapts
By WARREN ST. JOHN
Published: September 22, 2007
CLARKSTON, Ga., Sept. 21 — When the Rev. Phil Kitchin steps into the pulpit of the Clarkston International Bible Church on Sunday mornings, he stands eye to eye with the changing face of America. In the pews before him, alongside white-haired Southern women in their Sunday best, sit immigrants from the Philippines and Togo, refugees from war-scarred Liberia, Ethiopia and Sudan, even a convert from Afghanistan. A Sunday school gathering at the Clarkston International Bible Church near Atlanta, once all white but now home to parishioners from 15 countries.A congregation of Liberian immigrants holds separate services at the church, as do other groups. Adhieu Malang and her daughter, Diyo Chuti, go to Sudanese services.
“Jesus said heaven is a place for people of all nations,” Mr. Kitchin likes to say. “So if you don’t like Clarkston, you won’t like heaven.”
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once noted that 11 a.m. on Sunday was the beginning of the most segregated hour of the week in America, and for the better part of 120 years, that certainly applied to this church. From 1883 until a few years ago, anyone on the pulpit would have gazed out at a congregation that was exclusively white. The church is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, a group that in 1995 renounced its racist past.
But an influx of immigrants and refugees transformed this town in a little over a decade, and in the process sparked a battle within this church over its identity and its faithfulness to the Bible, one that led it to change not just its name but its mission.
The Clarkston International Bible Church, which sits along an active freight rail line down the road from the former Ku Klux Klan bastion of Stone Mountain, is now home to parishioners from more than 15 countries. The church also houses congregations of Ethiopians, Sudanese, Liberians and French West Africans who worship separately, according to their own traditions. The church’s Sunday potluck lunch features African stews and Asian vegetable dishes alongside hot dogs, sweet tea and homemade cherry pie.
The transformation of what was long known as the Clarkston Baptist Church speaks to a broader change among other American churches. Many evangelical Christians who have long believed in spreading their religion in faraway lands have found that immigrants offer an opportunity for church work within one’s own community. And many immigrants and refugees are drawn by the warm welcome they get from the parishioners, which can stand in stark contrast to the more competitive and alienating nature of workaday America.
Indeed, evangelical churches have begun to stand out as rare centers of ethnic mixing in a country that researchers say has become more culturally fragmented, in part because of immigration.
A recent study by the Harvard political scientist Robert D. Putnam underscored the practical complications of diversity. In interviews with 30,000 Americans, the study found that residents of more diverse communities “tend to withdraw from collective life,” voting less and volunteering less than those in more homogeneous communities.
The study noted a conspicuous exception.
“In many large evangelical congregations,” the researchers wrote, “the participants constituted the largest thoroughly integrated gatherings we have ever witnessed.”
Change Comes to Town
Diversity came to Clarkston like a bolt from the blue. The community, just east of the Atlanta Beltway and 11 miles from downtown, was settled by white farmers and railroad workers in the late 1800s.
Clarkston remained rural and mostly white until the 1970s, when developers began to build apartment complexes for middle-class workers drawn to Atlanta after the international airport here opened. In the next decade, many of those workers began to move to new suburbs farther from town. Vacancies increased, rents fell and crime rose.
In the 1990s, aid agencies that contract with the federal government to resettle refugees pegged Clarkston as the perfect place for these vulnerable newcomers. The town had cheap housing: those empty apartments. It had public transportation — few refugees could afford cars. And Clarkston was within commuting distance of downtown Atlanta’s booming economy.
From 1996 to 2001, more than 19,000 refugees were resettled in Georgia, many in Clarkston or surrounding DeKalb County.
The change to Clarkston was profound. The schools became crowded with children who spoke little English. Locals learned not to drive down Indian Creek Drive on Friday afternoons because of traffic from Friday prayers at the mosque. A third to a half of Clarkston’s 7,100 residents are now foreign-born, most of them refugees.
Some older residents left town, alienated and concerned over the quality of education at the overburdened schools.
Many of those families had attended the Clarkston Baptist Church, leaving empty pews. By the end of the decade the church had canceled one of its two Sunday services. The congregation had dwindled to fewer than 100 from 600.
Concerned about its survival, the church commissioned a study that found blacks and immigrants would soon outnumber whites in the area. William S. Perrin, 75 and a member of the church since 1948, said that at one meeting on the issue, a deacon stood up to express his anger.
“If you think black folks are going to come in here and take our church away from us,” Mr. Perrin remembers the man saying, “you got another thing coming.”
Reaching Out
William Perrin was no stranger to such attitudes. A retired Army lieutenant colonel who survived a midair collision over Vietnam, he grew up in Clarkston before the civil rights era. Some old ideas about race were embedded in his own psyche.
He recalled that while in the Army he once used a racial epithet in front of a black pilot he admired. When he realized what he had done, Mr. Perrin said, he broke down, hugged the pilot and begged for forgiveness.
“I’m ashamed of myself,” he said he told the man. “That’s just my white upbringing in Georgia.”
The pilot forgave Mr. Perrin, who then vowed never to disrespect another person because of race or ethnicity.
With his church failing, Mr. Perrin and other longtime members looked to the Scriptures for guidance and found what they believed was a mandate from Jesus to diversify their church.
“We realized that what the Lord had in store for that old Clarkston Baptist Church was to transition into a truly international church and to help minister to all these ethnic groups moving into the county,” Mr. Perrin said.
To offset costs during the lean years, the Clarkston Baptist Church had leased space to congregations of Filipinos, Vietnamese and Africans for their own services. Mr. Perrin and other members of the church proposed that they invite these congregations to join them as a single multiethnic church.
While an outspoken advocate for diversity within his church, Mr. Perrin is quick to point out that he is no liberal. He voted twice for President Bush. Mr. Perrin said he advocated for an international church because the Bible told him to.
That view is growing more common among conservative Christians, said Mark DeYmaz, a leading proponent of multicultural churches and the pastor of the Mosaic Church of Central Arkansas, in Little Rock, a congregation of 700 from some 30 countries.
In the Book of John, Mr. DeYmaz points out, Jesus is portrayed after the Last Supper as praying for unity among his followers, a message he said runs counter to the notion of an ethnically homogeneous church.
The idea of combining their old Baptist church with congregations of Filipinos and Africans appalled some older white members of the Clarkston Baptist Church, who feared giving up their ways of worship. Some threatened to leave.
“They struggled,” said Allen Hill, the pastor at the time and now an official with the Georgia Baptist Convention. “It’s something Southern Baptists have to struggle with more than others because of our history.”
That history stretches back to 1845, when the Southern Baptist Convention was formed by a group that seceded from a larger national Baptist organization after that group decreed it would not appoint slaveholders as missionaries.
In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention apologized for its failure to support civil rights and for its congregations that “intentionally and/or unintentionally” excluded blacks. To this day, the overwhelming majority of its members are white, said Michael O. Emerson, a professor of sociology at Rice University who has studied the group.
In 2004, the Clarkston Baptist Church adopted the changes proposed by elders like Mr. Perrin, and merged with the Filipino and Nigerian congregations.
