Anglicans United & Latimer Press

The full statement, made in the Lobby this afternoon, Monday, is reproduced below, along with Ruth Kelly's response. Significantly, LibDem MP Dr Evan Harris welcomed it as the "first time" the Government has "stood up" to the religious lobby on a matter of public policy. His full statement is below as well. But the strongest statement came from Bishop Tom Wright of Durham. I was talking to him this afternoon on something else, to be blogged separately soon, and took the chance to ask him what he thought. He did not mince his words, and launched into an excoriating attack on almost every aspect of the present "Labour" Government. In fact, he was so angry he almost forgot to mention Iraq, throwing it in for good measure only at the last minute. The full quotes are below, but first, I was much moved this week to read my former colleague Andrew Pierce's testimony of his life as an adopted, gay Catholic. He actually supports the Church's stance - he was one of those who, without Catholic agencies, might have had a lifetime in care. There are lots of links to many interesting articles as usual at Thinking Anglicans and Anglican Mainstream. (Photo Gill Allen of The Times)

Dr Wright, in his car on his way to address a conference at Swanwick, was furious with the Government. "There is no way that the Catholic Church is going to change its mind on this one given 18 months or so." he said. "This completely fails to take into account the views and beliefs of all those involved. The idea that New Labour - which has got every second thing wrong and is backtracking on extended drinking hours, is in a mess over this cash-for-peerages business, cannot keep all its prisons under control - the idea that New Labour can come up with a new morality which it forces on the Catholic Church after 2,000 years - I am sorry - this is amazing arrogance on the part of the Government.

"Legislation for a nouveau morality is deeply unwise. That is not how morality works. At a time when the Government is foundering with so many of its policies - and I haven't even mentioned Iraq - the thought that this Government has the moral credibility to be able tell the Roman Catholic Church how to order one area of its episcopal teaching is frankly laughable. When you think about it like that, it is quite extraordinary. I suppose the hope is that in 18 months time there will be a different Prime Minister who might take a different view, and this will kick it into the long grass until then."

I am not sure there's much hope of Gordon Brown backing down on this one without alienating large parts of the party, but on the other hand, the prospect of losing thousands of badly-needed votes in Scotland might temper his opinion a little.

The Roman Catholic response from Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor was initially predictably muted. His critics will say that the Cardinal, having come out fighting a few days ago, has bottled it. (I wonder what the reaction will be in Rome? Will the Pope accept his resignation this summer, clearing the way for AB Nichols, who won the battle on education?)

But on the Today programme Tuesday morning, the Cardinal was in fighting spirit again. Asked about the Bishop of Durham's comments on this blog, the Cardinal responded: "There is legislation and legislation. Some legislation however well-intended does created a new kind of morality, a new kind of norm, as this does. The legislation about the adoption by homosexual people of children... it seems to me we are having a new norm of what marriage is. I think normally children should be brought up by a father and a mother. We hold that as extremely important. Clearly the Government has a right to legislate. Homosexual couples clearly are able to adopt in other agencies. But we want to hold on to that principle."

He also made the point that the Catholic Church does not intend to close agencies, but that they will lose local authority funding if they do not comply with the law.

By coincidence, the Catholic bishops' standing committee was meeting when the PM's statement appeared, so they had an opportunity to discuss it together. The Cardinal is clearly going to aim for some kind of deal, to avoid the Church having to close the agencies down. I understand the bishops were given some more detailed notes from Downing Street, outlining how this might be achieved, and the Cardinal's statement reflects that. Privately, some of the Catholic bishops are furious. One insider said: "Twenty-one months! It could have been 21 years. If something is morally wrong, what's the difference?" We can expect a more detailed response from the Catholics soon. Meanwhile, the Cardinal said: "It is clear from the Prime Minister’s statement that he has listened to some of the concerns of the Catholic Church in regard to its adoption agencies. We are, of course, deeply disappointed that no exemption will be granted to our agencies on the grounds of widely held religious conviction and conscience. We look to the forthcoming Parliamentary debate to address some of the fundamental issues centred on the well-being of the child, whose needs must always be put first. We note and welcome, however, the Government’s expressed desire that the experience and excellent work of our agencies is not lost, especially for the benefit of needy children. We appreciate the two year period that will be established for independent assessment. We note that one of its purposes will be to 'ensure the valuable expertise of faith-based adoption agencies in successfully placing the most vulnerable children, including the full range of post-adoption services, is retained and developed' (Terms of Reference). We understand that Local Authorities will continue to work with and fund our Catholic agencies in their vital and sensitive work during this period. This debate has raised crucial issues for the common good of our society. We believe there is an urgent task to reach a new consensus on how best the public role of religious organisations can be safeguarded and their rights upheld. An important part of our Catholic tradition is to work constructively with the Government in mutually respectful cooperation, in which we can act with confidence and integrity in the service of the common good."

The Prime Minister had said in a statement read out to the Lobby: "Over the last few days I have listened to the strongly-held views on all sides on the issue of adoption agencies and the new sexual orientation regulations. I have heard from representatives of gay rights groups and the leaders of the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches as well as Jack McConnell, who has been making sure the Scottish perspective is heard in these discussions. While views obviously differ, everyone is agreed that, above all, the interests of the child and particularly the most vulnerable children must come first. I believe we have now found a way through that achieves this and which all reasonable people will be able to support.

"I start from a very firm foundation: there is no place in our society for discrimination. That is why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple. And that is why there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering publicly-funded services from regulations which prevent discrimination.

"This will be made clear in the regulations that the Government will lay before Parliament shortly. In the interests of children, they will include a transition period before these regulations come fully into force at the end of 2008 for existing adoption agencies. This will be coupled, during this period, with a statutory duty for any adoption agency which does not process applications from same sex couples to refer them to another agency. I have also asked for a regular independent assessment from adoption and child welfare experts on the impact of the sexual orientation regulations on adoption in order to maintain the existing body of expertise.

"I am convinced that this is a package which has the interests of children, and particularly the most vulnerable, at its heart. It recognises the hugely valuable role played in adoption by charities and volunteers, including those inspired by religious faith, ensure we do not lose their expertise and services while upholding and extending the Government’s record against discrimination in all spheres."

Ruth Kelly responded: "The Prime Minister has made a statement on the arrangements for the sexual orientation regulations which will be implemented in April this year. These regulations will provide protection for individuals from unfair treatment because of their sexual orientation, in relation to goods and services. This covers, for example, shops and hotels, the delivery of health and education services and the rental and sale of premises.

"The approach on adoption is a positive breakthrough in eliminating discrimination while recognising the need for a practical approach that ensures the most vulnerable children are found loving homes. This approach should be welcomed by everyone on what has been an extremely complex issue. I have met a broad range of those with a direct interest in these regulations and each has had passionately held views, expressed with real conviction.

"Two things are clear. First, that everyone wants to ensure that as a Government we tackle discrimination and second, no one wants to lose the excellent adoption expertise that helps some of the most vulnerable children. The package announced today, gives us the opportunity to meet both of those tests.

"The transition arrangements will give adoption agencies time to adapt and address how they work alongside an independent assessment of the process to ensure that the high quality expertise that exists is not lost. There will be no exemptions on adoption.

"During the period up to 2008 we will look to faith based adoption agencies to work with us on how they might adapt their methods of operation to meet the new legal requirements. An independent team will be reporting to the Prime Minister on the practicalities of ensuring that the needs of vulnerable children and their adoptive parents will continue to be met both during the transition period and thereafter. Clearly listening to the experts on child welfare and adoption is vital.

"We have had the debate and heard a range of views - many of them expressed with passion and conviction. As a result we now have a workable solution. Good government is about robust debate and finding solutions that meet our principles in a practical way. This is the right way forward. I hope that all concerned will now work with us to implement the package we have announced today. At the end of the day, we all know that there is a wide range of potential adoptive parents out there, including lesbians and gay men who can provide a loving home for children.

"This Government has a proud record on equality and supports a society where every citizen is treated fairly and with respect. Over the last decade, it is this Government which has done more than any other to build a decent and cohesive society. Today’s announcement is a breakthrough that should be welcomed by everyone.”

Andrea Minichiello Williams of the Lawyers’ Christian, which has led the campaign against the regulations, was not so sure. "The reason why this exemption has been sought by Catholic Adoption agencies is because of their churches teaching of over 2000 years that sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage is wrong. It is difficult to see how 18 months is going to change this position," she said. "The effects of these regulations will go far beyond adoption agencies and will reach into every area of public life. They are in danger of excluding men and women of deeply held religious conviction from positions of public importance because they will not submit to this new morality."

Dr Harris, pictured here at his party conference, and who is a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, said: "The real problem here is that the Government is providing a single take it or leave it option for MPs on the whole of the regulations. It will be vital that the Government does not provide any other exemptions from discrimination to religious organisations beyond those provided in the Northern Ireland regulations. This is the first time that the Labour party has stood up to the united lobbying of religious organisations seeking special treatment in public policy matters and that is a welcome new development."

