A series of essays in the Episcopal Church
General
Convention 2006:
Its
Response to the
Requests
of the Windsor Report,
and
Subsequent Reaction
by
14 August
2006
(fd
Jonathan Myrick Daniels)
for
CHHT 625:
The
History and Theology
Of the
Episcopal Church
The Rev.
Dr. Donald S. Armentrout
The School
of Theology
University
of the South
Sewanee,
Tennessee
The main body of the text is a chronology of significant
actions and events leading up to, during and after General Convention. It is
not a strict chronology; some things are grouped by topic for greater
consistency.
To aid in my discussion and to help in understanding the various groups involved, I have given information on some major recent and relevant conservative groups in Appendix C, and some major recent moderate and liberal groups in Appendix D.
At the end, I will give my assessment and conclusions.
Pre-Convention
sentiment about the adequacy of ECUSA’s response to the Windsor Report ran the
gamut of the spectrum of possibilities pro and con. As representative of these
possibilities, I have chosen two divergent opinions expressed significantly by
two members of the Lambeth Commission, which produced the Windsor Report:
Archbishop Robin Eames, Primate of All Ireland, Chairman, and Bishop N. T.
Wright, Bishop of Durham. I have also included the opinion of the former
Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord George Carey.
The
Most Rev. Robin Eames, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, [hence
having a primacy of honor prior even to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury],
was the chair of the Lambeth Commission that produced the Windsor Report.
Archbishop Eames delivered a series of two lectures on the Anglican Communion
at the Virginia Theological Seminary 4-5 October 2005.
In
the course of the second lecture, on 5 October, [3]
Bishop Eames expressed his opinion that “the North American Churches have taken
the Windsor Report, and the subsequent Statement of the Primates at Dromantine,
extremely seriously, and have complied, in so far as it lies within the power
of bodies less than their national synod [General Convention], to meet the
requests made of them.” He stated, “I believe that the request for regret in
the terms of the Windsor Report has been met.” Regarding paragraph 134 of
Windsor, that “the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on
the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate
who is living in a same[-]gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican
Communion emerges,” Bishop Eames states, “My reading of the Covenant of the
Episcopal House of Bishops is that it exceeds what was requested of them by
Windsor.” Regarding paragraph 144: “we call for a moratorium on all such public
Rites [of Blessing for same(-)sex unions],” Bishop Eames stated, “Once again,
both the bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of
Canada have in my opinion met the precise wording of Windsor.”
A
week later, on 12 October, at Berkeley Divinity School at Yale, Archbishop
Eames delivered the Pitt Lecture 2005: “Where now for World Anglicanism?“[4]
In it, Bishop Eames addressed the issue of Nigeria, which he had not mentioned
in the Virginia Seminary addresses, but which I brought up at the questions and
answers session after his lectures. This concerned the Anglican Church of
Nigeria’s change to its Constitution, which omitted all reference to the See of
Canterbury and speaks of communion with “all Anglican Churches, dioceses and
Provinces that hold and maintain the historic Faith, Sacraments and discipline
of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,” and Nigeria’s intention to
establish “Convocations and Chaplaincies” to care for “like-minded faithful”
outside Nigeria.[5] I asked him
if this did not violate the letter and spirit of the Windsor Report? He agreed
that it did.
In
the Pitt Lecture, Bishop Eames referred to Nigeria’s change to its
Constitution, and asserted, “This wording not only removes what the Windsor
Report described as ‘the pivotal’ role of the Archbishop of Canterbury as the
instrument of unity but perhaps of greater significance challenges the concept
of Communion as understood throughout Anglican history. Acceptance of an
individual Province’s view of orthodoxy becomes the basis for relationship.
Further the revision of its Constitution states that in all questions of
interpretation of faith and doctrine the decision of the Church of Nigeria
shall be final.”
Bishop Eames goes on to say, “As a Primate of the Anglican Communion, I find the implications of this revision most serious. Am I alone in interpreting such wording as the removal of established bonds of communion and their replacement by a Provincial-only wide authority, which will set its own criteria for whoever or whatever it considers worthy of a communion relationship? If this is so I find it is in direct conflict with much of the contents of the Windsor Report but more importantly in conflict with what I term ‘the Windsor spirit.’ Further I feel it is in direct contrast to the stand taken by the Primates of our Communion in their Dromantine communiqué.”
Finally,
Bishop Eames says, “I have to add to these concerns the views of Windsor on the
threat to communion of cross-provincial interventions, in cases where parishes
are opposed to their diocesan bishop, without agreement and co-operation. This
equal threat to ‘bonds of affection’ is illustrated by Nigeria’s intention to
establish ‘Convocations and Chaplaincies’ outside Nigeria to cater for
‘like-minded faithful.’ Again this intention cuts across the agreed statement
at Dromantine by the Primates which placed a moratorium on cross-provincial
interventions.”
On
9 May 2006, Lord George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, gave his
reflections on “A Communion in Crisis?” at the Virginia Theological Seminary.
Bishop Carey spoke on the effects of the Consecration in the rest of the
Communion, the theological issues at stake, and what other provinces hope for.
Lord Carey’s hopes for General Convention were summed up as follows:
“I hope it will repent of
[not just express regret for] decisions taken in 2003.
“I hope it will commit
itself to a moratorium on the consecration of practicing homosexuals and
lesbians to the episcopate, although I personally would extend this to all
Orders of ministry.
“I hope it will refrain from
same[-]sex blessing and liturgies.
“I hope it will commit
itself to a Covenant along the lines of the Windsor Report.
“Finally, I hope that ECUSA
will do all [in] its power to bring back into full communion all those bishops,
clergy, and congregations who at present feel alienated from its life and in
danger of separating from the Province.
“What do I most fear? That
the General Convention will deal with the matter half-heartedly and will not
see the seriousness of the hour, with the result that the issues are fudged and
the response is so ambiguous that the situation is made far worse. Because,
make no mistake about it, on that basis the communion will split and our
mission, our integrity and our ministry to the poor of Africa will suffer.
“But let me add this post
script. I have never made any secret throughout my time as Archbishop that
ECUSA’s contribution to the Communion has been truly great. We need your
strength, your wisdom, your talents and your resources. I believe you need us
too.”[6]
The Rt. Rev. N. Thomas (Tom) Wright, Bishop of Durham,
Church of England, was also a member of the Lambeth Commission, which published
The Windsor Report 2004. On 14 June 2006, Bishop Wright published “The Choice
Before ECUSA,”[7] a response
to the proposed resolutions dealing with the Windsor Report that would be
considered by the General Convention 2006 of the Episcopal Church. Basically,
Bishop Wright concludes that ECUSA’s response simply does not do what the
Windsor Report has asked the Episcopal Church to do.
Bishop Wright warns that our attention should not be
detracted from “the central and quite simple question: Will ECUSA comply with
the specific and detailed recommendations of Windsor, or will it not? As the
Resolutions stand, only one answer is possible: if these are passed without
amendment, ECUSA will have specifically, deliberately and knowingly decided not
to comply with Windsor. Only if the crucial Resolutions, especially A160 and
A161, are amended in line with Windsor paragraph 134, can there be any claim of
compliance. Of course, even then, there are questions already raised about
whether a decision of General Convention would be able to bind those parts of
ECUSA that have already stated their determination to press ahead in the
direction already taken….If these resolutions are amended in line with Windsor,
and passed, then the rest of the Communion will be in a position to express its
gratitude and relief that ECUSA has complied with what was asked of it. Should
that happen, I will be the first to stand up and cheer at such a result, and to
speak out against those who are hoping fervently for ECUSA to resist Windsor so
that they can justify their anti-ECUSA stance. But if the resolutions are not
amended, then, with great sadness and with complete uncertainty about what way
ahead might then be found, the rest of the Communion will have to conclude
that, despite every opportunity, ECUSA has declined to comply with Windsor; has
decided, in other words, to ‘walk apart’ (Windsor 157). My hope and earnest
prayer over the coming week will continue to be that that conclusion may be
avoided.”