They renamed their church the Clarkston International Bible Church.
That change was too much for many of the older members, like Brenda and Robert White. They left after more than 20 years as members.
“I really resented that,” Mrs. White said of the name change. “I know it’s the 21st century and we have to change and do things differently. But I don’t think it’s fair that we had to cater to the foreign people rather than them trying to change to our way of doing things.”
“It just wasn’t Baptist church anymore,” she said.
A New Church Thrives
Rosa Paige, a 79-year-old Alabama native and member of the church for 46 years, winced and put her fingers in her ears. The staid Baptist hymns of her old church have been replaced by “praise music,” contemporary Christian songs, played by teenagers on electric guitars, that church leaders thought would appeal to new congregants.
“It’s a little loud for me sometimes,” Mrs. Paige said.
Merging congregations has meant compromise for everyone. The immigrants who join the main congregation have to give up worshiping in their native languages. Older Southern Baptist parishioners have given up traditional hymns and organ music.
Other areas, like the potluck lunch in the gym every Sunday, have required little adjustment. “Everybody likes everybody else’s food,” Mr. Perrin said.
The pastor, Mr. Kitchin, a North Carolina native, joined the church in 2006 and learned quickly to keep his sermons simple because so many in his new congregation were just learning English.
“I’d say, ‘You can take it to the bank,’ and nobody had a clue what I was talking about,” he said in a thick drawl.
Mr. Kitchin described his job as part minister, part cultural translator. Church members seek his advice and help.
Recently, Mr. Kitchin said, a Liberian refugee asked him to sponsor a child’s visa so the man’s family could be reunited. Mr. Kitchin declined.
“If I do it for him, I have to do it for everyone in the church who wants their children to come in,” he said. “To tell this man no rips your heart out.”
There are other problems beyond the church’s front doors. Not everyone in the community has appreciated the church’s efforts to proselytize among Clarkston’s newcomers. Salahadin Wazir, the imam at al-Momineen mosque here, said he frequently heard from Muslim refugees and immigrants who say they attended a community outreach program administered by the church where conversation quickly turned to the teachings of Jesus.
“It’s inappropriate,” Mr. Wazir said. “Playing on the minds of small children or desperate, needy people — that’s not the way to preach.”
Mr. Kitchin said he heard such complaints frequently, but he does not apologize.
“I’m a believer in Jesus Christ, and I am commanded by him to go and tell everybody who he is,” he said. “And because we’re in a free country you have the freedom to choose.”
“How can you choose if you don’t know what’s available?”
Despite those tensions, Mr. Kitchin’s church is now thriving. The congregation has grown to more than 300 from 100 a few years ago, and the 10:45 a.m. service on Sundays, which Mr. Kitchin leads, is well attended.
Ultimately, Mr. Kitchin hopes, the groups who worship separately will join the larger congregation as the Filipino and Nigerian congregations did; many of the youngest members, who prefer church in English, already have.
But those congregations face the same tough choices as did the old white Baptist church. Some have been torn between a desire to assimilate and a fear of giving up their own identities.
That is the case with the Liberian congregation led by the Rev. Peter Nehsahn. His flock had considered joining the larger group but decided against it for now, for fear of losing elements of their worship style, which includes drumming and singing African hymns.
“Our people might get lost in the mix,” Mr. Nehsahn said.
But even worshiping separately within the church gives some of the newcomers a sense of connection to the Clarkston community they would not get if they worshiped alone.
For many of those who have joined the main congregation, the experience has been life changing. Marcelle Bess, a white American and a lifelong member of the church, said two of her daughters were dating young Filipino men they had met through the church. She hopes they will marry, she said.
Mr. Perrin said the impact of the church on his life hit him when he and his wife were traveling through the Midwest. They stopped to worship at whatever Baptist church they could find.
“Every church that we walked into was pure white Caucasian,” he said. “My wife and I really felt uncomfortable, because, we realized, here in Clarkston is what the world is all about.”
Mr. Kitchin thinks that in the not-so-distant future many more American churches will face the sort of questions his church has. He said he was frequently asked for advice.
“I tell people, ‘America is changing,’ ” he said. “ ‘Get over it.’ ”
Chris+
The New York Times
The World Comes to Georgia, and an Old Church Adapts
By WARREN ST. JOHN
Published: September 22, 2007
CLARKSTON, Ga., Sept. 21 — When the Rev. Phil Kitchin steps into the pulpit of the Clarkston International Bible Church on Sunday mornings, he stands eye to eye with the changing face of America. In the pews before him, alongside white-haired Southern women in their Sunday best, sit immigrants from the Philippines and Togo, refugees from war-scarred Liberia, Ethiopia and Sudan, even a convert from Afghanistan. A Sunday school gathering at the Clarkston International Bible Church near Atlanta, once all white but now home to parishioners from 15 countries.A congregation of Liberian immigrants holds separate services at the church, as do other groups. Adhieu Malang and her daughter, Diyo Chuti, go to Sudanese services.
“Jesus said heaven is a place for people of all nations,” Mr. Kitchin likes to say. “So if you don’t like Clarkston, you won’t like heaven.”
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once noted that 11 a.m. on Sunday was the beginning of the most segregated hour of the week in America, and for the better part of 120 years, that certainly applied to this church. From 1883 until a few years ago, anyone on the pulpit would have gazed out at a congregation that was exclusively white. The church is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, a group that in 1995 renounced its racist past.
But an influx of immigrants and refugees transformed this town in a little over a decade, and in the process sparked a battle within this church over its identity and its faithfulness to the Bible, one that led it to change not just its name but its mission.
The Clarkston International Bible Church, which sits along an active freight rail line down the road from the former Ku Klux Klan bastion of Stone Mountain, is now home to parishioners from more than 15 countries. The church also houses congregations of Ethiopians, Sudanese, Liberians and French West Africans who worship separately, according to their own traditions. The church’s Sunday potluck lunch features African stews and Asian vegetable dishes alongside hot dogs, sweet tea and homemade cherry pie.
The transformation of what was long known as the Clarkston Baptist Church speaks to a broader change among other American churches. Many evangelical Christians who have long believed in spreading their religion in faraway lands have found that immigrants offer an opportunity for church work within one’s own community. And many immigrants and refugees are drawn by the warm welcome they get from the parishioners, which can stand in stark contrast to the more competitive and alienating nature of workaday America.
Indeed, evangelical churches have begun to stand out as rare centers of ethnic mixing in a country that researchers say has become more culturally fragmented, in part because of immigration.
A recent study by the Harvard political scientist Robert D. Putnam underscored the practical complications of diversity. In interviews with 30,000 Americans, the study found that residents of more diverse communities “tend to withdraw from collective life,” voting less and volunteering less than those in more homogeneous communities.
The study noted a conspicuous exception.
“In many large evangelical congregations,” the researchers wrote, “the participants constituted the largest thoroughly integrated gatherings we have ever witnessed.”
Change Comes to Town
Diversity came to Clarkston like a bolt from the blue. The community, just east of the Atlanta Beltway and 11 miles from downtown, was settled by white farmers and railroad workers in the late 1800s.