Posted by Ruth Gledhill on Monday, 29 January 2007 at 06:52 PM in Religion | Permalink

"I never meant us to be at this time and place," said the Rev. Lance Giuffrida , his voice cracking as he addressed about 160 worship ers who filled the sanctuary nearly to capacity. "I didn't do anything differently than when you called me" to the church's pulpit in 2001.

Since then, however, differences between traditionalists and liberalizers in Episcopal Church of the USA have deepened and hardened, underscored by their disagreement on homosexuality and gay marriage, according to adherents of both trends.

"I could not sit in the councils of the church in Massachusetts," Giuffrida said, breaking into tears. "I could not represent Jesus Christ in those councils."

As the minister spoke, congregants -- first one by one, then by the dozen -- rose from the pews and gathered closely around him on the altar, each laying hands on the shoulders of others, until virtually the entire group of worshippers stood as a single body.

Many congregants also cried as they expressed their acceptance of the fact that the building in which they worshiped belonged not to them but to the Diocese of Massachusetts, and that they were leaving it for a new home in a place to be determined.

"I can only promise you that . . . you will own the next church," Giuffrida concluded, to shouts of "amen " and "hallelujah " from his congregants.

The emotional service was a local example of a schism that is shaking the Episcopal Church throughout the country.

Congregations that do not accept the national church's theology regarding homosexuality, the literal truth of the Bible, and the role of Christ in personal salvation are rejecting Episcopal leadership in favor of affiliation with other branches of the worldwide Anglican Communion -- most of them in Africa. In response, Episcopal officials are declaring those congregations have abandoned the church and demanding they turn over their buildings and other assets.

In mid-January, Episcopal leaders in Virginia declared 11 congregations there, including some historic churches, to have abandoned Episcopalianism. The congregations were instructed to surrender their assets. Similar actions are underway in numerous other states, and in some cases legal battles over church property have begun.

As part of their rejection of new Episcopal teachings, the traditionalists in Attleboro changed the name on the sign in front of their church from All Saints Episcopal to All Saints Anglican and, in September, they voted to join the Anglican Mission in America and place themselves under the supervision of Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini of the Anglican Province of Rwanda .

The Anglican parishioners said from the beginning they would not dispute ownership of the church building or other property, but they said yesterday they were disappointed that the Diocese of Massachusetts would not negotiate a sale or rental of the Attleboro church building. "We had been led to believe that was possible, and we had no reason to believe otherwise until we received a letter last Tuesday giving us eight days to get out ," Giuffrida said .

He called on all parishioners to turn in keys to church facilities during a reception yesterday after services, at which they signed up for membership in the newly incorporated All Saints Anglican Church of Attleboro. Church officials said that they would turn over the keys and all assets today, and that they also hope to sign an agreement today with Fisher College in North Attleborough to rent space until a permanent home for the congregation can be found.

The Rev. Gregory Jacobs , staff officer for urban ministry development for the diocese, said church officials had sent the letter Jan. 16 rejecting all possibilities of sale or lease and ordering the congregation out of the church building.

"We said their actions constitute an abandonment of the communion , and we asked that they return to us the property and the assets," Jacobs said.

Jacobs said the diocese plans to continue conducting Episcopal services in the church and will assist members who do not follow the majority into a new congregation in regrouping. He said that he and the Rev. Barbara C. Harris , a retired bishop, will be present next Sunday and that a new priest will be assigned to the church as soon as possible.

About half of the 350 to 400 people affiliated with All Saints have said they will be part of the Anglican congregation, Giuffrida said, while about 50 have indicated they will participate in a revived Episcopal congregation, in the building of the old church, according to diocesan spokeswoman Maria Plati .

Several of those who will try to revive the Episcopal congregation faulted Giuffrida for the split in the church. "It became more literal, conservative, and evangelical," said Ellen Parker , an Attleboro Historical Commission activist who grew up in the church. "I was not comfortable with that."

However, Keith Brousseau , whose family has been in the church for four generations, said that Giuffrida did not change the theology of the Attleboro congregation, and that current disputes regarding gender only made longstanding differences among Episcopal ian s about whether to read the Bible literally more public.

"This is about Scripture, about how it should guide the church," said Brousseau, who will be part of the Anglican congregation with his wife, Patricia, and four children. "It is about saying that Jesus is the way."

"The only way," added Patricia Brousseau.

Charles A. Radin can be reached at radin@globe.com.

Sessions on the “listening process,” the proposed Anglican Covenant, and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference, as well as social and development issues are on the agenda for the Feb. 12-19 meeting to be held at a hotel near Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, sources in London tell The Living Church.

Archbishop Peter Carnely, the former Primate of Australia and chairman of the Panel of Reference, will brief the primates and respond to criticism that the panel has been dilatory in its work. Established as a “matter of urgency” by the 2005 primates’ meeting, the panel has released recommendations on petitions received from the Diocese of Fort Worth and from traditionalist congregations in the Canadian Diocese of New Westminster. Petitions from the Dioceses of Florida and Lake Malawi are currently under review.

One session is to be devoted to the “listening process” envisioned by the 1998 Lambeth resolution 1.10. The bishops at Lambeth committed the church “to listen to the experience of homosexual persons” and assured them “they are loved by God and that all baptized, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ.” The resolution also reaffirmed the traditional Christian belief in the parameters of sexual behavior of faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman and abstinence for those unmarried.

The primates’ 2005 Dromantine communiqué urged the appointment of a facilitator to monitor the work being done in this area. Church of England Ca non Phil Groves was appointed in January 2006, and will report on the work done to date.

Archbishop Drexel Gomez of the West Indies, chairman of the Covenant Design Group, will speak on the design group’s preliminary findings from its first meeting in Nassau this month. The primates will also make a pilgrimage to the Cathedral Church of Christ in Zanzibar, also known as the Cathedral of the Universities Mission in Central Africa.

Two full sessions of the meeting, as well as two external sessions with presentations by three American bishops, will discuss The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Bishop Jefferts Schori is expected to face tough questioning from the primates and is likely to outline what steps The Episcopal Church has taken in response to the Windsor Report.

Whether the primates will follow the agenda crafted in London by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is uncertain. The agenda for the 2005 primates meeting underwent significant changes as the meeting progressed, and similar changes are anticipated for this meeting. A pre-meeting strategy session for the African primates and other American and international church leaders will be held Feb. 10 in Nairobi, Kenya.

(The Rev.) George Conger

Delegates to the diocese's 212th Annual Council adopted a substitute resolution that calls for a commission to look at a possible agreement on a local option for blessing same-sex unions.

Current diocesan policy prohibits blessing same-sex unions publicly. The commission is to report its findings at next January's annual council.

An overwhelming show-of-hand vote was taken yesterday during the closing business session of the council's two-day meeting at the downtown Richmond Marriott Hotel.

The original resolution called for the council to recommend that a policy of local option for parishes be adopted on a trial basis and be reviewed for final approval by the 2010 council.

During a news conference following the council meeting, the Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee, bishop of the diocese, said he was surprised that the resolution did not draw more discussion from the floor.

"I think the diocese is healthy and strong," Lee added. "There is a sense of clarity of who we are as Episcopalians."

Sanjiv Augustine, a lay delegate from St. Barnabas Episcopal Church in Annandale, agreed.

"A lot of the animosity from the past has been avoided. We seem to be operating more as one church," said Augustine, who was attending his fourth council meeting. "The church is about so much more than the hotbutton issues. It's about the family, worship, spirituality. I think we are over a watershed. The people who feel strongly have left the church, and I wish them well. That allows the rest of us to focus on what is important."

Augustine referred to the 15 churches in the diocese that have left the denomination and the diocese over differences about the role of homosexuals in the church and biblical authority.

He is hopeful for the Episcopal Church. "We have stuck to our orthodoxy, and I think that will serve us well. We don't discern just from Scripture. We are not adrift from our core principles. We are very inclusive and relative," Augustine said.

The election of the Very Rev. Shannon Sherwood Johnston of Tupelo, Miss., to be the 13th bishop of the Virginia diocese was the highlight of this year's council, according to many people at the meeting. Johnston was elected bishop coadjutor Friday and will succeed Lee when he retires. Lee has said he plans to step down no later than 2010.

Johnston joined the Richmond news conference from his Tupelo home by speaker-phone.

The bishop-elect said he "greatly values the fact that the [Episcopal Church] is a very big tent. . . . We are able to be committed to each other regardless of our differences. It's that breadth that leads us more into how we are but one with Jesus. It's part of our holiness."

Johnston called Anglicanism the best tradition he knows. He likes the idea of a middle line in dealing with controversial issues. "That keeps us together rather than one side being over the other," he added.