(Please see Appendix B for Text of most of these
Resolutions)
A159 Commitment to
Interdependence in the Anglican Communion – Concurred
A160 Expression of Regret –
Concurred
A161 Election of Bishops –
Rejected
A162 Public Rites of
Blessing for Same-Sex Unions – Discharged
A163 Pastoral Care and
Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight – Concurred
A165 Commitment to Windsor
and Listening Processes - Concurred
A167 Commitment to
Development of an Anglican Covenant - Concurred
B033 On Election of Bishops
– Concurred
With
the defeat of Resolution A161, the House of Bishops and House of Delegates on
21 June, the last day of convention, passed a last-minute compromise resolution
designed to answer the Windsor Report and keep the Episcopal Church within the
Anglican Communion. Resolution B033 calls for restraint in consecrating bishops
“whose manner of life present a challenge to the wider church.” The Presiding
Bishop appealed to the “diverse center,” the majority of the Episcopal Church,
who “must now act with generosity and imagination so that our actions are a
clearer reflection of the willingness of the majority of us to
relinquish something in order to serve a larger purpose [emphasis mine].”[8]
The Living Church article claims that the Presiding Bishop “scored a
legislative coup” for the Episcopal Church’s “diverse center.” The “victory,
however, was short lived.” “Within hours of its passage key bishops on both the
progressive and traditional wings of the church denounced the resolution, with
liberals stating they were ready to defy its strictures and conservatives
stating that it fell far short of the minimum requirements of the Windsor
Report.”[9]
Presiding
Bishop-elect Katherine Jefferts Schori made an impassioned plea for passage of
B033, saying, she “lamented and grieved” the necessity for the resolution, but
endorsed it only with the understanding that it was “not the final word on
the place of gays and lesbians within the Episcopal Church. [emphasis
mine]” Her urging seemed to turn the tide, and the resolution was, with many
reservations, passed.
On
21 June, Bishop Duncan, Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, and
twenty-three other bishops (mostly but not all members of ACN), issued a
statement declaring the resolution as “clearly and simply inadequate.” They also
express their intention to “disassociate” themselves from those acts of this
Convention that do not fully comply with the Windsor Report, and “repudiate”
the actions that have breached the bonds of affection within the Communion. At
the same time, these bishops “reaffirm our conviction that the Windsor Report
provides the way forward for the entire Anglican Communion, the ecumenical
relationships of the Communion, and the common life of a faithful Episcopal
Church.” We “declare to our brothers and sisters in Christ throughout the
Communion that we continue as The Episcopal Church in this country who uphold and propagate the historic faith
and order we have come to know through the Anglican heritage of apostolic
teaching and biblical faith; who desire to be fully a constituent member of the
Anglican Communion; and who are ready to embrace and live under the Windsor
Report without equivocation [emphases mine].”[10]
At
the Convention, Bishop Gene Robinson said, “I cannot promise to withhold
consent from an entire category of people, sight unseen.”[11]
He later issued a restrained but plaintive statement in which he urged calm and
patience. But, he said, “We’ll be watching. Now that the Anglican Communion and
the majority of Convention have gotten what they asked for, let’s see if
anything changes….Will the Network dioceses and parishes give up their blatant
drive to split the church apart and join us in our efforts to be reconciled, or
will they only cry ‘not enough’ and demand more? We’ll be watching—and we’ll want
the ‘middle’ to give us an accounting of what this Convention vote got them.
And we’ll be asking, ‘Was it worth declaring us less than children of God,
marked as Christ’s own forever? [emphasis mine]’”[12]
Bishop Robinson spoke at St. Thomas Church, Washington, DC, on 15 July 2006. I
asked him if, given the dissent of liberals and conservatives, Resolution B033
had any credibility at this point. He cautiously replied that the committee
appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury would have to decide.
The
Rt. Rev. John Chane, Bishop of the Diocese of Washington, and nineteen other
bishops signed a “Statement of Conscience,” in which they “prayerfully dissent”
from the action of Resolution B033. Their reasons included: the integrity of
the decision-making process as a Church, that the resolution was railroaded
through at the last minute with little time for debate or discussion, that the
resolution was discriminatory, and “our conversation has been framed in
a flawed paradigm, forcing us to chose between two goods—the full
inclusion in the life of the Church of our brother and sister Christians who
happen to be gay or lesbian and our full inclusion in the life of our beloved
Communion [Emphasis mine].”[13]
On 28 June 2006, the Rt. Rev. Katherine Jefferts Schori,
Bishop of the Diocese of Nevada, was elected the 26th Presiding
Bishop of the Episcopal Church, on the fifth ballot cast by the House of
Bishops.[14] This came
thirty years after women were allowed to become priests in the Episcopal
Church. The current Presiding Bishop, Frank Griswold, joyfully remarked, “The
decision today is the fruit of the witness and ministry of women bishops,
priests, and deacons in the life of our church.”
The
Archbishop of Canterbury sent “greetings” but, with typical English reserve,
refrained from congratulating the Presiding Bishop-elect “as she takes a deeply
demanding position at a critical time.” He praised her for her commitment to
mission and the Millennium Development Goals. “Her election will undoubtedly
have an impact on the collegial life of the Anglican Primates, and it also
brings into focus some continuing issues in several of our ecumenical
dialogues.” He concluded by saying, “We are continuing to pray for the General
Convention of the Episcopal Church as it confronts a series of exceptionally
difficult choices.”[15]
In
June 2005, the Anglican Consultative Council requested the ACC Standing
Committee “to identify ways in which [the Millennium Development Goal for equal
representation of women in decision making at all levels] may appropriately be
adapted for incorporation into the structures of the Instruments of Unity, and
other bodies to which the Anglican Consultative Council nominates or appoints.”[16]
In July in York, England, the General Synod of the Church of England voted to
proceed with steps to the ordaining of women to the episcopate. [See below]
Reaction among moderates and liberals was ecstatic.
According to ENS, the Rt. Rev. Trevor
Mwamba, Bishop of Botswana in Central Africa, said that God is a God of
surprises. “This is a great year for women and we honor the role that women are
playing in the world today.” The Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, Archbishop
Andrew Hutchison, said that this is a wonderful day in the life of the Anglican
Communion. “This will change the dynamics among the boys’ club of primates in
the Anglican Communion significantly.” The Primate of Mexico, the Most Rev.
Carlos Touche-Porter, said he is thrilled and eager to welcome her as a fellow
primate in the Anglican Communion. “We need to go back to the Anglican spirit
of respectful diversity as a source of enrichment and not division.”[17]
Reaction among conservatives was predictable. Bishop
Duncan of Pittsburgh assured Katharine Jefferts Schori of his prayers for her
and her family as she “assumes the impossible task now assigned to her.” He
immediately raised the concern for those dioceses, organizations (e.g., FiFNA),
and persons, for whom this presents an untenable situation, and promised “to
give ever more pastoral care and protection to those who have been shut out.”