Clarkston remained rural and mostly white until the 1970s, when developers began to build apartment complexes for middle-class workers drawn to Atlanta after the international airport here opened. In the next decade, many of those workers began to move to new suburbs farther from town. Vacancies increased, rents fell and crime rose.
In the 1990s, aid agencies that contract with the federal government to resettle refugees pegged Clarkston as the perfect place for these vulnerable newcomers. The town had cheap housing: those empty apartments. It had public transportation — few refugees could afford cars. And Clarkston was within commuting distance of downtown Atlanta’s booming economy.
From 1996 to 2001, more than 19,000 refugees were resettled in Georgia, many in Clarkston or surrounding DeKalb County.
The change to Clarkston was profound. The schools became crowded with children who spoke little English. Locals learned not to drive down Indian Creek Drive on Friday afternoons because of traffic from Friday prayers at the mosque. A third to a half of Clarkston’s 7,100 residents are now foreign-born, most of them refugees.
Some older residents left town, alienated and concerned over the quality of education at the overburdened schools.
Many of those families had attended the Clarkston Baptist Church, leaving empty pews. By the end of the decade the church had canceled one of its two Sunday services. The congregation had dwindled to fewer than 100 from 600.
Concerned about its survival, the church commissioned a study that found blacks and immigrants would soon outnumber whites in the area. William S. Perrin, 75 and a member of the church since 1948, said that at one meeting on the issue, a deacon stood up to express his anger.
“If you think black folks are going to come in here and take our church away from us,” Mr. Perrin remembers the man saying, “you got another thing coming.”
Reaching Out
William Perrin was no stranger to such attitudes. A retired Army lieutenant colonel who survived a midair collision over Vietnam, he grew up in Clarkston before the civil rights era. Some old ideas about race were embedded in his own psyche.
He recalled that while in the Army he once used a racial epithet in front of a black pilot he admired. When he realized what he had done, Mr. Perrin said, he broke down, hugged the pilot and begged for forgiveness.
“I’m ashamed of myself,” he said he told the man. “That’s just my white upbringing in Georgia.”
The pilot forgave Mr. Perrin, who then vowed never to disrespect another person because of race or ethnicity.
With his church failing, Mr. Perrin and other longtime members looked to the Scriptures for guidance and found what they believed was a mandate from Jesus to diversify their church.
“We realized that what the Lord had in store for that old Clarkston Baptist Church was to transition into a truly international church and to help minister to all these ethnic groups moving into the county,” Mr. Perrin said.
To offset costs during the lean years, the Clarkston Baptist Church had leased space to congregations of Filipinos, Vietnamese and Africans for their own services. Mr. Perrin and other members of the church proposed that they invite these congregations to join them as a single multiethnic church.
While an outspoken advocate for diversity within his church, Mr. Perrin is quick to point out that he is no liberal. He voted twice for President Bush. Mr. Perrin said he advocated for an international church because the Bible told him to.
That view is growing more common among conservative Christians, said Mark DeYmaz, a leading proponent of multicultural churches and the pastor of the Mosaic Church of Central Arkansas, in Little Rock, a congregation of 700 from some 30 countries.
In the Book of John, Mr. DeYmaz points out, Jesus is portrayed after the Last Supper as praying for unity among his followers, a message he said runs counter to the notion of an ethnically homogeneous church.
The idea of combining their old Baptist church with congregations of Filipinos and Africans appalled some older white members of the Clarkston Baptist Church, who feared giving up their ways of worship. Some threatened to leave.
“They struggled,” said Allen Hill, the pastor at the time and now an official with the Georgia Baptist Convention. “It’s something Southern Baptists have to struggle with more than others because of our history.”
That history stretches back to 1845, when the Southern Baptist Convention was formed by a group that seceded from a larger national Baptist organization after that group decreed it would not appoint slaveholders as missionaries.
In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention apologized for its failure to support civil rights and for its congregations that “intentionally and/or unintentionally” excluded blacks. To this day, the overwhelming majority of its members are white, said Michael O. Emerson, a professor of sociology at Rice University who has studied the group.
In 2004, the Clarkston Baptist Church adopted the changes proposed by elders like Mr. Perrin, and merged with the Filipino and Nigerian congregations.
They renamed their church the Clarkston International Bible Church.
That change was too much for many of the older members, like Brenda and Robert White. They left after more than 20 years as members.
“I really resented that,” Mrs. White said of the name change. “I know it’s the 21st century and we have to change and do things differently. But I don’t think it’s fair that we had to cater to the foreign people rather than them trying to change to our way of doing things.”
“It just wasn’t Baptist church anymore,” she said.
A New Church Thrives
Rosa Paige, a 79-year-old Alabama native and member of the church for 46 years, winced and put her fingers in her ears. The staid Baptist hymns of her old church have been replaced by “praise music,” contemporary Christian songs, played by teenagers on electric guitars, that church leaders thought would appeal to new congregants.
“It’s a little loud for me sometimes,” Mrs. Paige said.
Merging congregations has meant compromise for everyone. The immigrants who join the main congregation have to give up worshiping in their native languages. Older Southern Baptist parishioners have given up traditional hymns and organ music.
Other areas, like the potluck lunch in the gym every Sunday, have required little adjustment. “Everybody likes everybody else’s food,” Mr. Perrin said.
The pastor, Mr. Kitchin, a North Carolina native, joined the church in 2006 and learned quickly to keep his sermons simple because so many in his new congregation were just learning English.
“I’d say, ‘You can take it to the bank,’ and nobody had a clue what I was talking about,” he said in a thick drawl.
Mr. Kitchin described his job as part minister, part cultural translator. Church members seek his advice and help.
Recently, Mr. Kitchin said, a Liberian refugee asked him to sponsor a child’s visa so the man’s family could be reunited. Mr. Kitchin declined.
“If I do it for him, I have to do it for everyone in the church who wants their children to come in,” he said. “To tell this man no rips your heart out.”
There are other problems beyond the church’s front doors. Not everyone in the community has appreciated the church’s efforts to proselytize among Clarkston’s newcomers. Salahadin Wazir, the imam at al-Momineen mosque here, said he frequently heard from Muslim refugees and immigrants who say they attended a community outreach program administered by the church where conversation quickly turned to the teachings of Jesus.
“It’s inappropriate,” Mr. Wazir said. “Playing on the minds of small children or desperate, needy people — that’s not the way to preach.”
Mr. Kitchin said he heard such complaints frequently, but he does not apologize.
“I’m a believer in Jesus Christ, and I am commanded by him to go and tell everybody who he is,” he said. “And because we’re in a free country you have the freedom to choose.”
“How can you choose if you don’t know what’s available?”
Despite those tensions, Mr. Kitchin’s church is now thriving. The congregation has grown to more than 300 from 100 a few years ago, and the 10:45 a.m. service on Sundays, which Mr. Kitchin leads, is well attended.
Ultimately, Mr. Kitchin hopes, the groups who worship separately will join the larger congregation as the Filipino and Nigerian congregations did; many of the youngest members, who prefer church in English, already have.
