Anglicans United & Latimer Press

In a statement released after the last week’s synod meeting, Bishop Keith Ackerman, SSC, said the goal of the diocese was to ‘to remain in fellowship with the wider Anglican Communion.’

“Over a year ago we asked for alternative oversight from an archbishop outside the US. We re-affirmed that request at this synod,” he said.

The Very Rev John Spencer noted that no ‘final decisions’ about the diocese’s affiliation with The Episcopal Church had been made. However, a number of other traditionalist dioceses will be making ‘canonical changes in the coming weeks,’ he noted. “We want to discern a way forward together in a reasoned and prayerful manner over the coming months,” he said.

Enthusiasm for an immediate break with the Episcopal Church appears to have been dampened by a report from a diocesan task force. It stated new rules adopted by the national church’s medical, property and liability insurance programmes would come into play if the diocese seceded.

Clergy would find that their health insurance terminated, while the church insurance company would not honour its liability cover if the national Church sued the diocese or individual clergy.

However, Quincy looks set to break with the Episcopal Church at some point, as it declined to elect deputies to the 2009 meeting of General Convention. Names of deputies to the triennial convention have to be submitted by June 2008, but Quincy’s next synod meets in October 2008, meaning that nominations are unlikely.

Meeting in San Francisco, the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church declined to intervene in the recent re-appointment of a transsexual to be pastor of a church in Baltimore. Citing the lack of a formal complaint against the transsexual minister, the denomination’s highest court said the minister still was qualified for a church appointment. The court said it was not ruling on the permissibility of transsexuality among the clergy because that specific issue was not before the court.

The Rev. Drew Phoenix, pastor of St. John’s United Methodist Church in Baltimore, professes to have changed from female to male.

The Judicial Council is the highest court in the United Methodist Church, which has 7.9 million members in the United States.

The United Methodist Church officially does not ordain into the ministry practicing homosexuals or others who are sexually active outside of marriage. United Methodism affirms God’s love and civil rights for all people, while also affirming marriage as the lifelong union of man and woman. The church has no official policy in its Book of Discipline regarding transsexuality or sex change procedures.

Tooley continued, “Christianity’s traditions strongly argue against any affirmation of transsexuality or sex change procedures.

“UMAction calls upon the 2008 General Conference of the United Methodist Church, which meets next April in Fort Worth, to address trans-sexuality and sex change procedures. Christian tradition clearly affirms the divine gift of maleness and femaleness, seeing sexual identity as an unchangeable gift from God rooted in physical reality, not fluid perceptions.”
The Institute on Religion and Democracy, founded in 1981, is an ecumenical alliance of U.S. Christians working to reform their churches’ social witness, in accord with biblical and historic Christian teachings, thereby contributing to the renewal of democratic society at home and abroad.

www.ird-renew.org

We wish to express to the government and the people of China our deepest appreciation for the very warm welcome and hospitality extended to us. This most historic visit is opportune as it affirms the ties already established through the efforts of the Minister and the esteemed officials of the Religious Affairs Administration. We are grateful to God for giving us this golden opportunity to deepen our mutual understanding and future cooperation.

Visit to China

2. Our visit to China has shown us the indomitable spirit of a 5,000-year civilization. We were fascinated by its colossal achievements, its rich cultural expressions and the values that have emerged from its history. We were also impressed by the splendour of the ancient imperial courts, the skillful handicrafts of the populace, the growth of the economy, the advanced technology and the vision demonstrated in the launching of China’s first lunar probe Chang’e-1 on October 25, 2007. We thank God for these manifold gifts and bounteous blessings that He has poured out on China.

3. We saw the historical relics of early Christian missions in the 7th century (Nestorian fathers) and the 16th/17th century (Jesuit missionaries like Matteo Ricci). We rejoice in those opportunities for the sharing of the Christian faith in China, but even more so in legacy of Protestant missions that began two hundred years ago with Robert Morrison’s arrival in Canton, China, on September 7, 1807. By the grace of God, the opportunities are even greater today.

4. This visit has enabled us to experience the level of cooperation that prevails between the State and the China Christian Council and the National Committee of the Three Self Patriotic Movement of the Protestant Churches in China (CCC/TSPM). We wholeheartedly commend the Chinese government for its openness and desire to extend sustainable support to the work of the church here. This was expressed in concrete terms by a very significant amendment to the Constitution of the Communist Party of China during the recent 17th National Party Congress. The amendment mentioned the word “religion” in the Constitution for the first time in the history of modern China, and resolves to strengthen the work for the full implementation of the policy of freedom of religion in China. This is a recognition of the increasing role that the church plays in the nation’s economic and social development. This process of opening up to the world, healthily reforming its institutions and re-affirming religious freedom, with the rules and regulations established, would certainly build up a harmonious, prosperous and stable society.