He asserts, “For the Anglican Communion worldwide, this election reveals the
continuing insensitivity and disregard of the Episcopal Church for the present
dynamics of our global fellowship. This election asserts once again that it is
our autonomy and revolutionary character that is most dear to us.”[18]
Conservatives in England were also quick to react. The
Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, who attended the General
Convention as a guest, declared that worldwide Anglicanism has become
“virtually two religions,” with the “irreconcilable” divisions between liberals
and conservatives so profound that a schism is inevitable.[19]
The Bishop of Rochester urged the Archbishop of Canterbury to “take firm action
against the liberal leadership of the Episcopal Church.”[20]
On 27 June, in the wake of General Convention and
immediate calls for alternative primatial oversight, the Archbishop of
Canterbury, Rowan Williams, outlined the theological framework in which the
current crisis should be addressed: “The Challenge and Hope of Being an
Anglican Today: A Reflection for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the
Anglican Communion.”[21]
True to the Archbishop’s usual form, the document is a masterpiece of
erudition, penetrating insight and compassionate pastoral concern. It is also
dense and defies facile comprehension and quick response, but rather encourages
and demands continued thoughtful and prayerful rereading and reflection.[22]
The Archbishop prefaces his remarks by saying, “These
reflections are in no way intended to pre-empt the necessary process of careful
assessment of the Episcopal Church’s responses to the Windsor Report. Rather
they are intended to focus the question of what kind of Anglican Communion we
wish to be and to explore how this vision might become more of a reality.”
Accordingly, the Archbishop thinks it is now “urgent to
work at what adequate structures for decision-making might look like.”
Furthermore, “the tacit conventions between us need spelling out—not for the
sake of some central mechanism of control but so that we have ways of being
sure we’re still talking the same language, aware of belonging to the one,
holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ,” and “we need ways of
translating this underlying sacramental communion into a more effective
institutional reality.”
And, it seems to him, the best way forward is the idea of
a “covenant” between local Churches. He feels that it is “necessarily an
‘opt-in’ matter. Those Churches that were prepared to take this on as an
expression of their responsibility to each other would limit their local
freedoms for the sake of a wider witness; and some might not be willing to do
this. We could [he does not say we “will”] find ourselves where there were
‘constituent’ Churches in covenant in the Anglican Communion and other
‘churches in association’, which were still bound by historic and perhaps
personal links.” “It could mean the need for local Churches to work at ordered
and mutually respectful separation between ‘constituent’ and ‘associated’
elements; but it could also mean a positive challenge for Churches to work out
what they believed to be involved in belonging in a global sacramental
fellowship, a chance to rediscover a positive common obedience to the mystery
of God’s gift that was not a matter of coercion from above but of that ‘waiting
for each other’ that St. Paul commends to the Corinthians.”
The
Archbishop insists the crucial concern is not so much the issue of sexuality
but about “how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking
together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.” He
believes that the strength of historic Anglicanism has been in maintaining a
balance—along the classical lines of scripture, tradition, and reason—between a
reformed or Protestant concern for the absolute priority of the Bible for
deciding doctrine, a catholic emphasis on the sacraments and tradition, and a
liberal “habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does
not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly.”
The Archbishop concludes, “The only reason for being an Anglican is that this balance seems to you to be healthy for the Church Catholic overall, and that it helps people grow in discernment and holiness. Being an Anglican in the way I have sketched involves certain concessions and unclarities [sic] but provides at least for ways of sharing responsibility and making decisions that will hold and that will be mutually intelligible….The process currently going forward of assessing our situation in the wake of the General Convention is a shared one. But it is nonetheless possible for the Churches of the Communion to decide that this is indeed the identity, the living tradition—and by God’s grace, the gift—we want to share with the rest of the Christian world in the coming generation; more importantly still, that this is a valid and vital way of presenting the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world. My hope is that the period ahead—of detailed response to the work of General Convention, exploration of new structures, and further refinement of the covenant model—will renew our positive appreciation of the possibilities of our heritage so that we can pursue our mission with deeper confidence and harmony.”
The
Primates of the Anglican Communion will meet early next year to consider the
matter, and it will also be dealt with at the next Lambeth Conference in 2008.
Meanwhile, a group appointed by the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican
Consultative Council and the Primates will be assisting the Archbishop in
considering the response of General Convention 2006 to the requests of the
Windsor Report.
Many
would profit from heeding the Archbishop’s words. For he admits that while “the
election of a practicing gay person as a bishop in the US in 2003 was the
trigger for much of the present conflict,” and “the recent resolutions of the
General Convention have not produced a complete response to the challenges of
the Windsor Report,” nevertheless, “on this specific question there is at the
very least an acknowledgement of the gravity of the situation in the extremely
hard work that went into shaping the wording of the final formula.”
Many ACN proponents, before and after the Convention,
have been quick to conclude that the verdict is already in: General Convention
has simply failed to respond to the specific requests of the Windsor Report.
Moderates in Pittsburgh have rightly pointed out “statements made before the
General Convention of The Episcopal Church by Network Moderator, the Rt. Rev.
Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, and other traditionalists set such a rigid
standard that they ensured that The Episcopal Church would fail to satisfy the
traditionalists.”[23]
They have also rightly noted that, in using the Archbishop’s remarks to support
their actions (calling for alternative primatial oversight and separation from
their province), the Bishop and Standing Committee “have interpreted the
Archbishop’s document to suit their own views.”[24]
Reaction to the Archbishop’s remarks from around the
world was fairly predictable. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church,
Frank Griswold, was “greatly encouraged” by the Archbishop’s “timely call to
the provinces of the Anglican Communion to join together in exploring our
Anglican identity.” He further stated, “The conclusion of this lengthy process
is now unknown. Therefore [it is] misleading that some, in responding to the
Archbishop’s lengthy theological reflection, have focused their attention on
speculations about a yet-to-be determined outcome. And, as we enter into that
process of discernment, we must never forget that God can always surprise us,
and that the church is not our possession but is an instrument of God’s
reconciling love in the world.”[25]
The American Anglican Council interpreted the
Archbishop’s remarks as being entirely in sympathy with their own views: “The
revisionist trajectory of the Episcopal Church is clear and
uncompromising…ECUSA has made its decision to walk apart from Anglican faith
and order.” And they hastened to add, “While a covenant process will be years
in the making, nevertheless, we in America have an urgent need for temporary
emergency pastoral protection through cross-provincial oversight.”[26]
Sydney’s Archbishop, Peter Jensen, said the Archbishop
had provided “a great service” to the Anglican Communion by recognizing that “a
separation within the Communion is inevitable,” and that “this is a Bible
matter.” The Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola said that Anglican churches
should either be in or out of the family.” From my understanding of communion,
it’s either we are together in communion fully or we’re not.”
On
the contrary, Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane of Cape Town said, “The constant
talk of schism from various quarters does not address the heart of the matter
which is living with difference and otherness.” Archbishop David Moxon, one of
the co-presiding bishops of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, welcomed the
prospect of developing an Anglican covenant, saying that describing it as an
“ultimatum” to the liberal wing of the church is a misrepresentation of the
Archbishop’s reflections. “Anglicanism has only ever survived because of the
genius of the wording we’ve been able to gather around, with integrity and
hospitality, because the classic Anglican texts, including liturgical texts,
are ‘roomy.’ We can say them, we can pray them, we can believe them—but there
is also room for reasonable variety of Christian points of view.”[27]
and for a Separate, Windsor-Compliant Province
Surprise, surprise, there was an almost immediate rush of
requests for alternative primatial oversight (APO). Equally no surprise, it
came from members of the Anglican Communion Network, who have been scheming and
planning for just this eventuality. Here are the dioceses that have, to date,
requested APO. None of these requests is the legislative action of a diocesan
convention, and in each diocese there are congregations and individuals who
affirm their continuing participation in the Episcopal Church.