But those congregations face the same tough choices as did the old white Baptist church. Some have been torn between a desire to assimilate and a fear of giving up their own identities.
That is the case with the Liberian congregation led by the Rev. Peter Nehsahn. His flock had considered joining the larger group but decided against it for now, for fear of losing elements of their worship style, which includes drumming and singing African hymns.
“Our people might get lost in the mix,” Mr. Nehsahn said.
But even worshiping separately within the church gives some of the newcomers a sense of connection to the Clarkston community they would not get if they worshiped alone.
For many of those who have joined the main congregation, the experience has been life changing. Marcelle Bess, a white American and a lifelong member of the church, said two of her daughters were dating young Filipino men they had met through the church. She hopes they will marry, she said.
Mr. Perrin said the impact of the church on his life hit him when he and his wife were traveling through the Midwest. They stopped to worship at whatever Baptist church they could find.
“Every church that we walked into was pure white Caucasian,” he said. “My wife and I really felt uncomfortable, because, we realized, here in Clarkston is what the world is all about.”
Mr. Kitchin thinks that in the not-so-distant future many more American churches will face the sort of questions his church has. He said he was frequently asked for advice.
“I tell people, ‘America is changing,’ ” he said. “ ‘Get over it.’ ”
Advice For A Crisis
How Do You Handle a Crisis?
by Margaret J. Marcuson
We've all experienced those crisis moments: the phone call comes, or you open the e-mail, and disaster, small or large, has struck. What's your first response in a crisis? Your first reaction may be to panic. Your heart starts to pound. Your body is overtaken by anxiety. What should you do now?
Here are five tips for handling a crisis. Tips one and two will help you respond better in the moment the crisis breaks.
1. Focus on yourself first. Your own functioning is critical: you need to handle yourself, not the crisis. Panic is contagious. But so is calm, and if you can keep your own anxiety down, everyone will make better decisions.
2. Breathe. Oxygen literally helps your brain work better. When you feel your heart start pounding, stop and take a few deep breaths.
Over time, keep focusing on your own functioning, and keep breathing. Some crises take some time to resolve. The following tips will help you as you continue to respond.
3. Think. If you can reflect on the crisis rather than simply reacting to it, you'll be better able to manage yourself. Here are some questions to consider: Why now? (Crises usually don't come out of nowhere.) Who else besides me needs to share this responsibility? What's the worst that could happen, and how would I handle that?
4. Get thoughtful counsel. We often go looking for advice in a crisis, but choose your advisers carefully. Look for those who can ask good questions, and offer a bit of a challenge along with the necessary hand-holding. Spend time with people who are calmer than you are.
5. Pray. Or meditate, or whatever works to help you get the bigger picture. And there's always a bigger picture. No crisis is ultimate. The story will always go on, and when we can tap into a larger hope, we will lead better, especially in crisis.
Most crises are not as disastrous as the initial panic indicates. Even if the worst happens, whatever that may be for you, this approach will continue to help you. But if you can keep your head, and thoughtfully take steps to respond, often the turmoil will subside, and you can keep moving forward toward your goals.
What do you think? Share your comments on these ideas at my blog for church leaders: Marcuson's Church Leadership Blog.
by Margaret J. Marcuson
We've all experienced those crisis moments: the phone call comes, or you open the e-mail, and disaster, small or large, has struck. What's your first response in a crisis? Your first reaction may be to panic. Your heart starts to pound. Your body is overtaken by anxiety. What should you do now?
Here are five tips for handling a crisis. Tips one and two will help you respond better in the moment the crisis breaks.
1. Focus on yourself first. Your own functioning is critical: you need to handle yourself, not the crisis. Panic is contagious. But so is calm, and if you can keep your own anxiety down, everyone will make better decisions.
2. Breathe. Oxygen literally helps your brain work better. When you feel your heart start pounding, stop and take a few deep breaths.
Over time, keep focusing on your own functioning, and keep breathing. Some crises take some time to resolve. The following tips will help you as you continue to respond.
3. Think. If you can reflect on the crisis rather than simply reacting to it, you'll be better able to manage yourself. Here are some questions to consider: Why now? (Crises usually don't come out of nowhere.) Who else besides me needs to share this responsibility? What's the worst that could happen, and how would I handle that?
4. Get thoughtful counsel. We often go looking for advice in a crisis, but choose your advisers carefully. Look for those who can ask good questions, and offer a bit of a challenge along with the necessary hand-holding. Spend time with people who are calmer than you are.
5. Pray. Or meditate, or whatever works to help you get the bigger picture. And there's always a bigger picture. No crisis is ultimate. The story will always go on, and when we can tap into a larger hope, we will lead better, especially in crisis.
Most crises are not as disastrous as the initial panic indicates. Even if the worst happens, whatever that may be for you, this approach will continue to help you. But if you can keep your head, and thoughtfully take steps to respond, often the turmoil will subside, and you can keep moving forward toward your goals.
What do you think? Share your comments on these ideas at my blog for church leaders: Marcuson's Church Leadership Blog.
From Kendall Harmon
Kendall Harmon: What Would a Radical Solution Look Like?
Posted by Kendall Harmon
I believe very strongly that one of the many tragic aspects of this whole Episcopal Church debacle in the last five years is that not only was the decision in 2003 wrong (and the way it was made wrong) but that nearly every major decision made by the TEC leadership since then has made it worse. The hard part about this is that when you keep failing to offer a sufficiently radical solution to a problem, the next time you face it it requires an even more radical solution.
I certainly wish to salute what the Presiding Bishop said in New Orleans: none of us is without blame in this mess. I have been trying to insist on this since General Convention 2003 and then my first address at Plano one: ALL of us are under judgment.
Perhaps, like me, you are wondering about Archbishop Rowan Williams' calling for 'room to maneuver' and if there is any way forward now which is in the direction of a real, serious solution.
For myself, I will consider those in New Orleans serious when they consider offering the Anglican Communion something like this statement:
We realize we have caused huge damage to the whole Anglican Communion and therefore, we, as a body, voluntarily withdraw from coming to Lambeth 2008.
Now please note this means ALL the TEC Bishops. No exceptions. It would allow Dr. Williams to get nearly all (perhaps actually all?) the rest of the Communion to Lambeth, and it would show a sense of corporate responsibility for the wrong.
Yes, I know it is not perfect. I also know that it would only be PART of a solution and that there are many other questions which would have to be addressed. I also know it would only happen by divine intervention.
But only things LIKE THIS will really get us anywhere given the degree of damage, alienation, confusion and struggle.
I am praying for something along these lines because it will be a real tragedy if the third largest Christian family in the world falls into further disarray.
I see a lot of despair, anger, frustation and bewilderment out there. What I would like to see more of is constructive proposals for actually moving us forward. If you do not like my idea, then what is yours? Please make sure to propose something sufficiently radical which also might be achievable given the constraints. It is not easy, but it is important--KSH.