Becoming a bishop was not a goal for him, Johnston said. He began to think about it when people at the denomination's 2003 General Convention asked if he would be interested. Then last year, the Virginia nominating committee approached him.

His interest in the priesthood dates back to his high school years.

As a ninth-grader, Johnston didn't care for church. But his mother insisted he attend either Sunday school or worship. He opted for Sunday school because the young people talked about football and the late University of Alabama football coach Paul "Bear" Bryant, Johnston's childhood hero.

One day walking to a high school algebra class, Johnston heard a voice telling him he was going to be a priest. "It felt so natural, and I went on my way to algebra. But I paid attention to that voice."

Contact staff writer Alberta Lindsey at alindsey@timesdispatch.com or (804) 649-6754.

They will speak to the state of The Episcopal Church, according to sources in London who spoke with a reporter for The Living Church.

The three bishops will join Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, Archbishop Williams, Archbishop of York John Sentamu, and the 36 other primates at a hotel near Dar-es-Salaam for sessions on Feb. 14.

The session will not be part of the primates’ meeting itself, a spokesman for the Anglican Consultative Council noted. The primates’ meeting will go into recess in order to hear the presentations from the three bishops, and reconvene at the close of the hearing. The American bishops are guests of Archbishop Williams and not of the collegial gathering, the spokesman said.

In their September communiqué following the meeting of the Global South coalition of primates in Kigali, Rwanda, the conservative coalition of church leaders asked Archbishop Williams to invite “another bishop” selected by American traditionalists to “be present at the meeting so that we might listen to their voices during our deliberations.”

In his Dec. 18 Advent letter to the primates, Archbishop Williams responded stating that “given the acute dissension in the Episcopal Church,” he was “proposing to invite two or three other contributors from that province for a session to take place before the rest of our formal business, in which the situation [within The Episcopal Church] may be reviewed.”

“The Episcopal Church is not in any way a monochrome body,” Archbishop Williams observed, “and we need to be aware of the full range of conviction within it.”

In a Jan. 29 pastoral letter to the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Bishop Duncan noted he would be “accompanied by one non-Network Windsor Bishop” to Tanzania. The Presiding Bishop would also “be accompanied by one progressive bishop.”

The probable outcome of the encounter with the primates was uncertain, Bishop Duncan noted, as the “emerging structures beyond the level of the diocese can only be conjectured at.” However, “all of this is revolutionary in the life of the Episcopal Church and of the Anglican Communion.”

Johnston, 48, rector of All Saints' Episcopal Church (http://www.allsaintstupelo.com),
Tupelo, in the Diocese of Mississippi, was elected out of a field of five nominees on the
third ballot. Johnston was elected with 210 lay votes and 159 clergy votes. An election on
that ballot required 135 votes of 269 cast in the lay order and 128 of 255 votes cast in the
clergy order. The election took place in Richmond during the diocese's 212th Annual Council
meeting.

Johnston will succeed Bishop Peter J. Lee, 68, who has told the diocese he plans to retired
by 2010.

Under the canons the Episcopal Church (III.11.4), a majority of bishops exercising
jurisdiction and diocesan Standing Committees must consent to Johnston's election and
ordination as bishop.

Johnston is scheduled to be consecrated on May 26 at Washington National Cathedral.

The complete ballot results are available at http://www.thediocese.net.
The Diocese requested written response to three questions, appended below. I highlighted several crucial responses. C Wetzel

DATE AND LOCATION OF BIRTH:
1958, Florence, Alabama

FAMILY STATUS:
Wife: Ellen G. Johnston

DATE OF ORDINATION:
Diaconate, June 11, 1988; Priesthood, December 14, 1988 (Bishop Robert Oran Miller)

CURRENT POSITION:
Rector, All Saints’ Episcopal Church, Tupelo, MS, Diocese of Mississippi 1994 - present

OTHER CHURCH POSITIONS:
Rector, Church of the Advent, Sumner, MS, 1990-1994
Curate, St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Selma, AL, 1988-1990

SERVICE IN THE WIDER CHURCH:
Standing Committee, Diocese of Mississippi, 2005–present; 2000-2004 (President)
General Convention Deputy, Diocese of Mississippi, 2000, 2003, 2006
Commission on Ministry, Diocese of Mississippi, 2004–present
Diocesan Convocation, Diocese of Mississippi, 1998–present (Dean)
Theology Committee, Diocese of Mississippi, 2005–present
Diocesan School for the Diaconate, Diocese of Mississippi, 1999–present (Instructor)
Executive Committee, Diocese of Mississippi, 1997-2000 (Vice-President)

ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT:
Program Director, Boys’ Club of Glynn [now Boys’ and Girls’ Club],
Brunswick, GA, 1983-1985
Associate Director of Programs, Cooperative Campus Ministry University of North
Alabama, 1981-1983

EDUCATION:
The University of the South, Sewanee, TN, B.A., Philosophy (Magna Cum Laude),
Music (departmental honors), 1977-1981
Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, M. Div. (graduated 1st in class), 1985-1988
Westcott House Theological College, Cambridge University, Cambridge, England, 1987

Questions for Candidates
Please describe the roles and comparative importance that will be played by the so-called “three-legged stool” of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason in the conduct of your episcopate. How does the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit inform your understanding of the relationship among these three foundations of the Anglican tradition?

The “three-legged stool” of Scripture-Tradition-Reason is the essential dynamic for the Church’s theological discernment. Distinct in themselves, these touchstones are not separate from one another in theology. They are aspects of a given unity—Christian truth—not unlike the three Persons of the Holy Trinity being distinct and yet the One God. As with the Trinity, none of the legs of the stool stands alone, and there is never any question that “two-out-of-three wins.” Our understanding of theological truth is grounded by Scripture-Tradition-Reason interacting simultaneously.

I cannot accept sola Scriptura arguments; there simply is no such thing as “Scripture alone.” While I do hold that Scripture must be the basis of all essential doctrine, I affirm that it cannot be read and interpreted without the presence of Tradition and Reason. Likewise, Tradition cannot justify itself theologically, and an appeal to Reason to override Scripture and Tradition is equally erroneous.

This construct produces tensions. In controversy, we are tempted by the Siren Song of Simpler Certainty, but the less-seducing three-legged stool, whole and intact, will steer us through.

In what remains of the first half of the 21st century, what do you see as the top two or three issues on the agenda of the Episcopal Church? If you are elected as our bishop, what approaches would you take in addressing those issues as they manifest themselves within the Diocese of Virginia?

From the Great Commission, evangelism and mission come first. As bishop, I would continue with the momentum for starting new congregations. Two particular pursuits stand out: (1) young adults/“Gen X”; and (2) the increasing diversities of racial, ethnic and socio-economic identities.

Christian education-formation also holds the agenda. This builds healthy, vibrant churches. Education for our young children has much improved, but we are deficient with our teenagers and, more pointedly, with our adults. We must do better with biblical literacy, stewardship and the liturgy, particularly teaching and preparation for the sacraments. Anglican/Episcopal history and polity should not be neglected. Spirituality, not “information” but the practice of the presence of God, must be approached intentionally. I would promote spiritual direction and small-group programs for deepening personal spirituality.

We must also look to the nature and the nurture of our Anglican Communion. In our climate today, some forms of separation will occur, but as a bishop I would seek to bridge our differences and would particularly work to maintain our defining relationship to the See of Canterbury. Perhaps various “Anglican” entities might be better partners in Christian mission while separated than we could be as a frazzled family so burdened by in-house strife.

As our bishop, how will you address the various issues arising in the Diocese of Virginia regarding homosexuality, especially in light of the fact that, for many, these issues seem to require making a choice between the unity of the church and the inclusiveness of the Gospel?

The real issue in this crisis is the nature of Scripture itself. My concerns with the Church’s actions regarding homosexuality do not arise so much from the biblical texts. There is more going on there than meets the eye, and I reject selective literalism. Responsible exegesis is a norm for our tradition, and so I would promote forums for biblical studies to help reset perspective.

Because of my strong ecclesiological concerns in this controversy, I support the Windsor Report (with some reservations) as the best way forward for the Church. I also support the Lambeth Conference’s call to a respectful dialogue with the Church’s homosexual communicants.

One of Anglicanism’s most famous and endearing qualities is our ability to “agree to disagree” on issues, biblical and otherwise. Our commitment is to each other in Christ Jesus, not to each other’s opinions in like-minded groups. Facing the complexities of human life, much less the heights and depths of God, “like-mindedness” can be a small (and quite un-Anglican) thing.

I am deeply sympathetic to the painful dilemmas at hand, but I baulk at the notion that this must be a choice between the unity of the Church and the inclusiveness of the Gospel. Both Church unity and inclusiveness are direct Scriptural imperatives. Our faithfulness to our Lord and our witness as a Church envision both of them.

In a decision released yesterday, Judge Thomas Branca rejected Bishop Charles E. Bennison Jr.'s argument that the Rev. David Moyer had no right to settle their differences with a civil trial.