Fort Worth:
On 19 June, the Standing
Committee of the Diocese of Fort Worth announced that on 18 June it adopted a
resolution appealing to the Archbishop of Canterbury for immediate alternative
primatial oversight and Pastoral Care “following the election of Katharine
Jefferts Schori as Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.” [Fort Worth, with
Quincy and San Joaquin, is one of three dioceses, which do not ordain women.]
On 24 July, the Standing
Committee passed a resolution withdrawing its consent “to be included in the
Seventh Province of the Episcopal Church,” subject to ratification by the
diocesan convention on 18 November 2006. They cited as their reason: the
actions of General Convention, which “constitute a decision of the Episcopal
Church to walk apart from the Anglican Communion.”[28]
Pittsburgh:
The Bishop and Standing
Committee met 18 June, and announced 19 June that the Diocese of Pittsburgh
“disassociates” itself from those actions of the General convention which
constitute a decision of the Episcopal Church to walk apart from the Anglican Communion
(“by its failure to accept unreservedly the Windsor Report”), requests
“immediate alternative Primatial oversight and pastoral care” and, pending
final ratification by its 141st Annual Convention, withdraws its
consent “to be included in the Third Province of the Episcopal Church,”
“envisioning the drawing together of a new Windsor-compliant Tenth Province in
the Episcopal Church.” As justification for their actions, the Standing
Committee cited the statement made by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
To the Pittsburgh
announcement, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold said in a 28 June statement: “I
find the action by the Standing Committee and Bishop of the Diocese of
Pittsburgh unsurprising and altogether consistent with their implicit
intention of walking apart from the Episcopal Church [emphasis mine].”[29]
San Joaquin:
The Bishop and Standing
Committee met 24 June, and announced 28 June, that they “ask that oversight and
pastoral care be provided by the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
South Carolina:
On 28 June, the Standing
Committee announced their request to the Archbishop and Primates of the
Anglican Communion, for alternative primatial oversight. Their reasons were:
“on the basis of Holy Scripture, the Church cannot bless same[-]sex unions, nor
can we ordain those engaged in homosexual practice,” “the election of a new
Presiding Bishop who supported his consecration, and who has advocated and
permitted same-sex blessings in her diocese,” and the fact that General
Convention has “not produced a complete response to the challenges of the
Windsor Report.”
Central Florida:
On June 29, The Bishop,
Standing Committee, and Diocesan Board met and drew up a letter requesting
immediate primatial oversight. Their reasons were: the unwillingness of General
Convention “fully to embrace the requests” of the Windsor Report, ”most notably
its failure to agree to a moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions,” the
election of a presiding bishop “who consented to the consecration of Gene
Robinson in 2003, who supported the blessing of same[-]sex unions in the
Diocese of Nevada, and who, in her first sermon following the election, spoke
of ‘Jesus, our mother’ [emphasis mine].”[30]
On 17 July, the Bishop and the Standing Committee sent a formal letter to the
Archbishop of Canterbury requesting “alternative primatial oversight.”[31]
Springfield:
In a resolution approved 26
June, and announced 30 June, the Standing Committee requested the Bishop to
“intentionally and deliberately explore avenues for alternative primatial
oversight.” Reasons given were: General Convention’s failure to “meaningfully
or adequately [address] the clear expectations set forth in the Windsor
Report,” its refusal “to repent or disavow the actions of the 74th
General Convention,” its election of a presiding bishop “who not only supports
the actions of the 74th General Convention,” but “has acted to
approve the blessing of sexual relationships outside the bonds of Holy
Matrimony,” a person who “by clear statements” has “shown herself to be outside
the bounds of Christian orthodoxy and the clear parameters of the Christian
Faith, as understood from an Anglican perspective.” [In a subsequent interview,
Bishop Beckwith elaborated that Bishop Jefferts Schori used the phrase
“mother Jesus” [emphasis mine] in a sermon, which infuriated “orthodox”
Episcopalians such as himself.][32]
Dioceses Watching and Waiting:
(in the order in which they acted)
Quincy:
The Bishop and Standing
Committee of the Diocese of Quincy announced, while noting “with sorrow,” the
actions of General Convention, which have “failed to respond to the various
Windsor Resolutions as requested by the Primates,” and “elected a Presiding
Bishop who is on record as not supporting the spirit and the words of those
Resolutions,” but mindful that “unilateral actions taken by dioceses and
Provinces are inappropriate in the eyes of the Primates of the Anglican
Communion when not done in concert,” “we are taking the following actions:”
“continue to communicate with other member of the American Province who share
our concerns,” “to work together through the Anglican Communion Network to
address the serious divisions which have been further aggravated by this
General Convention,” and, “in anticipation of the responses of the Archbishop
of Canterbury, the Network, and others, the Standing Committee is reserving
Saturday, September 16th as a date to convene a special diocesan
synod.”
Texas:
The Bishop of the Diocese of
Texas, on 28 June, issued a letter in response to General Convention. In it, he
affirmed his intention to remain in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican
Communion, and he believes “there is a path forward.” However, perhaps heedful
of the Archbishop’s statement, he thinks, “actions trying to foretell what the
Archbishop and Communion will do seem premature.”[33]
Dallas:
On 3 July, the Standing
Committee of the Diocese of Dallas called upon the Bishop: to “disassociate the
work of this diocese from [the] action and leadership [of General Convention
06],” “to appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury for a direct primatial
relationship with him,” and to pursue “an appropriate realignment or, if it
becomes necessary, an ‘ordered and mutually respectful separation.’”[34]
Two days later, the Bishop of Dallas replied: “I will discuss a direct
relationship with the Archbishop.” Regarding realignment, he noted, “any
discussion with respect to this matter must be made by the Diocesan Convention
[20-21 October].” “What I propose to do, as a matter of first importance, is to
meet with the clergy and leadership of every one of our congregations…to hear
from them their concerns and desires. I will appoint a small panel…to assist me
in hearing and understanding their concerns, and issue a report on this
understanding.” [Would that that were being done in all the ACN dioceses.] Above all, “no decision is being made now.
[his emphasis] I hope all of us will hold together and engage one another
between now and the Diocesan Convention….We must be [prayerfully] open to the
future God has in store for us, and work together by faith.”[35]
Tennessee:
The Bishop of Tennessee and
the Standing Committee considered suggestions that the diocese seek alternative
primatial oversight, but decided that such a move would not be prudent, in
light of its failed attempt to elect the Bishop’s successor. The Bishop has
disassociated himself from the actions of General Convention in response to the
Windsor Report. He also has gone on record as objecting to the Presiding
Bishop-elect’s consent to the election of Gene Robinson and to allow same-sex
blessings in the Diocese of Nevada.[36]
Albany:
The Standing Committee
issued a statement that time is needed to reflect on all that happened at
General Convention. They did, however, conclude that General Convention “has
willfully failed to meet both the spirit and letter of the Windsor Report” and
to show proper regard for “the bonds of affection” within the Anglican
Communion. The committee affirmed that it stands “in solidarity and deepest
sympathy with our sister Dioceses” who have requested alternative primatial
oversight.[37]
Requesting Alternative Primatial Oversight
and Withdrawal from ECUSA Provinces
There was immediate protest to these resolutions from
within the dioceses requesting alternative primatial oversight. In most cases,
the local Via Media groups spearheaded these.