My Questions and thoughts:
I agree that it is time for all factions to own responsibility for our situation. I disagree with the unequivocal statement that the actions of the Episcopal Church are wrong. For that to be true, one would have to argue that human sexuality is an essential focus of Gospel, and that does not seem to be the case, despite our obsession with it. To argue that human sexuality deserves the attention it is receiving, one would have to reduce the individual's essence to that of sexual identity. Isn't there more to the human being that sexuality? Is the most fundamental assessment of the human related to sexuality?
Some argue yes, and some argue no.
Acknowledging the divide is important. Recognizing the Global South has interpreted the actions of the Episcopal Church as unilateral is key. An expression of real grief over this is warranted. But I am struck by the way we have been behaving and talking at one another. Lambeth, in my mind, could be an opportunity to talk with one another. Too much communication and interpretation has happened with the press as intermediaries. I was under the impression that the purpose of Lambeth was to communicate with one another? If we don't ever really sit down together, how will we come to terms with one another and our differences on these peripheral issues, and get back to our Gospel mission.
Dialogue presumes that we have something to talk about. It presumes that we have the desire to reconcile. Do we really want to stay together and hear the other? Or, are we stuck in being right, and going to our respective corners?
Posted by Kendall Harmon
I believe very strongly that one of the many tragic aspects of this whole Episcopal Church debacle in the last five years is that not only was the decision in 2003 wrong (and the way it was made wrong) but that nearly every major decision made by the TEC leadership since then has made it worse. The hard part about this is that when you keep failing to offer a sufficiently radical solution to a problem, the next time you face it it requires an even more radical solution.
I certainly wish to salute what the Presiding Bishop said in New Orleans: none of us is without blame in this mess. I have been trying to insist on this since General Convention 2003 and then my first address at Plano one: ALL of us are under judgment.
Perhaps, like me, you are wondering about Archbishop Rowan Williams' calling for 'room to maneuver' and if there is any way forward now which is in the direction of a real, serious solution.
For myself, I will consider those in New Orleans serious when they consider offering the Anglican Communion something like this statement:
We realize we have caused huge damage to the whole Anglican Communion and therefore, we, as a body, voluntarily withdraw from coming to Lambeth 2008.
Now please note this means ALL the TEC Bishops. No exceptions. It would allow Dr. Williams to get nearly all (perhaps actually all?) the rest of the Communion to Lambeth, and it would show a sense of corporate responsibility for the wrong.
Yes, I know it is not perfect. I also know that it would only be PART of a solution and that there are many other questions which would have to be addressed. I also know it would only happen by divine intervention.
But only things LIKE THIS will really get us anywhere given the degree of damage, alienation, confusion and struggle.
I am praying for something along these lines because it will be a real tragedy if the third largest Christian family in the world falls into further disarray.
I see a lot of despair, anger, frustation and bewilderment out there. What I would like to see more of is constructive proposals for actually moving us forward. If you do not like my idea, then what is yours? Please make sure to propose something sufficiently radical which also might be achievable given the constraints. It is not easy, but it is important--KSH.
My Questions and thoughts:
I agree that it is time for all factions to own responsibility for our situation. I disagree with the unequivocal statement that the actions of the Episcopal Church are wrong. For that to be true, one would have to argue that human sexuality is an essential focus of Gospel, and that does not seem to be the case, despite our obsession with it. To argue that human sexuality deserves the attention it is receiving, one would have to reduce the individual's essence to that of sexual identity. Isn't there more to the human being that sexuality? Is the most fundamental assessment of the human related to sexuality?
Some argue yes, and some argue no.
Acknowledging the divide is important. Recognizing the Global South has interpreted the actions of the Episcopal Church as unilateral is key. An expression of real grief over this is warranted. But I am struck by the way we have been behaving and talking at one another. Lambeth, in my mind, could be an opportunity to talk with one another. Too much communication and interpretation has happened with the press as intermediaries. I was under the impression that the purpose of Lambeth was to communicate with one another? If we don't ever really sit down together, how will we come to terms with one another and our differences on these peripheral issues, and get back to our Gospel mission.
Dialogue presumes that we have something to talk about. It presumes that we have the desire to reconcile. Do we really want to stay together and hear the other? Or, are we stuck in being right, and going to our respective corners?
More News New Orleans
Rowan Williams seems thoughtful, as usual. He articulates the current situation in relational and theological terms.
Chris+
[Episcopal News Service, New Orleans] After two days of ;encouraging" talks with the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams told reporters September 21 that if the Anglican Communion resolves its differences enough to avoid schism "it will have done something for the entire Christian community."
Williams, who made pastoral visits to hurricane-damaged areas of New Orleans and preached at a September 20 ecumenical service where dioceses donated $931,000 for disaster relief, said outstanding local recovery efforts helped focus bishops' conversations around "our need for one another."
"The need we have for each other is very deep, it came across yesterday in much of the discussion in our first session," Williams told more than 60 international, national and local reporters at a Friday afternoon news conference.
"Many bishops spoke of their awareness of the need for Christian community elsewhere in the world … [of] the need to understand something not just about the experience of poverty and privation in those areas but also of young churches, finding their way in mission."
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said conversations were both stimulating and provocative. "It has been a privilege for us to meet together in this way and to have the physical presence from other members of the Anglican Communion; that's been very important," she said.
Also addressing the media were bishops Duncan Gray III of Mississippi, Charles Jenkins of Louisiana, and Bishop Suffragan Catherine Roskam of New York, a member of the Episcopal Church's delegation to the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC).
The bishops will participate in hurricane recovery service projects in Louisiana and Mississippi September 22, worship services at local churches September 23, and will continue deliberations through the conclusion of sessions on September 25.
Primates' deadline carries no 'ultimatum'
The bishops are expected to issue a formal response to Anglican Primates communiqué, issued in Dar es Salaam in February.
Williams discounted earlier reports that the communiqué included an ultimatum. "Despite what has been claimed, there is no ultimatum involved," Williams said in a prepared statement.
"The primates asked for a response by September 30 simply because we were aware that this was the meeting of the House likely to be formulating such a response. The ACC and Primates Joint Standing Committee will be reading and digesting what the Bishops have to say, and will let me know their thoughts on it early next week."
The communiqué is "a place to start," he said. "Some primates would give a more robust interpretation of the demands, some less. It has been presented as a set of demands and indeed intrusions and impositions; I don't think that's what the primates had in mind and that means we are inevitably in the business of compromise. What is brought before us will be scrutinized, thought about, reflected, digested."
Rather, the communiqué included issues the Primates felt needed clarification by the Episcopal Church "if the breach is to be healed. I hope these days will result in a constructive and fresh way forward for all of us."
Jefferts Schori said some responses have already been made, adding that she hoped for a full response by the meeting's conclusion September 25.
Bishops Gray of Mississippi and Jenkins of Louisiana said the remainder of the meeting will no doubt be influenced by the backdrop of ongoing recovery efforts.
"We have spoken to one another with candor, clarity and charity and we now move into a common mission to address the needs of New Orleans and Mississippi Gulf Coast," Gray said. He thanked Williams for offering new ways with which to think about the Communion and other dioceses for their support.
"There is no such thing as spare people, there are no throwaway lives," Jenkins added. "That's what we're struggling with as a Communion; more importantly that's what we are demonstrating here in mission. People of good will and faith stand for the dignity of humanity … I want you to know that, even in the midst of our disagreements we stand strongly for all of God's people."