Bennison's lawyers had argued in four appearances before Branca that the First Amendment barred civil courts from deciding cases involving religious personnel disputes.

But Moyer's lawyers replied that the priest had no other remedy because Bennison denied him due process by removing him without a church trial, as church law requires.

They also say Bennison fraudulently concealed relevant documents from the diocesan standing committee, the diocese's administrative body, which endorsed Moyer's removal.

John Lewis, Moyer's lawyer, said yesterday that he believed Moyer v. Bennison would be "the first time that a case will go to trial which involves ecclesiastical discipline of a priest in a hierarchical church."

Moyer, longtime rector of Good Shepherd Episcopal Church in Rosemont, is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

"Finally, after four years, a jury trial will make known the full story of the injustice I've suffered," he said yesterday.

Branca has not set a trial date.

Bennison's administrative assistant referred a request for comment to his attorney, Mary Kohart, of the Center City law firm Drinker, Biddle & Reath. Kohart's secretary said she was out of the office. She did not return a request for comment.

Moyer, 56, a traditionalist fiercely opposed to gay marriage and female and gay clergy, has been a longtime critic of the liberal Bennison, 62, a feminist and gay-rights supporter.

Around 2000, Moyer barred the bishop from preaching, saying Mass or confirming at Good Shepherd.

In 2002, Bennison responded by "inhibiting" Moyer from dispensing the sacraments, and said he would "depose," or remove, him in six months if Moyer did not allow Bennison to make pastoral visits to the parish.

Moyer abided by the inhibition, but later that year he presented himself for consecration as a bishop in Anglican Church in America, a small, breakaway church of traditionalists.

Bennison then made good on his promise to depose Moyer, who had sought a church trial in order to publicly accuse Bennison (and others in the Episcopal hierarchy) of heretical disregard for scripture.

The bishop, however, stunned Moyer by refusing to grant him a trial before a church court. Bennison invoked a little-known provision of the canons that allows a bishop to summarily remove a priest who joins another faith.

Their quarrel drew international attention after it was revealed that the Revs. Frank Griswold, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church USA, and George Carey, then the archbishop of Canterbury and titular head of worldwide Anglican communion, had urged Bennison to reinstate Moyer.

The Diocese of Murray, Australia, then made Moyer an assistant bishop, effectively keeping him within the mainstream Anglican communion.

Good Shepherd, meanwhile, has kept Moyer on as its rector.

Bennison, bishop of the five-county diocese for 10 years, has also come under fire for depleting diocesan endowments by $10 million to fund development of a multimillion-dollar summer camp and retreat center in Maryland.

Last year the 10-member diocesan standing committee petitioned the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church for a trial seeking Bennison's dismissal as bishop.

A decision from the presiding bishop on whether to issue a "presentment," or indictment, against Bennison is due in early February.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact staff writer David O'Reilly at 215-854-5723 or doreilly@phillynews.com.

Hollingsworth sent a copy of the January 20 letter to diocesan clergy on January 23.

"I am profoundly disappointed that you intend to do this having neither sought nor received my consent. As bishops, we are bound by a mutual respect of diocesan boundaries and jurisdictional authority that is an ancient practice in the Church, consistently and recently affirmed by the Windsor process and the Archbishop of Canterbury," Hollingsworth wrote. "Please understand that you do not have my permission to exercise any episcopal or sacramental ministry within the geographical boundaries of the Diocese of Ohio."

Hollingsworth also told Nzimbi that if he maintains his plans to visit the diocese for the ordination, he and Ohio Assisting Bishop David C. Bowman would like to meet with him as "fellow bishops of the church."

Hollingsworth's letter refers to Bowman, retired bishop of the Diocese of Western New York, as Nzimbi's "long-time colleague and friend."

The ordination is due to be held in a non-Episcopal Church property.

Those discussions have been conducted in good faith, in mutual respect and with an appropriate level of confidence on all sides.

Last week that changed. Speculation about splits within government, fuelled by public comment from government ministers, appears to have created an atmosphere that threatens to polarise opinions. This does no justice to any of those whose interests are at stake, not least vulnerable children whose life chances could be adversely, and possibly irrevocably, affected by the overriding of reasoned discussion and proper negotiation in an atmosphere of mistrust and political expediency.

The one thing on which all seem able to agree is that these are serious matters requiring the most careful consideration. There is a great deal to gain. It is becoming increasingly evident, however, that much could also be lost, as the letter from Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor makes clear.

Many in the voluntary sector are dedicated to public service because of the dictates of their conscience. In legislating to protect and promote the rights of particular groups the government is faced with the
delicate but important challenge of not thereby creating the conditions within which others feel their rights to have been ignored or sacrificed, or in which the dictates of personal conscience are put at risk.

The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning.

On numerous occasions in the past proper consideration has been given to the requirements of consciences alongside other considerations contributing to the common good, such as social need or human rights -
the right, for example, of some doctors not to perform abortions, even though employed by the National Health Service.

It would be deeply regrettable if in seeking, quite properly, better to defend the rights of a particular group not to be discriminated against, a climate were to be created in which, for example, some feel free to argue that members of the government are not fit to hold public office on the grounds of their faith affiliation. This is hardly evidence of a
balanced and reasonable public debate.

As you approach the final phase of what has, until very recently, been a careful and respectful consideration of the best way in which to introduce and administer new protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in England and Wales, we hope you, and cabinet colleagues, will do justice to the interests of the much wider grouping of interests within the nation that will be affected. It is vitally important that the interests of vulnerable children are not relegated to suit any political interest. And that conditions are not inadvertently
created which make the claims of conscience an obstacle to, rather than the inspiration for, the invaluable public service rendered by parts of the voluntary sector.

Yours faithfully,

Most Rev and Rt Hon Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury
Most Rev and Rt Hon John Sentamu Archbishop of York

Anglican Communion Editors Note: Reference is made above to a letter from Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor. That letter can be read here. http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/cn/07/070122.htm

“Your association with a group of people that has abandoned the Communion of the Episcopal Church and rejected its authority and the authority of the Diocese of Virginia constitute your abandonment of the Communion of the Episcopal Church,” states a letter signed by Virginia Bishop Peter James Lee. “If, in the next six months, you retract your actions of abandonment, this inhibition may be lifted. But at the end of six months, if you have not retracted your actions, you may be released from the obligations of priesthood in this church and removed from the ordained ministry.”

Bishop Lee concluded the brief letter by noting how deeply saddened he was by this development. He said he believed “the actions that the Standing Committee and I are taking are necessary for the discipline and unity of the church.”

All of the clergy associated with the 11 Virginia congregations which recently voted to leave the diocese and affiliate with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) have been inhibited with the exception of Bishop Martyn Minns, who serves as rector of Truro Church in Fairfax. Bishop Lee previously said that Bishop Minns was a validly consecrated Bishop of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, but he has refused to recognize either CANA or the Anglican District of Virginia, which the 11 congregations have formed.

The list includes the Rev. John A.M. Guernsey, rector of All Saints’ Church in Woodbridge. In November, the diocese and All Saints’ reached an amicable settlement on the church property, but since then Fr. Guernsey and the other leadership at the parish have voted to affiliate with CANA, something that both Bishop Lee and Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori have said is antithetical to ancient church precedent.

The priests listed in the release:

• The Rev. Robin T. Adams

• The Rev. Marshall Brown

• The Rev. E. Kathleen Christopher

• The Rev. Jack W. Grubbs

• The Rev. David N. Jones

• The Rev. Herbert J. McMullan

• The Rev. Valarie A. Whitcomb

• The Rev. George R. Beaven

• The Rev. Neal H. Brown

• The Rev. Richard C. Crocker

• The Rev. John A.M. Guernsey

• The Rev. Nicholas P.N. Lebelfeld

• The Rev. Elijah B. White

• The Rev. John W. Yates II

• The Rev. Mark W. Brown

• The Rev. Jeffrey O. Cerar

• The Rev. Ramsey D. Gilchrist

• The Rev. David R. Harper

• The Rev. Marion D. Lucas, III

• The Rev. Robin Rauh

• The Rev. Frederick M. Wright

This prevents the good news becoming captive to the culture and agenda of the rich.

We see this constantly expressed in scripture. God hides things from the wise and reveals them to babes; God chose the weak and despised things in the world, things that are not to bring to naught the things that are; the widow who gave her mite gave more than all the wealth of the rich; socially poor outcastes such as the tax collector showed the powerful Pharisees the meaning of prayer.

The average Anglican ( 45 million in the Global South, 5 million attenders in the Anglo-world) is under thirty, female, lives on two dollars a day, has three children, walks three kilometres for water a day, is related to someone with HIV/Aids and is evangelical. It is not the case that those who are promoting the gay agenda are the poor or underprivileged of western society. Surveys show that they are overrepresented in the upper middle class and upper income brackets and in powerful institutions such as government, the media and the universities.