In the Diocese of Pittsburgh, on 2 July, the Via Media
group, Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP), protested the actions of
the Standing Committee as “divisive, yet without substance.” The request for
alternative primatial oversight “represents a premature judgment of our
Presiding Bishop-elect.” It has brought “distress” to those committed to the
Episcopal Church, and “division and anxiety” to the many parishes that are
divided over the issue. “The alleged withdrawal of the diocese from Province
III is even more disingenuous.” PEP asserts, “The creation of provinces and the
assignment of dioceses to provinces can only be done by canon of the General
Convention.” The President of PEP claims “at least thirteen parishes in this
diocese have declined to be part of the Network and declared a commitment to
The Episcopal Church.”[38]
On 11 July, a press conference was held at Calvary
Episcopal Church, Pittsburgh. Nine parishes challenged and opposed the recent
actions of the Bishop and Standing Committee and declared their loyalty to the
Episcopal Church. “The parishes believe that these steps, if left unchallenged
could effectively remove the Diocese from The Episcopal Church.” The parishes
also believe that all of these actions constitute an effort to retain use of
property, which is properly within the jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church,
while withdrawing from it. They invited others who wish to remain loyal to the
Episcopal Church to take a stand with them.[39]
On the same day, the Bishop of Pittsburgh denied the allegations and pledged
his commitment to continue working “with the minority here in every way we
can.”[40]
On 11 July, PEP posted two detailed documents, presumably
to inform their own and other dioceses what’s going on and how legally to
oppose it: “An appraisal of the Diocese of Pittsburgh’s ‘Withdrawal’ of Consent
to Inclusion in Province III,” by Lionel E. Deimel; and “Setting the Record
Straight,” to counter misinformation circulating.[41]
In the Diocese of Central Florida, Episcopal Voices, a
Via Media group, announced a meeting on 29 July “to discuss the standing
committee’s action and to plan a course for the future.” Although they are of
“differing opinions about sexuality issues,” the group is ”dedicated to
remaining in full support and union with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican
Communion.” The group’s moderator said, “We are extremely unhappy about the
diocese’s hasty decision which indicates an impending break with the Episcopal
Church. A handful of people and the bishop have made a knee-jerk decision
without thoughtfully consulting the membership of this diocese and seeking a
wide consensus. Many people oppose breaking with the Episcopal Church, but our
voices have not been considered in this action. Further, this action preempts
the hope for reconciliation and healing as expressed by the Archbishop of
Canterbury’s recent statement as well as the Windsor Report.”[42]
The Springfield Via Media, though still listed on the Via
Media USA website, seems effectively to have been shut down. But the voices of
those who oppose the Bishop’s actions and opinion that The Episcopal Church is
in “meltdown” have not been entirely silenced. Rectors of two premier parishes
in the diocese recently spoke out. The Rev. Christopher Coats, Rector of St.
George’s Bellville, said that while he didn’t agree with Bishop Beckwith, “as
long as he remains in the Episcopal Church, he’s my bishop and I have to abide
by his decisions.” The Rev. Dr. Virginia Bennett, Rector of St. Andrew’s
Edwardsville, said that if the diocese eventually left the American church in
favor of more conservative Anglican leadership, “we would say that we are part
of the Episcopal Church and our diocese left us, and we would hope we could go knocking
on the door—for instance of the [nearby] Missouri diocese—and ask them to take
us in.”[43]
On 28 June, the Anglican Church of Nigeria announced that
its Episcopal Synod had elected four priests as bishops, including the Rev.
Canon Martyn Minns of Truro Church, Fairfax, VA. Minns was elected to serve the
church’s Convocation of Anglican Churches in North America (CANA).[44]
The Bishop of Virginia, Peter Lee, wrote to his diocese
that this is “an affront to the traditional, orthodox understanding of Anglican
Provincial Autonomy.”[45]
It is, furthermore, blatant disregard for the requests of the Windsor Report,
which the ACN are so want to uphold.
Newark Announces Openly-Gay Candidate for Bishop
On 28 June, the Episcopal Diocese of Newark announced
that it had nominated the Very Rev. Canon Michael Barlowe, as one of the
candidates for bishop of the diocese. Canon Barlowe indicates in his personal
profile that, “Paul Burrows has been my partner for 24 years.”
The American Anglican Council was quick to condemn Canon
Barlowe’s manner of life as “contradictory to Scripture and the mind of the
Anglican Communion (Lambeth [98] 1.10) and illustrates a theology outside the
confines of classic Anglicanism.”[46]
It is also contrary to Resolution B033 just passed at General Convention, and
was surely designed to defy the resolution.
At Church of England’s Synod
On 8 July, women bishops were approved in principle at
the Church of England’s Synod, meeting at York University, England 7-11 July
2006. The motion reads: “That this Synod welcome and affirm the view of the
majority of the House of Bishops that admitting women to the episcopate in the
Church of England is consonant with the faith of the Church as the Church of
England has received it and would be a proper development in proclaiming afresh
in this generation the grace and truth of Christ.”[47]
The Archbishop of Canterbury emphasized, “the theological discussion is not
over. This vote moves us further towards the question of how and when this
should be recognized.”[48]
While this action may not have been influenced by General
Convention’s recent election of a woman Presiding Bishop, it certainly was not
hurt by it. It will present one more sticking point for those provinces and
dioceses in the Anglican Communion who are not in favor of the ordination of
women.
On 15 July, a conference on “The Future of the Anglican
Communion following the 75th General Convention” was scheduled at
All Saints’ Church, Chevy Chase, MD. More that 300 people had registered to
come. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, curate at the parish,
was to have been the keynote speaker, along with the Bishop of Pittsburgh,
Robert Duncan. Those plans fell apart when Archbishop Carey withdrew his plans
to attend, saying, “I understand from Lambeth Palace that talks between the
Archbishop of Canterbury and [Episcopal Church] leaders are ongoing and
delicate. It is for these reasons, and in order to support the office and
ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury, that I have made my decision.”[49]
On 19 July, the Bishop of Arkansas, Larry Maze, gave his
diocesan clergy permission to honor the request of same-sex couples to have
their relationships blessed, saying, “It is my belief that seeking ways of
recognizing and blessing faithful, monogamous same-sex relationships falls
within the parameters of providing pastoral concern and care for our gay and
lesbian members.” The recently concluded General Convention, surprisingly, took
no action on same-sex relationships.[50]
On 26 July, four California Bishops, concerned that the
Bishop of San Joaquin intends to “abandon the communion of this Church,” asked
a disciplinary panel to approve an expedited deposition of Bishop John-David
Schofield. These charges might lead to a presentment—an ecclesiastical trial.
Reason: At its annual meeting last October, delegates to San Joaquin’s
convention approved the second reading of a change to its constitution to state
that it “accedes to” the Canons and Constitution of the General Convention “to
the extent that such terms and provisions” are “not inconsistent with the terms
and provisions of the constitution and Canons of the Diocese of San Joaquin.”[51]
In a 28 July letter, the Bishop of Texas, the Rt. Rev.
Don A. Wimberly invited all members of the House of Bishops “who are willing to
stand firmly with the recommendations of the Windsor Report” to a
“consultation” (not a “conference”) to be held 19-22 September at Camp Allen,
Texas. Two bishops from the Church of England will be present: the bishops of
Durham and Winchester.
As
a starting point for the discussion, these bishops must accept: Lambeth 98
Resolution 1.10 as the teaching of the Anglican Communion on sexuality, the
Windsor Report “as marking the way ahead for the Communion,” the Dromantine
Communiqué, and “agreement that the response of ECUSA’s General Convention to
the Windsor Report does not go far enough, and the intent to find a way to be
related to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates of the Communion in a
way that is not impaired.”