In response to reporters' questions, Williams said he does not personally regard homosexuality as a disease to be healed and that he leaves New Orleans with a much "richer" understanding of how the baptismal covenant determines Episcopal Church polity and has facilitated conclusions regarding human sexuality for the Episcopal Church.
He was emphatic that discrimination against gay and lesbian people cannot be tolerated under any circumstances, but acknowledged that the issue is about the distinction between accepting gay and lesbian people as the Body of Christ and "those who want to raise questions about the eligibility of gay and lesbian people in active roles."
Williams said he prefers local solutions to legal battles between dioceses and breakaway congregations over property and buildings, and is very distressed by bishops who have "wandered into other jurisdictions."
He is not inclined to postpone the once-every-decade Lambeth Conference until differences can be resolved, preferring instead to be faithful to those smaller provinces "who need friends and the experience of drinking from other people's well … we don't want them to be held hostage by the politics of others."
The 2008 Lambeth Conference is "a necessary encounter with the cross on the way to the Resurrection, however difficult it is for everyone," he added.
The 77-million-member worldwide Anglican Communion, Williams said, exists for the glory of God. "[I]f we are able to get it right, if we construct it in some positive, faithful way we will have done something for the whole Christian community."
Jefferts Schori told reporters at the news conference's end that the work of the House of Bishops is just beginning. "Come back and talk to us on Tuesday," she said. "The experience of the local community and relief efforts are an example of why we believe it is important for the Episcopal Church to remain in full communion with the rest of the Anglican Communion."
-- The Rev. Pat McCaughan is senior associate for parish life at St. George's Episcopal Church in Laguna Hills, California. She is also correspondent for the Diocese of Los Angeles and Episcopal News Service.
Chris+
[Episcopal News Service, New Orleans] After two days of ;encouraging" talks with the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams told reporters September 21 that if the Anglican Communion resolves its differences enough to avoid schism "it will have done something for the entire Christian community."
Williams, who made pastoral visits to hurricane-damaged areas of New Orleans and preached at a September 20 ecumenical service where dioceses donated $931,000 for disaster relief, said outstanding local recovery efforts helped focus bishops' conversations around "our need for one another."
"The need we have for each other is very deep, it came across yesterday in much of the discussion in our first session," Williams told more than 60 international, national and local reporters at a Friday afternoon news conference.
"Many bishops spoke of their awareness of the need for Christian community elsewhere in the world … [of] the need to understand something not just about the experience of poverty and privation in those areas but also of young churches, finding their way in mission."
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said conversations were both stimulating and provocative. "It has been a privilege for us to meet together in this way and to have the physical presence from other members of the Anglican Communion; that's been very important," she said.
Also addressing the media were bishops Duncan Gray III of Mississippi, Charles Jenkins of Louisiana, and Bishop Suffragan Catherine Roskam of New York, a member of the Episcopal Church's delegation to the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC).
The bishops will participate in hurricane recovery service projects in Louisiana and Mississippi September 22, worship services at local churches September 23, and will continue deliberations through the conclusion of sessions on September 25.
Primates' deadline carries no 'ultimatum'
The bishops are expected to issue a formal response to Anglican Primates communiqué, issued in Dar es Salaam in February.
Williams discounted earlier reports that the communiqué included an ultimatum. "Despite what has been claimed, there is no ultimatum involved," Williams said in a prepared statement.
"The primates asked for a response by September 30 simply because we were aware that this was the meeting of the House likely to be formulating such a response. The ACC and Primates Joint Standing Committee will be reading and digesting what the Bishops have to say, and will let me know their thoughts on it early next week."
The communiqué is "a place to start," he said. "Some primates would give a more robust interpretation of the demands, some less. It has been presented as a set of demands and indeed intrusions and impositions; I don't think that's what the primates had in mind and that means we are inevitably in the business of compromise. What is brought before us will be scrutinized, thought about, reflected, digested."
Rather, the communiqué included issues the Primates felt needed clarification by the Episcopal Church "if the breach is to be healed. I hope these days will result in a constructive and fresh way forward for all of us."
Jefferts Schori said some responses have already been made, adding that she hoped for a full response by the meeting's conclusion September 25.
Bishops Gray of Mississippi and Jenkins of Louisiana said the remainder of the meeting will no doubt be influenced by the backdrop of ongoing recovery efforts.
"We have spoken to one another with candor, clarity and charity and we now move into a common mission to address the needs of New Orleans and Mississippi Gulf Coast," Gray said. He thanked Williams for offering new ways with which to think about the Communion and other dioceses for their support.
"There is no such thing as spare people, there are no throwaway lives," Jenkins added. "That's what we're struggling with as a Communion; more importantly that's what we are demonstrating here in mission. People of good will and faith stand for the dignity of humanity … I want you to know that, even in the midst of our disagreements we stand strongly for all of God's people."
In response to reporters' questions, Williams said he does not personally regard homosexuality as a disease to be healed and that he leaves New Orleans with a much "richer" understanding of how the baptismal covenant determines Episcopal Church polity and has facilitated conclusions regarding human sexuality for the Episcopal Church.
He was emphatic that discrimination against gay and lesbian people cannot be tolerated under any circumstances, but acknowledged that the issue is about the distinction between accepting gay and lesbian people as the Body of Christ and "those who want to raise questions about the eligibility of gay and lesbian people in active roles."
Williams said he prefers local solutions to legal battles between dioceses and breakaway congregations over property and buildings, and is very distressed by bishops who have "wandered into other jurisdictions."
He is not inclined to postpone the once-every-decade Lambeth Conference until differences can be resolved, preferring instead to be faithful to those smaller provinces "who need friends and the experience of drinking from other people's well … we don't want them to be held hostage by the politics of others."
The 2008 Lambeth Conference is "a necessary encounter with the cross on the way to the Resurrection, however difficult it is for everyone," he added.
The 77-million-member worldwide Anglican Communion, Williams said, exists for the glory of God. "[I]f we are able to get it right, if we construct it in some positive, faithful way we will have done something for the whole Christian community."
Jefferts Schori told reporters at the news conference's end that the work of the House of Bishops is just beginning. "Come back and talk to us on Tuesday," she said. "The experience of the local community and relief efforts are an example of why we believe it is important for the Episcopal Church to remain in full communion with the rest of the Anglican Communion."
-- The Rev. Pat McCaughan is senior associate for parish life at St. George's Episcopal Church in Laguna Hills, California. She is also correspondent for the Diocese of Los Angeles and Episcopal News Service.
Opening Remarks
Archbishop Rowan Williams' Opening Remarks: Meeting with the ECUSA House of Bishops 21 September 2007
I and the other members of the Joint Stadning Committee were very glad to accept the invitation of the Presiding Bishop to join the House of Bishops for part of this session.