There is a noble tradition of justice and care for the poor in the Anglican tradition and history. However, one area seems to be currently excluded from that care and respect for the poor. That is when their understanding of the Bible and Christian faith conflicts with those at the centres of ecclesiastical metropolitical power. So the tradition of justice and “bias to the poor” can continue, as long as the poor know their intellectual place, which is not in challenging the hegemony of the liberal establishment of money and power in the Anglican Communion which assumes that its way of framing the current debate is self-validating and above question.

Thus it is that the Archbishop of Nigeria is regularly demonised in the western press, including the Christian press, for daring to articulate his understanding of the biblical teaching on homosexuality. The leadership of the African primates is criticised as not being representative of their provinces, when as elected leaders they are probably more representative than any English Bishop or Archbishop. The orthodox position of the Anglican Churches in Africa on the matter is explained away as emanating from a different cultural background which has no universal implications, or from a less tutored theological position, or from the legacy of a conservative missionary past.

One of the principles of the Reformation was that the scriptures by the Holy Spirit’s illumination are perspicuous for all Christian believers to study and interpret. In the current crisis we are seeing emerge a new tyranny of the scholars and an erosion of the priesthood of all believers.

The current crisis has been triggered by disagreements among the intellectual elites in the western Church. The Church in the two-thirds world is not party to them but is clear about its loyalty to the orthodox teaching of the Bible, not only as a result of Christian commitment, but also practical experience. They know that faithful monogamous heterosexual marriage is a central Christian teaching for society and a bedrock for addressing poverty. Anything that undermines that, undermines the health and welfare of both people and society. For this principled stance poor Anglicans are having to pay. They are refusing funds, especially from the US Church, which are tied to not opposing the onward march of the gay agenda. Thus for example help to orphans in Tanzania and theological education in the West Indies is under great financial pressure.

As the Global South makes clear its position, based on the Kigali Statement, at the Primates Meeting in Tanzania in February and in subsequent developments, watch to see whether those who urge the Christian commitment to justice actually listen and give respect to the way the poor of the earth receive Jesus’ good news to the poor.

I was saddened by the response that you and your colleagues made to my suggestion for you to provide for pastoral and liturgical care for those loyal Episcopalians who remain in your midst You said it might be part "of an overall settlement" which in fact, will take a great deal of time. That in effect is a rejection of my suggestion and is consistent with the lack of accommodation and compromise that I have experienced from you and your colleagues in the last several years.

I regret that the intransigence that you and your colleagues have demonstrated has led us to the current state of affairs and I am deeply saddened by that.

Peter James Lee
PJL: wip

Convocation of Anglicans in North America

January 16, 2006

The Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee
The Mayo Memorial Church House
110 W Franklin Street
Richmond, VA 23220

Dear Bishop Lee:

I was disappointed to receive your letter of January 10th. It seems that we have a rather serious communication gap.

You stated that you were not able to transfer clergy to the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV) because it is not in your view a recognized branch of the Anglican Communion. I disagree. The ADV is part of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) which I serve as Missionary Bishop. CANA, in turn, is a part of the Church of Nigeria, the largest province in the Communion and a branch of the Communion by any definition, including your own. Just as the Diocese of Virginia and other dioceses in the Episcopal Church (TEC) enjoy communion with Canterbury indirectly through TEC, so do the members of ADV enjoy communion with Canterbury through CANA and the Church of Nigeria. You have transferred clergy to other TEC dioceses (indeed, you have transferred clergy to organizations such as the Anglican Mission in America, under the Church of Rwanda). So I urge you to reconsider your decision regarding the transfer of clergy.

As to providing care for those few members of our congregations that voted in the minority, we have not rejected your suggestion. Each congregation is actively engaged in a wide variety of pastoral initiatives. This effort began immediately following the congregational votes, before your suggestion, and it continues to this day. It has taken different forms depending upon the individual situation. For a number of the congregations the vote was essentially u nanimous therefore making it a non-issue; nevertheless, appropriate care has been made available to those very few voting in the minority. At Truro we have had a number of helpful pastoral conversations to date and will continue to do so. We are determined to provide appropriate care for every member of the Truro family regardless of their decision regarding our realignment. I am aware of the special situation at St. Stephen’s Heathsville and am actively working with the congregational leadership to find a creative way forward.

I also believe that any structural response should be part of the overall settlement but that does not invalidate our current efforts. Your comment that we have refused to make accommodation for the past several years is especially distressing (as well as incorrect) since we have engaged in numerous face-to-face conversations that have led to a number of creative responses including numerous forums, special committee appointments, and uncounted dialogues. You also know that our churches have always continued to engage in a wide variety of mission and ministry efforts in the Diocese of Virginia and specifically invited your participation in our discernment process.

Your concluding statement that my intransigence, and that of my colleagues, has led to this current state of affairs was especially disconcerting to me. The underlying cause of the crisis in The Episcopal Church is its refusal to embrace what the majority of the Communion believes to be essentials of our Faith. Surely you have not forgotten the General Convention in Columbus? I sat in the same room with you and we witnessed first-hand the intransigence and the refusal of those present to embrace the minimum recommendations of The Windsor Report. I remember commending you for your efforts, even though they were ultimately unsuccessful. You will certainly remember the more than seven years that we sat together on the Sexuality Dialogue Committee. We all struggled, although unsuccessfully, to find a way to harmonize two ultimately irreconcilable perspectives on Scripture and sexuality. You will also recall your several meetings with John Yates, John Guernsey, David Harper and me. We implored you to stay true to the mind of the Communion and to resist the innovations that were before you. We also warned you that those innovations could tear the Communion and the Diocese apart. To characterize all of our persistent efforts to find ways to maintain the highest degree of communion possible as “intransigence” is simply not consistent with the truth.

From the most recent press release that the Diocese is not prepared to renew the standstill agreement I realize that time is short. It is still my hope that we can find a way to achieve the amicable separation to which we have all made repeated public pledges. I know that I speak for my colleagues in saying that we remain committed to the Protocol – the direction that your Special Committee outlined. I recall your statement at Shrine Mont that the Protocol offers the best way forward. I agree and I trust that you have not now abandoned it. I urge you to reconsider your response to my letter. I remain hopeful that we can find a way forward that will honor Christ and be a blessing to His Church.

Please be assured of my prayers.

Sincerely,

+Martyn

Specifically, the Executive Board declared the property of those churches – real and personal – to be abandoned in accordance with the Canons of the Diocese.

“All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Church or Mission within this Diocese is held in trust for The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia.” (Canon 15.1)

“No part of the real property of a Church, except abandoned property, shall be alienated, sold, exchanged, encumbered or otherwise transferred for any purpose without the consent of the congregation … [and] the Bishop, acting with the advice and consent of the Standing Committee of the Diocese.” (Canon 15.2)

Having declared the property abandoned for the purposes for which it is set aside, namely the mission of the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia, the Executive Board is required to protect the property, according to the Canons:

“[W]henever any property, real or personal, formerly owned or used by any congregation of the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia for any purpose for which religious congregations are authorized to hold property under the provisions of the Code of Virginia or any amendment thereof, has ceased to be so occupied or used by such congregation, so that the same may be regarded as abandoned property by the Executive Board, which shall have the authority to declare such property abandoned and shall have the authority to take charge and custody thereof, the Executive Board shall take such steps as may be necessary to transfer the property to the Bishop…” (Canon 15.3)

The unanimous decision by the Executive Board also authorizes the Bishop to take such steps as may be necessary to recover or secure such real and personal property.

In addition, the Standing Committee met today for its regular monthly meeting and took up the issue of the status of the clergy attached to these congregations. Following today’s meeting the Standing Committee will communicate its determination to the Bishop according to the Canons.

The 11 churches where property has been declared abandoned are:

Church of the Redeemer, Chantilly

Church of the Apostles, Fairfax

Church of the Epiphany, Herndon

Church of Our Saviour, Oatlands

Church of the Word, Gainesville

Potomac Falls Church, Sterling

St. Margaret’s, Woodbridge

St. Paul’s, Haymarket

St. Stephen’s, Heathsville

Truro, Fairfax

The Falls Church, Falls Church

###

A Letter to the Diocese of Virginia from the Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee, Bishop

January 18, 2007

Dear Friends:

Today, the leadership of the Diocese of Virginia, supported by the prayers of faithful Episcopalians in this Diocese and around the world, took action to preserve the sacred mission entrusted to us by previous generations for the future of the Church here in Virginia and across the Episcopal Church.

At the heart of our faith, is the reliability of the promises of God to God’s people. Nowhere is that reliability more clearly affirmed than in the promises of God that his exiled people will be returned to Jerusalem, to their spiritual home. (Jer. 36)

Because we believe that God’s promises to his people continue to be reliable, we will seek the return of the churches of the Diocese of Virginia that are occupied by dissidents.