5. Our time here was one of learning from the useful experience of the Chinese church which emerged from a period of trial to that of a new life that is becoming a source of empowerment within Chinese society.

6. During our visit we had the privilege of meeting with Chinese church leaders. We worshipped in vibrant Chinese churches and visited theological institutions. This has given us a deeper insight into church life in China. The Church in China affirms itself as a post-denominational institution with Chinese characteristics. This is an area where the churches in the Global South and the Church in China can work together so that the apostolicity and catholicity of the Church may be upheld. The capacity of the Chinese Church to integrate traditional and contemporary spiritual experiences is impressive. This is possible due to the emphasis laid on training of lay and ordained ministers.

7. We are greatly impressed by the love of the Chinese Church for the Word of God, the respect for its authority on life and doctrine, and the miraculous achievement of the Amity Press in Nanjing, China, in the printing of more than 50 million bibles between 1987 and 2007, of which 16 percent are exported to other countries. The on-going efforts by the Church in China to distribute these bibles throughout this vast country and the many testimonies of the lives transformed by God’s Word are awe-inspiring.

Global South Vision
8. We are greatly encouraged by the way the Church in China has established itself as a national institution based on the Three Self Principle as the touchstone of emancipation from the sociopolitical constraints of the past. We appreciate the expressed intent of the church leadership in China to take responsibility for the theological, missional, structural and economic development of the Church. This is also what we seek to accomplish through the work of our Theological Education and Formation and Economic Empowerment tracks.

9. In particular, we commend the work of Theological Education and Formation Taskforce for the draft catechism that they have produced. Not only do we believe the Anglican Catechism in Outline (ACIO) will be a blessing to churches in the Anglican Communion, we also hope it will become an area of on-going theological collaboration with the Church in China.

10. In the same way, we are inspired by the way the nation and people of China have been transformed in the past thirty years through shared hard work and determined commitment to social and economic development. We in the Global South can learn from that and work towards economic self-empowerment, as we seek the welfare of our respective societies.

11. We share the same commitment with the Chinese Church to biblical ethics and morality as well as the call to live out the Gospel in serving the needy while faithfully proclaiming the Word of God. This is truly an authentic expression of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Jesus Christ living out its prophetic and priestly role in secular society.

12. Lastly, we thank the Minister for Religious Affairs, Mr. Ye Xiaowen, for accepting our invitation to visit the churches in the various countries represented in the Global South of the Anglican Communion, and we look forward eagerly to this visit. We also acknowledge the desire of the church leaders of the CCC/TSPM to visit us in order to deepen our friendship, mutual understanding and collaboration for the blessing of humanity to the glory of God.

“To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy – to the only God our Saviour be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.” (Jude 24-25)

Most Rev Dr Peter J. Akinola (Nigeria)
Most Rev Dr Bernard Amos Malango (Central Africa)
Most Rev Dr John Chew Hiang Chea (South East Asia)
Most Rev Ian Ernest (Indian Ocean)
Most Rev Dr Mouneer Hanna Anis (Jerusalem and the Middle East)
Most Rev Emmanuel Musaba Kolini (Rwanda)
Most Rev Justice Ofei Akrofi (West Africa)
Most Rev Henry Luke Orombi (Uganda)
Most Rev Dr Fidèle Dirokpa (Congo)
Most Rev Francis K. J. Park (Korea)

Several segments of our gathering were in the company of our brother and sister bishops from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada and in furtherance of the Waterloo Declaration on Full Communion, we commended for occasional use the new Evangelical Lutheran Worship resource in Anglican churches, where authorized by the local bishop.

This meeting of the House of Bishops was also a House and Spouse gathering. Once every triennium we come together with our spouses in this way to talk about issues relating to Episcopal ministry that touch in a special way our lives with our families. One particularly useful session of the House and Spouse gathering was a facilitated discussion on Wellness in the Episcopal Household.

Much of our gathering as a House was spent describing and reflecting on the different journeys different ecclesiastical provinces and dioceses have travelled since General Synod. We heard reports from several bishops who spoke of the effects of General Synod's resolutions on same-sex blessings and these reflections ranged from parts of the country where this issue is paramount in the life of the church to others areas where it is only a very small part of the church's life or scarcely considered at all. We heard from the bishops of Ottawa and Montreal about the adoption of motions by their respective synods that call upon them to authorize the blessing of civil same-sex marriages, and both bishops described the debate around these motions as courteous and respectful of divergent views. We had a discussion about the April 2007 Statement from the House of Bishops to Members of General Synod and heard from several bishops about how the
Statement is being understood. It was agreed that the statement continues to have the same status as it did originally.