One of the greatest privileges of being here has been the chance to see something of quite outstanding work being done by the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta in the ongoing work of social reconstruction in a city still deeply scarred by the devastation of Hurricane Katrina two years ago. I was able to visit a project yesterday in the lower 9th Ward and to see the wonderfully committed and vibrant new church community that has sprung up into being around the construction work. This new Church of All Souls has come into being as a direct result of the sacrificial generosity if the Episcopal Church in this city and its work with those who have suffered most, and it should be an inspiration to the entire communion.
It has been a valuable opportunity to listen carefully to the thinking of the bishops here on the problems that face the Communion; and also for us to share with the House some perspectives from elsewhere in the Communion. I think that in light of the conversations we have come to a better understanding of the House in response to the questions and proposals of the Dar Es Salaam Primates’ Meeting. I hope that the House, equally, has understood more fully what those questions an proposals were meant to achieve. The House will continue to reflect on them over the weekend.
Despite what has been claimed there is no “ultimatum” involved. The Primates asked for a response by 30 September simply because we were aware that this was the meeting of the House likely to be formulating such a response. The ACC and Primates Joint Standing Committee will be reading and digesting what the Bishops have to say, and shall let me know their thoughts on it early next week. After this I shall be sharing what they say, along with my own assessments, with the Primates and others, inviting their advice in the next couple of weeks. I hope these days will result in a constructive and fresh way forward for all of us.
end
I and the other members of the Joint Stadning Committee were very glad to accept the invitation of the Presiding Bishop to join the House of Bishops for part of this session.
One of the greatest privileges of being here has been the chance to see something of quite outstanding work being done by the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta in the ongoing work of social reconstruction in a city still deeply scarred by the devastation of Hurricane Katrina two years ago. I was able to visit a project yesterday in the lower 9th Ward and to see the wonderfully committed and vibrant new church community that has sprung up into being around the construction work. This new Church of All Souls has come into being as a direct result of the sacrificial generosity if the Episcopal Church in this city and its work with those who have suffered most, and it should be an inspiration to the entire communion.
It has been a valuable opportunity to listen carefully to the thinking of the bishops here on the problems that face the Communion; and also for us to share with the House some perspectives from elsewhere in the Communion. I think that in light of the conversations we have come to a better understanding of the House in response to the questions and proposals of the Dar Es Salaam Primates’ Meeting. I hope that the House, equally, has understood more fully what those questions an proposals were meant to achieve. The House will continue to reflect on them over the weekend.
Despite what has been claimed there is no “ultimatum” involved. The Primates asked for a response by 30 September simply because we were aware that this was the meeting of the House likely to be formulating such a response. The ACC and Primates Joint Standing Committee will be reading and digesting what the Bishops have to say, and shall let me know their thoughts on it early next week. After this I shall be sharing what they say, along with my own assessments, with the Primates and others, inviting their advice in the next couple of weeks. I hope these days will result in a constructive and fresh way forward for all of us.
end
Friday, September 21, 2007
From The Times By Ruth Glendhill: Conversation with Akinola
September 21, 2007
Peter Akinola 'blows the fourth trumpet'
I feel like running a caption competition for this picture. We'll send a bottle of champagne to the best suggestion. This is of course the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, in the US. At a press conference this evening, Dr Williams said the Lambeth Conference is 'necessary' and that smaller provinces should not be held hostage by the larger ones. He also said there was no ultimatum, and no demands or deadline being put to TEC at this meeting. The Episcopal Church has posted a video of his earlier sermon. See below for full transcript of interview with Peter Akinola about this and next week's meeting of the US bishops.
There is full coverage of the meeting on all the usual sites, including TEC, TitusOneNine, Standfirm, Anglican Mainstream and Thinking Anglicans. David Virtue is in New Orleans along with my colleagues Stephen Bates, doing his story swansong, and Jonathan Petre. Fantastic coverage also from BabyBlue.
I spoke to Peter Akinola yesterday on his mobile telephone and a brief report appeared in the paper. I thought readers might be interested in a fuller report of his comments here, and have also posted some nice pictures of the Archbishop which have come over the wires at The Times.
I understand that the Common Cause conservative bishops, such as Keith Ackerman of Quincy, are leaving New Orleans today and believe the Communion is finished. Nevertheless, Dr Akinola was remaining upbeat when we spoke, shortly before the meeting began. He made it clear, however, that the Nigerian bishops were most unlikely to be going to Lambeth 2008. Instead, with the other Global South partners, they could even be at a "Fourth Trumpet" GS meeting. In other words, a rival Lambeth. But Dr Akinola was adamant. This was not schism. Yes, Communion was broken. But Nigeria was remaining in the Anglican Church. It was not they who had moved.
Dr Akinola also made clear that he has no plans to consecrate a CANA bishop in England, as the Nigerian chaplain here, under the pastoral care of the Bishop of London, is encountering none of the difficulties faced by the Nigerian Anglicans in the US.
The Nigerian Primate said: 'The current state of the communion as I see it is that we are in a state of broken communion. Some of our colleagues call it impaired communion. Whether impaired or broken, the communion today is not what it was five years ago and the crisis that we have faced these last five years arises from Ecusa's intransigence and obstinate refusal to go in line with the majority of the communion on the question of same-sex unions and the consecration of clergy in same-sex relationships.'
He continued: 'They were warned not to do this, that if they did it, it would tear the fabric of our communion. They ignored us. They rebuffed us. They went ahead and did it. Now province after province has declared a state of brokenness with Ecusa. That brokenness has yet to be mended.'
He said it was true that the Church of England had not broken with TEC. 'That is largely because the Western world uis moving towards the same reality - same-sex unions and the ordination of people in openly gay relationships. Even in the UK itself, the Labour Government has used the force of law to promote same-sex unions, or civil partnerships. The only difference is that in England, such clergy are requested to declare they are going to be celibate. But that is neither here nor there. What is the purpose of coming together in the first place? So England and the Western world in general are moving towards the same direction.'
His thoughts for the future? He recited a Nigerian proverb: 'What the night portends, the moon will indicate it.' He said: 'For the past 10 years, the communion has been speaking loud and clear that what Ecusa is doing is not right. Ecusa has sadly never listened to anyone. If they now choose to listen to Rowan Williams, Allelujah! We will celebrate! But they have never listened to anyone. Even the communique we issued in Dar es Salaam, after much pain, after much labour, they refused to honour. We will see if they will give up their agenda, the new religion they are creating. They can say one thing, but then in the churches they keep on doing the same thing.'
He said he had received an unofficial response to his and his bishops' request that the Archbishop of Canterbury postpone the Lambeth Conference. 'He has not written officially. But all the indications are that Rowan Williams has firmly anchored his hope in the Lambeth Conference. He seems to believe firmly that the Lambeth Conference is the solution.
'We believe very differently. We have told him quite clearly that there is no point in coming together in a climate of fear and distrust when bishops cannot be in communion with each other. We felt we should first have healing and then rejoice together at Lambeth. Apparently, he thinks differently. We have done quite a lot to save the communion. But if it does not want us, we will stay away. We do not believe it is appropriate for us to come together with other bishops when we are in broken communion.'
So will there be a separate church? 'I do not want to sound prophetic here or paint a gloomy picture. I do not think it will break up at this point since we are still walking and talking and praying. It is still hoped that somehow some day the good Lord will save his church from further fragmentation.'