We are commanded by scripture to obey the civil authority. (Rom. 13) While St. Paul admonishes individual Christians to avoid lawsuits with one another, obedience to the rule of law is a more controlling teaching. We believe the law supports diocesan ownership of church property.

In some of our congregations, members led by their lay and ordained leadership, have voted to leave The Episcopal Church and to affiliate with a non-recognized organization of churches purportedly under the authority of Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola. The organization is known as CANA, or Convocation of Anglicans in North America.

The Church of Nigeria, like The Episcopal Church, is an autonomous province of the Anglican Communion with clearly defined boundaries. Bonds of affection in the Anglican Communion hold that provincial boundaries are not crossed by bishops without expressed invitation. Bishop Akinola’s effort to establish CANA within the boundaries of The Episcopal Church has occurred without any invitation or authorization whatsoever and violates centuries of established Anglican heritage. As the Archbishop of Canterbury has made clear, CANA is not a branch of the Anglican Communion and does not have his encouragement.

When the membership of these congregations voted to sever their ties with the Episcopal Church and affiliate with CANA, they left remaining Episcopal congregations in those places without vestries, without clergy and without their churches, whether the remaining congregations numbered one or 100 souls. The spiritual abandonment of their Episcopal brothers and sisters of the past, the present and the future, is perhaps the greatest offense for which there is no redress under our tradition.

In the structure of the Episcopal Church, individuals may come and go but parishes continue. And in some of these churches there is life springing from these dry bones. At St. Stephen’s in Heathsville, the remaining Episcopal congregation, a full third of the congregation before the vote to leave, has held a congregational meeting, elected a vestry, elected a delegate to Council and currently is worshiping at a nearby United Methodist Church until they can be reunited with their Episcopal Church property. In Woodbridge, a growing congregation of 50 Episcopalians of St. Margaret’s Church will hold their congregational meeting this Sunday, elect a vestry, confirm their previously elected delegate to Council and will continue to worship at a nearby location until they, too, can reenter their Episcopal church. Similar groups are organizing at The Falls Church, and there are nearly 100 people at the Church of the Epiphany in Herndon who may reorganize and continue as the Episcopal Church in that place.

It is for these persons that previous generations of Episcopalians worshiped, worked, prayed and gave generously for the spread of the Kingdom of God. It is the trust that they created, and that we inherited, which now we must move to protect, preserve and expand for generations to come.

For years diocesan leadership has worked to accommodate the views of the leadership of these churches. We have resisted attempts to deny them seat, voice and vote at the Annual Council when they stopped funding the budget of the Diocese. They have enjoyed access to our diocesan-managed medical and dental benefits. They have enjoyed other diocesan resources like grant funding for church planting, mission work and congregational development, Shrine Mont and Roslyn. I have met dozens of times with the leadership of these churches and with their counsel in an effort to find common ground on matters of theology. Three times I invited the retired Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey to conduct confirmations and receptions when my episcopal presence was either specifically refused or would have been a source of tension for the membership. I endured being told that the parents of confirmands would not want me to lay hands on their children at confirmation and I have received other personal attacks including death wishes in letters, reports and public statements.

I have tried to find a way forward in our dispute over property that would keep us from having to resort to civil courts. No longer am I convinced that such an outcome is possible, nor do I believe that such a move at this time is dishonorable. Rather, I believe as does the leadership of our Diocese and of our Church, that the actions taken to secure our property are consistent with our mission and with our fiduciary and moral obligations to the Church of our ancestors, to the church we serve today, and to the church of those who will follow us.

The votes to separate from The Episcopal Church negated all the work we had done in good faith over the years to accommodate the views of the leadership of these churches and focused our attention on the only two remaining factors: the status of clergy and the status of property. The work of the Property Commission, which assembled immediately after the votes to separate, brought together the years of efforts at accommodation and the previous year of discussion over matters of property and clergy status. As that work was brought into the Property Commission’s view and shared with the Executive Board, Standing Committee and with counsel for the separated churches, it became clear that no position other than relinquishing our claim to Episcopal Church property would be satisfactory to those who have left. There would be no serious effort at reaching a fair market price for property. There would be no discussion of the issues on a case by case basis. There was repeated desire to wrap issues of clergy status, including matters having to do with clergy pensions, into the discussion of church property, an inappropriate bundling of unrelated issues. It became clear that the process of negotiation would be unduly cumbersome and would risk further a second alienation of those loyal Episcopalians who had already been disenfranchised by the vote of the majority of their former members.

Recently, attorneys for the dissidents sent a letter threatening action against me and any other diocesan officials who “set foot on” or “trespass” on Episcopal Church property. By contrast, your leadership has not moved to change locks or freeze assets. Rather, once again, we have moved to accommodate these dissidents at the expense of our faithful people.

Following the votes of the majority of members of these congregations, the counsel of these now non-Episcopal congregations filed reports with the clerks of the courts in their jurisdictions under a statute in the Code of Virginia that they think gives them the right to Episcopal Church property. We have intervened in that action. We are supported in this by The Episcopal Church on a national level. It is with a heavy heart that your leadership has moved in this direction, but it is not without a long period of efforts at accommodation and negotiation.

These differences are not about property but about the legacy we have received for the mission of Christ and our obligation to preserve that legacy for the future.

In the coming days and months there will be many opinions aired in the media, in letters and in countless blogs, opinions disguised as facts. I urge you to turn away from those as the distracting noise of the world intended to take your mind and your heart off the mission of the Church. Instead, I urge you to pray for our brothers and sisters who have moved to separate themselves from us. I urge us to remember that in their call away from the Episcopal Church, they may be responding to a genuine call to new ministry in a different place and in a different way. The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia will mourn their loss. We will suffer from their absence in ways we cannot know at this time in our life. I believe that they, too, will know times when our absence from their life will be a source of great sorrow for them.

My dear brothers and sisters, the Church in these communities may look different moving forward. We will look different as a Diocese. And the road ahead will be long and filled with opportunities to lose heart. We must always have our eyes fixed on God, not be anxious, and trust in the reliability of God’s promises. For even in this, God is doing a new thing.

Faithfully,

Peter James Lee

"I have met with him and told him he may not do this again within this diocese. The last time he was here, he had a meeting at the Episcopal congregation in Hudson, I trust with the knowledge and blessing of the Bishop of Eau Claire. On that occasion he honored my word and jurisdiction."

Wrote Jelinek: "Accordingly, you will please cancel this meeting on January 23 at Church of the Messiah with Archbishop Nzimbi. Do not schedule any other meetings with him either at or in the name of the Church of Messiah. I am sure you do not want to be a party to this act of bad faith. I would appreciate receiving a copy of the notice canceling the meeting. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter."

“I think it’s more about being. Being holy people.” And she left it there.

That answer epitomizes the two sides of our new Presiding Bishop that emerged during a late November sit-down with Integrity at the church’s headquarters in New York City. The Presiding Bishop can be analytical, like the scientist she is. She holds things up to the light, looks at them from all sides, and then she makes her observations. But like the priest she also is, ++Katharine can be very clear on where she stands with God.
Good. Clarity is what everyone, Integrity included, is looking for.

We sat in the Presiding Bishop’s office, which was quite pleasant but almost bare. She’d just moved in after all. There was a canoe paddle propped in the corner—presumably in case she found herself up the proverbial creek without one—but as the interview began, the Presiding Bishop didn’t seem to be in a joking mood.
Unbeknownst to the outside world, she had just the day before helped hammer out the momentous primatial vicar proposal. And now, the day after, she was cycling through a series of get-acquainted meetings with all The Episcopal Church Center staff. So in that moment, she was revealing another contrast—the serious player who is seriously tired.

Whose Table Is It Anyway?
Immediately, I asked “What did you mean when you told a Washington Post rep orter in early November that the church would have to refrain from the election of gay bishops and the creation of rites of same-sex blessings ‘for a season?’ Just how long is a ‘season?’”

++Katharine admitted, “I don’t think anyone knows. What the convention [General Convention 2006] did was call for a pause in what we’re doing for now.” Then in what might be considered the understatement of the triennium, the Presiding Bishop continued, “We’re waiting to see if it was the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do.” I reminded her that at General Convention in June she had said the issue of a moratorium on additional gay bishops “has to be revisited in the very near future.” I asked whether the evolution in her language from “the very near future” to “a season” reflected an evolution in her thinking?