The
letter lists these five points for discussion: “Solidifying Communion links to
Canterbury and the Meeting of Primates, Development of a leadership council for
links with Canterbury and the Meeting of Primates, Commitment to common action,
Thresholds for an Anglican Covenant, [and] Care of clergy and parishes not
represented by ‘Windsor Bishops.’”[52]
From 31 July to 2 August, the Anglican Communion Network
held a Council in Pittsburgh. In his opening remarks, the ACN moderator, Bishop
Duncan, declared, “The verdict from virtually every quarter, from global
Christian observers to the secular press, [is] that the General Convention of
the Episcopal Church has ‘walked apart,’” “innovating ECUSA has failed
miserably.” He proclaimed the ACN as “enduring ECUSA,” the “biblical,
missionary, and united Anglicanism in North America.” Bishop Duncan says that
we have begun to see “what appears to be the unraveling of The Episcopal Church,
with dioceses asking the Archbishop of Canterbury for oversight, and the
Archbishop himself presenting a possible plan for realignment.” After the
Bishops and Standing Committees lodged their requests for alternative primatial
oversight, the bishops of the seven dioceses submitted together an appeal to
Lambeth Palace, which unified and developed the original requests.
Bishop Duncan goes on to add, “Needless to say, we are
hopeful about the Appeal, if not necessarily optimistic….If Canterbury can find
a way to recognize the spiritual legitimacy of the claim of the Network
Dioceses…to be that part of ECUSA that has ‘not walked apart’ from the
Communion…then Canterbury sustains and renews his claim to be ‘gatherer’ and
‘moral voice’ of the Communion….If he fails, any hope for a Communion-unifying
solution slips away, and so does the shape and leadership of the Anglican
Communion as we have know them.”[53]
On 2 August, the Very Rev. Jeffrey John, Dean of St. Albans,
England, entered into a civil partnership with the Rev. Grant Holmes, his
partner of several decades. This does not relate directly to General Convention
2006, but demonstrates that the United States is not the only country that
disregards the sentiment of the worldwide Anglican Communion.[54]
The Archbishop of Canterbury had earlier permitted clergy in the Church of
England to enter civil partnerships, provided they remain celibate. The
Archbishop of Nigeria claimed that this is hypocrisy and unacceptable.
If by “complying with the requests of the Windsor
Report,” we mean literally, point-by-point, then, it must be conceded that
General Convention 2006 did not fully comply with the Windsor Report. Comparing
the requests with the final resolutions passed reveal this. There were bold
attempts to word the resolutions exactly as specified by the Windsor Report,
but they did not succeed. That would have been the simplest and most
unequivocal way to handle the requests.
On the other hand, clearly General Convention took the
Windsor Report requests seriously and attempted to address them. Resolution
A159 reaffirmed the commitment of The Episcopal Church “to remain in the
Communion.” Resolution A160 expressed its “regret for straining the bonds of
affection” and offered “its sincerest apology.” That was not sufficient to
satisfy those conservatives who demanded “repentance,” a demand they knew the
Episcopal Church was not willing to meet. But the Windsor Report itself did not
request that.
Resolution
A161 failed, but was replaced by Resolution B033. The Windsor Report requested
“a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate
to the episcopate who is living in a same[-]gender union until some new
consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.” Resolution B033 merely called
upon standing committees and bishops with jurisdiction “to exercise restraint
by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose
manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church.” Clearly, calling for
“restraint” falls far short of “a moratorium,” and in fact does not prohibit
any such action. Furthermore, there is no compliance with the specification
“until some new consensus emerges.” Obviously, General Convention failed to
adequately address this request. But, as the Archbishop of Canterbury concedes,
the Episcopal Church grappled seriously with this request, and that must be
factored into any fair and reasonable assessment.
Resolution
A162 failed, and therefore there was no resolution passed at General Convention
on the blessing of same-sex unions. In fairness to conservatives, General
Convention not only did not address the Windsor Report’s request that bishops
who authorized such rites “withdraw themselves from representative functions in
the Anglican Communion,” it elected as Presiding Bishop one who had authorized
such rites and who would now serve as our highest representative—Primate—in the
Anglican Communion. That is a breach of the Windsor Report requests that has
offended many conservatives at home and abroad.
Finally,
Resolution A163 dealt with effective and appropriate pastoral care for all
members of this church. It sanctioned Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight
(DEPO) (as recommended by the Windsor Report) and urged continued maintenance
of historic diocesan boundaries. Resolution A165 committed the church to the
ongoing Windsor and Listening Process. Resolution A166 supported the
development of an Anglican Covenant. Curiously, there was no resolution that
addressed intervention by bishops in provinces, dioceses and parishes other
than their own, as called for by the Windsor Report. That was, to me, a major
shortcoming.
Overall,
with respect to the response of General Convention to the Windsor Report requests,
we must admit there were some serious failures and, some things were what the
former Archbishop of Canterbury (in his address at Virginia Seminary discussed
at the beginning of this paper) called “fudged.”
Nevertheless,
Presiding Bishop Griswold’s assessment is worth keeping in mind: “General
convention’s response to the Windsor Report and the Windsor process was costly
and generous. It was an unequivocal declaration of our desire and willingness
to be faithful partners with other provinces in the lengthy process of
developing a covenant articulating our mutual responsibility and
interdependence in the Anglican Communion.
“For
some we went too far and for others not far enough. For a strong majority of
what I call the ‘diverse center’ our response expressed a strong desire to
engage the work of reconciliation as part of a global communion in which
strongly held opinions on variations in human sexuality have threatened to
displace the creeds and the sacraments in articulating the faith we share. I
believe our responses have been made in the spirit of the Windsor Report, which
is an invitation to enter a process of healing relationships leading to a
renewed sense of common commitment in service to Christ’s mission to our broken
and divided world.”
Ultimately,
the committee appointed by the Presiding Bishop will judge the adequacy of
General Convention’s response. But that has not stopped conservatives from
pronouncing the “meltdown”[55]
of the Episcopal Church, and beginning a rush for alternative primatial oversight
and the formation of a separate, “orthodox” province, which sounds very much
like “parallel jurisdiction” (opposed by the Windsor Report ¶ 154) and the
separatist and purist heresy of Donatism dealt with long ago.
Personally,
I think that if the Episcopal Church is expelled from the Anglican Communion
for failure to comply with the Windsor Report, then those provinces that have
intervened and continued to intervene in the United States (which also violates
the requests of the Windsor Report) should likewise be expelled from the
Communion. And with them, I think the Anglican Communion Network and its
affiliates, which have worked so hard not to foster reconciliation and unity in
the church but to bring about dissent and separation.
Finally, we hear a lot these days about demands for
adequate pastoral oversight for the conservative congregations in liberal
dioceses. I would like to be assured that adequate pastoral oversight will be
given moderate and liberal congregations in conservative dioceses. If there is going to be a
split, I think it should be a fair and equitable division.
To help determine if ECUSA
has complied with the Windsor Report requests, here is the exact wording of the
requests:[56]
¶ 134. “Mindful of the hurt
and offence that have resulted from recent events,[57]
and yet also of the imperatives of communion—the repentance, forgiveness and
reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ—we have debated long and hard how all
sides may be brought together. We recommend that:
The Episcopal Church
addressed these requests in “A Covenant Statement” adopted nearly unanimously
at a meeting of the House of Bishops at Camp Allen, Texas, 15 March 2005:[58]
“2. We express our own deep
regret for the pain that others have experienced with respect to our actions at
the General convention of 2003, and we offer our sincerest apology and
repentance for having breached our bonds of affection by any failure to consult
adequately with our Anglican partners before taking those actions.