He said the 'revisionists' [his word, not mine!] would all meet at Lambeth. 'There are many people in the UK and from America who are of the same mind as us. They will then be forced to think what to do. We keep on praying that Dr Rowan, who we love very much and keep on praying for every day for God's guidance and God's wisdom, we still believe that somehow he will resume with us and do what we ask him. Should he refuse to the end, we might have to call our meeting.'
What meeting would this be? It would be the successor to the first, second and third 'Trumpets' of the Global South, the last in Egypt in 2005. Dr Akinola said: 'We might just call a meeting to blow the Fourth Trumpet about the future of the Anglican Communion.' Would this be in 2008, in July, by any chance? He could not confirm this. He will be consulting with colleagues.
'Each meeting is very prophetic,' he said. The Global South does not see itself as forming its own, separate communion however. 'We see ourselves as the Anglicans.The Anglican fathers came together in 1998 and set a standard of faith. We have not violated that. Those who broke the standards are the ones who are walking away.'
He ended by saying he was still hopeful and he and all his Global South colleagues are praying for Dr Williams. 'We are still full of hope. Remember we are Christians. If we lose hope, then everything has gone. We are praying that Ecusa will do what has been asked of them. If they do, we will be on the path to reconciliation. If they do not, they will have chosen to walk apart.'
Peter Akinola 'blows the fourth trumpet'
I feel like running a caption competition for this picture. We'll send a bottle of champagne to the best suggestion. This is of course the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, in the US. At a press conference this evening, Dr Williams said the Lambeth Conference is 'necessary' and that smaller provinces should not be held hostage by the larger ones. He also said there was no ultimatum, and no demands or deadline being put to TEC at this meeting. The Episcopal Church has posted a video of his earlier sermon. See below for full transcript of interview with Peter Akinola about this and next week's meeting of the US bishops.
There is full coverage of the meeting on all the usual sites, including TEC, TitusOneNine, Standfirm, Anglican Mainstream and Thinking Anglicans. David Virtue is in New Orleans along with my colleagues Stephen Bates, doing his story swansong, and Jonathan Petre. Fantastic coverage also from BabyBlue.
I spoke to Peter Akinola yesterday on his mobile telephone and a brief report appeared in the paper. I thought readers might be interested in a fuller report of his comments here, and have also posted some nice pictures of the Archbishop which have come over the wires at The Times.
I understand that the Common Cause conservative bishops, such as Keith Ackerman of Quincy, are leaving New Orleans today and believe the Communion is finished. Nevertheless, Dr Akinola was remaining upbeat when we spoke, shortly before the meeting began. He made it clear, however, that the Nigerian bishops were most unlikely to be going to Lambeth 2008. Instead, with the other Global South partners, they could even be at a "Fourth Trumpet" GS meeting. In other words, a rival Lambeth. But Dr Akinola was adamant. This was not schism. Yes, Communion was broken. But Nigeria was remaining in the Anglican Church. It was not they who had moved.
Dr Akinola also made clear that he has no plans to consecrate a CANA bishop in England, as the Nigerian chaplain here, under the pastoral care of the Bishop of London, is encountering none of the difficulties faced by the Nigerian Anglicans in the US.
The Nigerian Primate said: 'The current state of the communion as I see it is that we are in a state of broken communion. Some of our colleagues call it impaired communion. Whether impaired or broken, the communion today is not what it was five years ago and the crisis that we have faced these last five years arises from Ecusa's intransigence and obstinate refusal to go in line with the majority of the communion on the question of same-sex unions and the consecration of clergy in same-sex relationships.'
He continued: 'They were warned not to do this, that if they did it, it would tear the fabric of our communion. They ignored us. They rebuffed us. They went ahead and did it. Now province after province has declared a state of brokenness with Ecusa. That brokenness has yet to be mended.'
He said it was true that the Church of England had not broken with TEC. 'That is largely because the Western world uis moving towards the same reality - same-sex unions and the ordination of people in openly gay relationships. Even in the UK itself, the Labour Government has used the force of law to promote same-sex unions, or civil partnerships. The only difference is that in England, such clergy are requested to declare they are going to be celibate. But that is neither here nor there. What is the purpose of coming together in the first place? So England and the Western world in general are moving towards the same direction.'
His thoughts for the future? He recited a Nigerian proverb: 'What the night portends, the moon will indicate it.' He said: 'For the past 10 years, the communion has been speaking loud and clear that what Ecusa is doing is not right. Ecusa has sadly never listened to anyone. If they now choose to listen to Rowan Williams, Allelujah! We will celebrate! But they have never listened to anyone. Even the communique we issued in Dar es Salaam, after much pain, after much labour, they refused to honour. We will see if they will give up their agenda, the new religion they are creating. They can say one thing, but then in the churches they keep on doing the same thing.'
He said he had received an unofficial response to his and his bishops' request that the Archbishop of Canterbury postpone the Lambeth Conference. 'He has not written officially. But all the indications are that Rowan Williams has firmly anchored his hope in the Lambeth Conference. He seems to believe firmly that the Lambeth Conference is the solution.
'We believe very differently. We have told him quite clearly that there is no point in coming together in a climate of fear and distrust when bishops cannot be in communion with each other. We felt we should first have healing and then rejoice together at Lambeth. Apparently, he thinks differently. We have done quite a lot to save the communion. But if it does not want us, we will stay away. We do not believe it is appropriate for us to come together with other bishops when we are in broken communion.'
So will there be a separate church? 'I do not want to sound prophetic here or paint a gloomy picture. I do not think it will break up at this point since we are still walking and talking and praying. It is still hoped that somehow some day the good Lord will save his church from further fragmentation.'
He said the 'revisionists' [his word, not mine!] would all meet at Lambeth. 'There are many people in the UK and from America who are of the same mind as us. They will then be forced to think what to do. We keep on praying that Dr Rowan, who we love very much and keep on praying for every day for God's guidance and God's wisdom, we still believe that somehow he will resume with us and do what we ask him. Should he refuse to the end, we might have to call our meeting.'
What meeting would this be? It would be the successor to the first, second and third 'Trumpets' of the Global South, the last in Egypt in 2005. Dr Akinola said: 'We might just call a meeting to blow the Fourth Trumpet about the future of the Anglican Communion.' Would this be in 2008, in July, by any chance? He could not confirm this. He will be consulting with colleagues.
'Each meeting is very prophetic,' he said. The Global South does not see itself as forming its own, separate communion however. 'We see ourselves as the Anglicans.The Anglican fathers came together in 1998 and set a standard of faith. We have not violated that. Those who broke the standards are the ones who are walking away.'
He ended by saying he was still hopeful and he and all his Global South colleagues are praying for Dr Williams. 'We are still full of hope. Remember we are Christians. If we lose hope, then everything has gone. We are praying that Ecusa will do what has been asked of them. If they do, we will be on the path to reconciliation. If they do not, they will have chosen to walk apart.'
Another Mind Of The House Draft From Bishop Whalon
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.
[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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