“No, no. I don’t think anybody is saying—and I am certainly not encouraging people to say—we don’t need to continue to investigate and wrestle with this issue. It’s certainly not something that is going to go away for the rest of the Communion.” While the LGBT members of her flock wrestle with both the immediate future of their lives in the church today and building for the millennium, the Presiding Bishop takes the long view on LGBT inclusion, “Part of the charism of the church on this continent has always been to encourage the wider church to look at challenging issues. I think that’s part of who we are, part of our gift, even though it is a gift that’s not always welcome.” (If there was a tea leaf to be read among her statements, this understanding of “our gift” might be the most predictive.)
Looking around the office with its soothing green carpets and cushy furniture, this interviewer’s mind turned to Barbi Click. Barbi is an out lesbian who’s just been elected to the board of Integrity and who is struggling with the schismatic situation in her home diocese of Fort Worth. (Look for Barbi’s “Letter from Fort Worth” elsewhere in this issue of the Voice.) I described Barbi’s predicament and asked ++Katharine, “Do you have words of hope for the Barbi Clicks of the church?”
It turned out that the Presiding Bishop knows Barbi Click. “I have corresponded with her.” What about those words of hope? “The rest of the church is praying for people in dioceses where they are feeling burdened, oppressed by the decisions of their leadership, and I think that’s true on both ends of the issue.” If that response sounded rote, the next thing she said sounded anything but: “I think our gift as Episcopalians has always been to embrace that breadth, that diverse set of understandings and to say that we’re all welcome because it’s God’s table, not our table.” (Integrity’s emphasis.)
A Future When Integrity Goes ‘Out of Business’
Katharine Jefferts Schori was catching her second wind. The energy and the engagement in the room changed noticeably.
After 30 years of advocacy for the LGBT faithful, did she ever see a day when Integrity would be able to go out of business? The Presiding Bishop was sanguine. “This isn’t a challenge that’s going to go away in the next year, in the next five years, or the next 20 years; but if I talk to young people today, people under 30, this is not an issue for 90 percent of them. It’s simply not part of their world view.” She seemed to be implying, hold on, the future is on your side.
If so, her example of Galileo, whose scientific breakthroughs took 500 years to achieve church acceptance wasn’t encouraging. Then she cited the 150 years since slavery that it has taken the church to begin liberating itself from racism. The Presiding Bishop was clearly not talking about “the very near future.” (Galileo’s back in the news; elsewhere in the Voice look for our reprint of Buzz Thomas’ USA Today piece about the revolutionary scientist and threats to the church’s moral authority.)
Since ++Katharine herself had brought up the example of slaves literally being counted as partial human beings in antebellum times, I asked her “By placing limits on the roles and ministry that gay and lesbian people can have and the ways that their lives and relationships can be celebrated, isn’t the church saying that gay and lesbian people are not quite as fully present in the Body of Christ as other people?”
“I can certainly see that that perception is accurate,” she answered in her best biologist’s voice.
Obstacles To LGBT Evangelism Strike Home
We spoke about the challenges to evangelism among the LGBT community created by anti-gay actions like B033’s prohibitions. In particular, the United Church of Christ is unequivocal in its support of gay and lesbian people and has a very successful evangelism campaign called “God Is Still Speaking” targeted at marginalized populations. How, I asked, would she and her office be encouraging evangelism outreach to gays and lesbians?
The formidably informed Katharine Jefferts Schori appeared to be stumped. On reflection, it seemed to her that domestic evangelism in general could use a higher profile in The Episcopal Church. She answered my question with her own question “How do we raise consciousness about evangelism in the broad sense?” But she also got the drift: as Integrity has been emphasizing for some years, The Episcopal Church has an evangelical opportunity with LGBT people that we are squandering by sending them mixed signals.
For instance, I asked, did she know that, as of our late November meeting, when visitors go to The Episcopal Church website and enter a search for “gay and lesbian ministries” they get a link to Integrity? That’s not all bad. Integrity has a bodacious website, and it was immediately commended to the Presiding Bishop. But only a link to Integrity? The larger church has nothing of its own to say to lesbian and gay people on its website?
The Presiding Bishop was grateful for this “bit of consciousness raising.” Luckily, Canon Robert Williams, the Director of Communications for The Episcopal Church, was sitting in and the high-level executive side of ++Katharine made a brief appearance when she asked Canon Williams to look into the situation.
Taking on the Hot Topics
High-level questions seemed to be in order, too. I asked whether, as the once-inclusive Archbishop of Canterbury apparently has been, “Now that you’re Presiding Bishop, have you felt pressured to moderate your position on homosexuality?”
She answered right away, “I think I’ve been pretty clear about what my position is. That’s my position.” Then she drew a distinction between her personal position and the church’s, saying “The church has taken a stand at General Convention that says we’re going to pause with this for a bit, and my feeling is to go forward.” The mixed response suggested that the Presiding Bishop is still working through the boundaries between her personal and ecclesial commitments.
Time was running out, and there was still much more on my gay agenda. In a discussion about last year’s immigration protests and “The Day Without Latinos,” I asked what she thought a “Sunday without Gays” in The Episcopal Church might look like. Chilled and intrigued, she answered, “It would be very lonely. It would be very lonely. Very interesting. That whole image.”
In all likelihood, a partnered lesbian or gay priest is going to be elected bishop while she, ++Katharine, is Presiding Bishop. On that key aspect of the struggle toward inclusion, I wondered whether she would ask the diocesan bishops and standing committees to refrain from consent in such cases. Her answer? “I have thus far been clear that my role is not to interfere in the consent process.”
Not so quick. I followed up, asking, “Okay, but let’s say if there was such an election and consent, would you participate in the consecration of such a bishop?”
She answered, “The Presiding Bishop’s role is to preside at the consecration of new bishops whenever possible.”
The Presiding Bishop’s role also appears to be to say as little to offend her diverse flock as possible. Inevitably, she will have to offend someone. With that in mind, and her vow to “guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church,” I asked her for a reaction to the fact that gay weddings appear to be taking place within the physical confines of Episcopal churches in Massachusetts? That is, civil authorities are apparently marrying same-sex couples and then clergy complete the ceremonies for those assembled. We talked about one very public instance where, if The New York Times Weddings & Celebrations section is to be trusted, in November 2005, a state senator married two gay men, and then the Bishop of Massachusetts, Thomas Shaw, celebrated the Eucharist. (See http://tinyurl.com/ylknh6 for the full article. Integrity asked, via e-mail, for comment from Bishop Shaw’s office, but had not received a reply before going to press.) After some fact-checking and discussion amongst all in the room, the Presiding Bishop knew what she wanted to say: “I think it is always appropriate to go to church and bless that which is good.”
And with that Katharine Jefferts Schori unexpectedly broke into a broad, warm smile that was light-years removed from the tense grin with which she had begun the interview. The smile, and the relaxation, was infectious.
The Brand-new New Yorker, Pronouncing Nevada and Matters Of Creation
C
ounting the month she had spent essentially on the road since her investiture, the Presiding Bishop had had only a few days to settle into her new big-city home when we talked in late November. I asked her what it felt like to go from the land of the Grand Canyon to the glass and steel canyons of New York City.

“I’m looking for wild things, but I’m not finding many,” she said. To my remark that she wouldn’t have much trouble finding wild things in New York City, she laughed “A different kind!” And then she added wistfully, “I think that’s what I miss more than anything.”

After an observation that she was a long way from Nevada, the Presiding Bishop corrected me. “The natives say N’vaaduh.” They use a flat, extended, short “a.”

Thus reminded that most of Katharine Jefferts Schori’s adult life has been spent in the far west of the country, I wanted to know more about how a boot-wearing Westerner got to be a full-inclusion supporter. Noting that she had consented to Gene Robinson’s consecration and spoken in favor of a Nevada diocesan convention resolution permitting same-sex blessings, I asked, “How did you come to that place of affirmation for yourself?”
No surprise, it took her “a season,” and science had a lot to do with it.
“It certainly wasn’t something that came to me overnight. As a biologist I look at the natural world where same-sex behavior is present in many, many, many species. Today we can look at sexual development happening very early in a person’s life. As a person of faith I would look at that and say, it happens before the age of reason; it’s a matter of creation, not a matter of choice.”

The Presiding Bishop takes that personal journey and applies it to the church. She thinks, “It’s really the church’s task to help all Christians to live holy lives. I think God created us, most of us, as sexual beings, and we’re meant to express that sexuality in healthy ways. Therefore, I believe it’s the church’s job to help us get that idea. And we haven’t really come there yet, in it fullness. The issue with Gene Robinson’s consents would have been far clearer if we as a church had gotten to a place of saying, well, here is a way for appropriate sexual expression for people of same sex orientation. We hadn’t done that yet. We still haven’t done that.”

What remains to be seen is whether we will get to that place of fully including LGBT people in the holy life of the church—and how this scientist-priest, this woman who searches for wild things, will make her way through the thicket of the church’s current schismatic politics. Will she be able to change it or will it change her? Will she figure out how long “a season” is, or needs to be, for the good of the church? Will the Communion embrace or shun her? And whatever happens for the Presiding Bishop, how much longer will LGBT people have to wait to claim the full and equal blessings and responsibilities of their church? All questions for another interview. And as it happens we’ve got nine years to schedule it in.