“3. The Windsor Report has
invited the Episcopal Church ‘to effect a moratorium on the election and
consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in
a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges’
(Windsor Report, para. 134)….Those of us having jurisdiction pledge to withhold
consent to the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate after the
date hereof until the General Convention of 2006, and we encourage the dioceses
of our church to delay Episcopal elections accordingly….”
¶ 135. “Finally,…we
particularly request a contribution from the Episcopal Church (USA) which
explains, from within the sources of authority that we as Anglicans have
received in scripture, the apostolic tradition and reasoned reflection, how a
person living in a same[-]gender union may be considered eligible to lead the
flock of Christ….”
Accordingly, To Set Our
Hope on Christ: A Response to the Invitation of Windsor Report ¶ 135 (The
Office of Communication, the Episcopal Church Center, New York, 2005) was
submitted 21 June 2005. Of course, fundamentalists do not accept this as an
adequate response.
“On public Rites of Blessing of same[-]sex unions”
(page 54ff)
Ҧ 144. Because of the
serious repercussions in the Communion, we call for a moratorium on all [Rites
of Blessing of same-sex unions], and recommend that bishops who have authorized
such rites in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that
the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such
authorization. Pending such expression of regret, we recommend that such
bishops be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw
themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion.”
“The March 2005 Covenant
Statement from the House of Bishops states:
“4. In response to the invitation
in the Windsor Report that we effect a moratorium on public rites of blessing
for same[-]sex unions, it is important that we clarify that the Episcopal
Church has not authorized any such liturgies, nor has General Convention
requested the development of such rites. The Primates, in their communiqué
‘assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by
him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship’
(Primates’ Communiqué, para. 6). Some in our church hold such ‘pastoral care’
to include the blessing of same[-]sex relationships. Others hold that it does
not. Nevertheless, we pledge not to authorize any public rites for the blessing
of same[-]sex unions, and we will not bless any such unions, at least until the
General Convention of 2006.”[59]
“On care of dissenting groups” (page 58ff)
“¶ 154. …We do not therefore
favour the establishment of parallel jurisdictions.
Ҧ 155. We call upon those
bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces,
diocese and parishes other than their own:
In the March 2005 Covenant Statement
from the House of Bishops, the bishops voted:
“5. We pledge ourselves not
to cross diocesan boundaries to provide Episcopal ministry in violation of our
own canons and we will hold ourselves accordingly accountable. We will also
hold bishops and clergy canonically resident in other provinces likewise
accountable. We request that our Anglican partners “effect a moratorium on any
further interventions” (Windsor Report, para. 155; see also 1988 Lambeth
conference Resolution 72 and 1998 Lambeth conference Resolution III.2) and work
with us to find more creative solutions, such as the initiation of companion
diocese relationships, to help us meet the legitimate needs of our own people
and still maintain our integrity.”[60]
The
Resolutions Proposed to General Convention 2006
(original
& final versions)[61]
[1] One of the actions of General Convention was to change the name of the church from “ECUSA” (or was it The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society?) to “The Episcopal Church.” I haven’t found the resolution. In any event, I don’t think they intended that we should always capitalize the “t,” as some folks are now beginning to do. That would seem a bit arrogant to me.
[2] The Lambeth Commission on Communion: The Windsor Report 2004 (The Anglican Communion Office, 2004). The Windsor Report [it is not usually italicized] is an attempt by the Anglican Communion to respond to the 2003 General Convention of the Episcopal Church, which consented to the election of an openly gay bishop. It makes specific requests of the Episcopal Church (USA) in hopes of preserving the unity of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
[3] Most Rev. Dr. Robin Eames, “The Anglican Communion: What Communion?,” Virginia Theological Seminary, 5 October 2005, ENS.
[4] Most Rev. Dr. Robin Eames, “Where now for World Anglicanism?,” Pitt Lecture 2005, Berekley Divinity School at Yale, 12 October 2005, www.yale.edu/divinity/video/convo2005/Pitt_Lecture_10_12)05.pdf.
[5] Announced 19 September 2005. Some would argue that this is tantamount to withdrawal from the Anglican Communion, since the one thing that defines the Anglican Communion is being in communion with the See of Canterbury. “Nigerian Church New Constitution Redefines Relationship with Canterbury,” Christian Today, 3 August 2005, www.chritiantoday.com/news/africa/nigerian.chruch.new.constitution.redefines.relationship.with.Canterbury.
[6] George Carey, “A communion in Crisis? A Reflection offered by Lord Carey,” Virginia Theological Seminary, 9 May 2006. http://glcarey.co.uk/Speeches/2006/Communion%20in%20crisis.html.
[7] Dr. N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, “The Choice Before ECUSA,” 14 June 2006, www.acn-us.org/archive/2006/06/nt-wright-communion-is-bound-to-conclude-ecusa-has-specifically-chosen-not-to-comply-with-windsor.html.
[8] “From Columbus: Text of Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold’s June 21 message to a Join Session of the 75th General Convention’s House of Bishops and the House of Deputies,” ENS.
[9] George Conger, “Resolution B033: An Extraordinary Compromise,” The Living Church, 23 June 2006, www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/printarticle.asp?ID=2207.
[10] “General Convention Actions Inadequate (Bishops’ Statement),” ACN, 21 June 2006, www.acn-us.org/archive/2006/06/general-convention-actions-inadequate-bishops-statement.t=html.
[11] Douglas LeBlanc, “General Convention pulls back from the brink at the last minute,” Church Times, 28 July 2006. www.churchtimes.co.uk/.
[12] “Open Letter from Gene Robinson after General Convention 06,” 24 June 2006, http://voicesofcolumbus.wordpress.com/200606/24/open-letter-from-gene-robinson-after-general-convention.
[13] “A Statement of Conscience,” Episcopal Diocese of Washington, 21 June 2006, www.edow.org/news/window/special/generalconvention/2006/0621conscience.html.
[14] While the election of a new Presiding Bishop came on Sunday, 18 June, that is before passage of Resolution B033, I have chosen, for greater cohesiveness, to discuss all the resolutions together, and discuss the election of the Presiding Bishop here.
[15] Maria Mackay, “Archbishop Falls Short of Congratulating New Female Episcopal Church Head,” Christian Today, 22 June 2006.
[16] Matthew Davies, “From Columbus: Anglican leaders reflect favorably on Jefferts Schori election,” ENS.
[17] Ibid.
[18] The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, “Statement at the Election of the Bishop of Nevada to be the 26th Presiding Bishop,” www.can-us/archive/2006/06.
[19] “Anglicans must split, says bishop,” BBC News, http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/.
[20] Ruth Gledhill, “Bishop breaks stained glass ceiling,” London Times, 19 June 2006.
[22] My experience is quite limited, but it seems to me that we seldom encounter deeply spiritual persons. Of the people I have encountered in the world today, I would put Rowan Williams, Frank Griswold and Desmond Tutu in that category. The biggest common factor I find in these people is that they exude calm, peace and love—compassion. They are the ones who make Anglicanism attractive to me. Unfortunately, I find many of the persons in the forefront of the crisis in the church today, instead, exude impatience, hatred and intolerance.
[23] “Pittsburgh Action Called Divisive,” Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, 2 July 2006.
[24] “Nine parishes challenge recent actions of the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pittsburgh; declare their loyalty to the Episcopal Church,” press conference 11 July 2006 at Calvary Episcopal Church, Pittsburgh.
[25] “Presiding Bishop responds to Archbishop of Canterbury’s reflections,” ENS, 28 June 2006.
[26] “The American Anglican Council’s Comments on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Statement on ‘Challenge and Hope’ for the Anglican Communion,” AAC Press Release, 27 June 2006, file://C:\DOCUME~1/Temp/UUS6DENE.htm.