I know this will cause problems for many of you who have scheduled flights and lodging. It saddens me that your plans have been disrupted. This delay has also affected the vestry's ability to plan for the future. But since you are in a parish whose rector has been thrust into the center of a national and, even, international debate within the Anglican Communion, this is a difficult path we shall share for a season. In a way it is an honor to walk this way with our Lord, if, indeed, it proves to issue in the common good of the Church. We know our Lord desires good to come from this. So let me try to explain in an evenhanded manner what is unfolding.

When someone is elected as a bishop in The Episcopal Church, he is elected by and for a diocese. While this process may differ slightly from one diocese to another, it usually consists of a procedure made up of clergy and laypersons. Every parish in the diocese has delegates that are sent as representatives to the electing convention. The clergy in the diocese also participate in the election. Various candidates are put forward by the diocese. Usually a candidate must get a majority of votes from both the lay delegates and the resident clergy in order to be elected. It often takes several ballots before a candidate gets a majority in both the lay and clerical orders. When it is noted that South Carolina elected me as their bishop on the first ballot, it means that I got at least a majority in both orders on the first vote. The process of election however does not end with this vote.

Since a bishop is elected not only for a diocese, but also for the larger Church, there is a national consent process which is guided by the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (TEC). A majority of diocesan bishops and diocesan Standing Committees throughout the Church must therefore grant consent to any election held by a diocese. This is usually given without much fanfare or controversy. In fact many have argued in the past that this is merely a matter of certifying that proper canonical procedures were followed. (This was a mantra heard often during the General Convention process when Gene Robinson's election was confirmed.) Frankly, I didn't accept this argument then, nor do I believe it should be applicable in my case. I do suspect, however, that some have changed their position regarding this matter as it applies to me—holding one opinion when it applied to a bishop-elect who held their position on issues, and quite another now. I shall leave that, however, to their consciences. They must live with themselves as I must live with myself. As it has been said, there's no pillow so soft as a clear conscience.

It may help you to understand the present situation by knowing that shortly after my election an advocacy group in the Church sent a mailing to every bishop and diocesan Standing Committee. This group misrepresented several of my written statements and attributed intentions to me that I did not have. Once this group's mailing muddied the water it has been difficult to settle the pond. Certainly I have advocated rethinking how we do business in The Episcopal Church and the broader Anglican Communion as we step more completely into the 21st Century. This very thing is implicit in the Windsor Report. Along with this, I have held uncompromisingly to the position that TEC acted inappropriately towards historic Christianity and the worldwide Anglican Communion, as well as the teaching of The Episcopal Church, when the Presiding Bishop and others consecrated Canon Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. This also isn't anything the Archbishop of Canterbury and the collective gathering of Primates in the Communion haven't suggested. Yet even without this group's political interference there may still have been problems. This is because some Standing Committees have objected to South Carolina's request for Alternative Primatial Oversight (APO). I defended this request because, after the General Convention in 2006, I thought many within the Church needed both pastoral space and theological differentiation if we were to remain Anglicans, as well as Episcopalians. Others fear I will lead the diocese out of TEC, or will not work hard enough to keep the diocese from leaving the "national" Church or "denomination." My nuanced statements distancing myself from these fears have not been sufficiently calming for some.

Why haven't I assured the disconcerted more categorically? We are in a profound time of transition within the Anglican Communion—a time when important questions regarding the nature of the Church are being asked and need answers sufficient for this era in which we find ourselves—the Windsor Report is the ultimate validation of this position. I want to be a part of answering these questions in a responsible manner that doesn't truncate the discussion by taking refuge in narrow approaches. The ecclesial questions prompted by the present crisis will clearly not be resolved by disregarding the "bonds of affection" within the worldwide Communion. My adherence to this has caused some to question my loyalty to the Church, even though I have neither taught nor acted contrary to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church for the past 26 years. Then, there is the fact that some dislike my traditional theological convictions regarding the Scriptures, Creeds, and liturgy, especially in that I hold these traditional beliefs with a willingness to rethink the way The Episcopal Church has functioned ecclesiastically within the larger Anglican Communion. This too is nothing more than is requested by the Windsor Report. I am conservative towards the essential doctrine and discipline of the Faith, yet progressive in regard to how the Church needs to change if it is to live out its calling in this age of globalism.

Frankly, I find it ironic that those of my generation who were so quick to trumpet the need for non-conformity when they were opposed to the "establishment" are most ungracious towards those whom they think do not conform now that they are holding the reigns of power. It gets harder not to come to the sad conclusion that inclusivity in this "faith community" is becoming more narrowly defined by an exclusivist agenda. Towards this agenda I am now cast in the role of protesting against the rising tide of dubious conformity—a conformity which, at least in the mind of some, will not be brooked. All of this is to say I will be with you here at St. Paul's until this controversy is resolved. (Dare we hope for an Easter resolution?) I trust it will be resolved in God's time and in a way our Lord Jesus Christ will be honored and his church strengthened. I ask you all to pray for the Diocese of South Carolina. I am assured almost daily that they are praying for us.

Yours in Christ,
The Rev. Mark J. Lawrence (Rector)
Posted by Fr. Mark on January 12, 2007 01:28 PM

Episcopalians delay ordination of bishop-elect
Saturday, January 13, 2007
BY ADAM PARKER

The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina announced Thursday (January 11, 2007) that the confirmation of bishop-elect Mark Lawrence has been postponed.

Lawrence was elected Sept. 16 in a landslide vote and will become the diocese's 14th bishop, to succeed Edward Salmon, should he receive a majority of consents. The 120-day consent period expires March 9.

"This deferment is necessary because of unanticipated delays in the mailing of the consent requests to diocesan bishops and standing committees, which did not occur until the second week of November 2006," wrote the Rev. J. Haden McCormick, president of the diocese standing committee, in the announcement.

Before the election results can be ratified by the Episcopal Church, Lawrence must receive a majority of bishop and standing committee votes. Only once a majority of consents are received should the diocese set an ordination date, McCormick said. But, together with the presiding bishop's office, the diocese jumped the gun and set the original date for Feb. 24.

"A date was set before the letters went to the bishops and standing committees," McCormick said.
The diocese mailed its consent request letters just before Thanksgiving. And then came Christmas and New Year's. Standing committee members across the country typically meet once per quarter and rely on phone conferences and other methods of communication between meetings, he said.

The canons of the Episcopal Church limit the role of the national office to soliciting consents from bishops. The diocese is responsible for election, notification, requesting consents from standing committees, and facilitating a medical and psychological examination of the candidate. The presiding bishop typically consecrates new diocesan bishops.

Not long after Lawrence's election, various bishops and standing committees sent him a set of questions meant to gauge his intentions concerning the diocese's recent request for an "alternative primatial relationship" - oversight by someone other than Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.
To the question, "In what ways will you work to keep the Diocese of South Carolina in the Episcopal Church?" Lawrence answered Friday: "I might as well have been asked while I was engaged to my wife, 'In what ways will you work to keep your wife from leaving her commitments?' " And he informed his interrogators that Jefferts Schori would not be welcome at his consecration.

Reach Adam Parker at 937-5902 or aparker@postandcourier.com.

for Paul, the living out of the gospel is always a matter of imperfect personalities and events, redeemed and being redeemed, giving and embracing comment and correction on the way. Spirits are to be tested, and behavior in the Body addressed. Compare Paul's own report of his conflict with Peter over the latter's suspension of eating with Gentiles, and his report of what went on at the Jerusalem summit with Luke's much smoother and curial account of relations at a "council," and we begin to see more clearly the apostle's consistency behavior and his point of view about leadership. For good or ill, most people acknowledge that Paul led the formation of the Christianity we know. It is wise to consider on the meta level his operational principles of directness in truth-telling. Let us also consider his directness in truth-acting: circumcision decisions on Timothy and Titus are radically different because how those decisions related to Gospel truth at certain places in certain times.

With St. Paul, we must dare to look at and respond to the vessels and the circumstances, all of which struggle to bear the Gospel. Being more modestly gifted than my apostolic namesake, I will limit my theological observations while trying not to avoid naming the issue and person that concerns me in the Church as much as President George Bush does in the orbis terrarum, and I assure you that do I write to him often.

The most un-biblical part of traditional Anglicanism is its politeness, its charm, its unwillingness to confront and hold accountable those who have sought and accepted positions of supreme leadership. We in the Episcopal Church often brag about our Church's failure to address slavery as though that were a virtue and not a disgrace. The Church held together while humans died in chains and even bishops (both north and south in the beginning) traded in human flesh. We now have put the british emancipator William Wilberforce in our calendar but do not make his commemoration one of fasting and lament for our heritage of cowardice in the name of togetherness. The words and deeds of Paul and even more certainly of our utterly tactless Lord Jesus suggest that charm is less important than candor or provocative questioning, that real love in times of disagreement is often something quite uncomfortable. It seems no accident that historically we are enthralled by John, whom we c