[27] Matthew Davies, “Anglican leaders respond to Williams’ reflections on Communion,” ENS, 29 June 2006.
[28] “Fort Worth: Standing Committee wants to leave Province VII,” ENS, 27 July 2006.
[29] Mary Frances Schjonberg, “‘Alternative primatial oversight’ requested by three standing committees,” ENS, 28 June 2006. www.episcopalchurch.org.
[30] Never mind that in the medieval period many, including Julian of Norwich, spoke of Jesus, our Mother, and this idea was expressed in the widespread symbol of a pelican feeding it brood with blood from its breast. Or, that Jesus says, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not” (Mt 23:37; Lk 13:34). How freely we pick and choose which traditions and which scriptures to heed and which to ignore, which children to gather and which to exclude.
[31] “Central Florida: Diocese makes official request for ‘alternative primatial oversight,’” ENS, 27 July 2006.
[32] Tim Townsend, “Episcopal church faces crisis as 7 bishops rebel,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 July 2006, www.stltoday.com.
[33] The Rt. Rev. Don A. Wimberly, “Response to General Convention,” 28 June 2006, www.epicenter.org/edot/GC_BishopStatement.asp?SnID=2105293285.
[34] “A Response to General Convention 2006 From the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Dallas,” 3 July 2006, diocesan website, www.episcopal-dallas.org/
[35] The Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton, “A Pastoral Letter,” 5 July 2006, diocesan website, www.episcopal-dallas.org/.
[36] “Tennessee: Pastoral letter makes no mention of ‘alternative primatial oversight,’” ENS, 27 July 2006.
[37] “Albany: Standing Committee calls on diocese to ‘step back,’ ENS, 3 August 2006.
[38] “Pittsburgh Action Called Divisive,” News Release from Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, 2 July 2006.
[39] News release from 11 July 2006 press conference held at Calvary Episcopal Church: “Nine parishes challenge recent actions of the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pittsburgh; declare their loyalty to the Episcopal Church.”
[40] “Diocese Responds to Calvary Press Conference,” Pittsburgh Diocesan website, www.pgh.anglican.org/news/local/calvarypressconference071106
[41] Both are available on the PEP website: http://progressiveepiscopalians.org.
[42] “Central Florida ‘mainstream’ group opposes standing committee action,” ENS, 6 July 2006, www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_76508_ENG_Print.html.
[43] Tim Townsend, “Episcopal Church faces crisis as 7 bishops rebel,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 July 2006, www.stltoday.com/.; Chris Wetterich, “Episcopal bishop seeks new direction,” The State Journal-Register, Springfield, IL, www.sj-r.com/sections/news/printfile/90810.asp.
[44] Mary Frances Schjonberg, “Virginia priest elected by Church of Nigeria to serve in North America,” ENS, 28 June 2006.
[45] “Virginia bishop calls Nigerian election an ‘affront’,” ENS, 30 June 2006.
[46] “An American Anglican Council Statement Regarding the Nomination of a Non-Celibate Homosexual in the Diocese of Newark, AAC Press Release, 29 June 2006, www.americananglican.org.
[47] “Women bishops approved in principle at Church of England’s Synod,” ENS, 8 July 2006.
[48] Matthew Davies, “Church of England begins long process toward ordaining women bishops,” ENS, 19 July 2006.
[49] Douglas LeBlanc, “Archbishop Carey Cancels Plans for Conference: He Cites ‘Delicate Talks,’” The Living Church, 8 August 2006.
[50] “Arkansas: Bishop allows same-gender blessings as pastoral response,” ENS, 27 July 2006.
[51] “News from San Joaquin,” FiF North America, 26 July 2006. www.forwardinfaith.com/artman/publish/printer_328.shtml.
[52] “Bishop of Texas to Host Meeting of Windsor-Affirming Bishops,” The Living Church, 3 August 2006.
[53] “Network Council: Moderator’s Address,” www.can-us.org/archive/2006/07/network-council-moderators-address.html. The tone of Bishop Duncan’s remarks do not sound like a very respectful way to address the Archbishop of Canterbury. Is this a hint at a future claim for someone else, say Archbishop Akinola, to be the rightful leader of the “orthodox” Anglican Communion?
[54] Stephen Bates, “A very civil partnership,” Guardian, 2 August 2006. http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/stephen_bates/2006/08/a_discreet_little_service.html.
[55] Peter Beckwith, Bishop of Springfield, in an article by Tim Townsend, “Episcopal church faces crisis as 7 bishops rebel,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 July 2006. www.stltoday.com.
[56] The Lambeth Commission on Communion: The Windsor Report 2004 (The Anglican Communion Office, 2004).
[57] The Windsor Report expresses very little mindfulness of the hurt and offense to homosexuals, and does not address the issue of homophobia at all.
[58] “A Covenant Statement of the House of Bishops,” House of Bishops’ Spring Meeting, Camp Allen, Texas, 15 March 2005, ENS, www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_60016_ENG_Print.html.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Ibid.
[62] “The Realignment Movement is All About Schism,” www.fwviamedia.org/chapman.html.
[63] The Rt. Rev. Don E. Johnson, Bishop of West Tennessee, 15 January 2004 letter, www.episwtn.org.
[64] Teresa Mathes, “Don’t Call Them Conservatives,” http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/.
[65] “Equipping the Saints: A Crisis Resource for Anglican Laity,” An Education Resource Produced by the American Anglican Council, 2nd Edition, 2004.
[67] “Episcopalians United,” “Anglicans United,” An Episcopal dictionary of the Church, ed. Don S. Armentrout & Robert B. Slocum (Church Publishing, 1999) 187, 20.
[69] “Network to Consider Common Cause Theological Statement, Covenant,” http://www.acn-us.org/archive/2006/07/
[70] The Reformed Episcopal Church began in 1873, so it is hardly recent, and reflects the tension between high church/low church in the Episcopal Church rather than sexuality. For more information, please see: “Reformed Episcopal Church,” An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, ed. Don S. Armentrout & Robert B. Slocum (Church Publishing, 1999) 435; and Donald S. Armentrout, “Episcopal Splinter Groups: A Study of Groups Which Have Left the Episcopal Church, 1873-1985” (Sewanee, Tennessee, 1985) 1.
[71] “Not in Communion,” http://anglicansonline.org/communion/nic.html
[73] ACNS 4075 Nigeria 17 November 2005 “Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) announces a covenant with two North American church bodies.”
[74] “Prayer Book Society,” in An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, ed. by Don S. Armentrout & Robert B. Slocum (Church Publishing, 1999) 410.
[75] Elizabeth Adams, Going to Heaven: The Life and Election of Bishop Gene Robinson (Brooklyn, NY, 2006) 123.
[76] Kevin Eckstrom, “Institute for Religion and Democracy President Dianne Knippers Dies at 53: Stalwart against liberalism in mainline churches had colon cancer,” Christianity Today, 19 April 2005, www.christianitytoday.com;ct/2005/116/; Peter Laarman, “A Canterbury Tale,” 6 July 2006, www.progressivechristiansuniting.org/2006/07/06/a-canterbury-tale/#more-105.
[77] Ethan Flad, “Virtual Trickery Backfires” [pun do doubt intended], Every Voice News, 6 August 2003, http://thewitness.org/agw/flad080703.html.
[78] Stephen Bates, A Church at War: Anglicans and Homosexuality (I.B. Taurus, 2004) 185.
[79] “Integrity, Inc.” An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, ed. Don S. Armentrout & Robert B. Slocum (Church Publishing, 1999) 266.
Please sign my guestbook and
view it.
Statistics courtesy of
WebCounter.