We were reminded by our Primate that contrary to impressions created by much of the Canadian media that covered General Synod, the gathering was anything but a one-issue synod. Motions adopted in support of ministry in the North, conversations around issues of governance and the primacy, support for the Companion Dioceses program, support for the Millennium Development Goals, the day spent with our Lutheran brothers and sisters, the success of the publication of the Anglican Journal Daily, were all evidence of things that bring us together and manifestations of the General Synod theme Draw the
Circle Wide Draw it wider still, Archbishop Hiltz reminded us. "It's time," the Primate said, "for this church of ours to celebrate the things that are holding us together and that continue to hold the Communion together."

In regular business we dealt with a number of issues which we feel are of interest to the church:

We heard a detailed report on the status of the implementation of the renegotiated Residential Schools Agreement and on the church's progress in the next stage of this healing journey, as well as the establishment by the federal government of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. There was a presentation and discussion of the many
aspects of the ongoing work of healing and reconciliation in our dioceses and at the national level.

We spent time discussing a response to the Anglican Communion's Joint Standing Committee report dealing with the responses of The Episcopal Church to the requests made of that church by the Windsor Report and the Primates' Meeting earlier this year. Our discussions touched on things to affirm in the report, things that alarm us, and things that give us hope. The Council of General Synod, when it meets in a few weeks, will have a similar discussion. The Primate will then respond to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

We discussed communications and the presence of the media at our meetings, striving to achieve a balance between the transparency and accountability to the wider church which is fostered by allowing media to cover our proceedings, with the necessity of providing a safe space in which bishops may speak openly among themselves about the
challenges of their ministry. This is a discussion to which we will return.

Lastly, we bade farewell to three members of the House: Bishops Ralph Spence of Niagara, Michael Bedford-Jones of Toronto and Victoria Matthews of Edmonton.

We ended our time together with a Eucharist celebrated with our brother and sister bishops from ELCIC.

Link:

• This letter in PDF format
http://www2.anglican.ca/about/hob/message-2007-10-30.pdf

I write to you from a distance but with a closeness of heart as you prepare for the Convention this weekend. I have been an Episcopalian since my conversion and baptism as a university student in 1966. I have been ordained since 1971 and a priest of the Diocese since 1979. I have been a theologian and educator at Trinity School for Ministry for 21 years and now in Uganda since 2000. I have been addressing the crisis in the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion for the past 20 years.

I believe Bishop Jack Iker has spoken frankly and prophetically when he states there is no future in The Episcopal Church for those who hold to biblical Christianity in the Anglican tradition. In my courses on the prophets, I always taught that oracles of judgement precede oracles of hope. Such is the situation of Anglicanism today. We have incurred God’s judgement as a tradition and as a church. The responses of biblically-minded Anglicans to this crisis have been various, uncoordinated and often contradictory, which may itself be an outworking of judgement.

About ten years ago, I did some contingency planning for the American Anglican Council by projecting five scenarios for the future. Let me comment on them briefly with benefit of ten years of hindsight.

Scenario 1: Victory in turning the institution back to the biblical and historic faith. Despite strenuous efforts by the AAC and others, the Episcopal Church has set its course for the future, and we are not a part of it. Politically, we lost. There is no credible scenario now by which TEC can be reformed or revived from within.

Scenario 2: A negotiated settlement that would allow our group (call them confessors or dissidents) to live in peace or to separate with a fair distribution of property. The powers that be have ruled out this option, either out of fear that they might open the floodgates to departures or out of conviction that they don’t need to compromise, holding the legal cards in their hand.

Scenario 3: A league of confessing parishes. Parishes have been the main source of strength among confessing Episcopalians. Beginning with the First Promise movement, then with AMiA, and now with other networks aligned with overseas provinces, parishes have become the foundation of a new church. In most cases, joining these networks has cost churches and clergy their property, pensions, and some of their people. At the same time, breaking free has brought new energy for evangelism, church planting and mission.

Scenario 4: A league of confessing dioceses. The Anglican Communion Network emerged out of the AAC to unite bishops and like-minded dioceses against the powers that be. Unfortunately, this league has been whittled down to only a few. Help has come from another quarter: a network of bishops and dioceses has emerged, with connections reaching internationally into the Global South and historically back to the Reformed Episcopal Church and other groups who have been marginalized by the Episcopal Establishment over the years. This is the Common Cause Partnership.

Scenario 5: Piecemeal disintegration. Institutional death – comfortably financed but death nonetheless – is the future of The Episcopal Church. If the typical Anglican worldwide is a 30 year-old person of color, so the typical Episcopalian of the future will be a 70-year-old divorced priest. Those who stay in the institution to make a witness will be swallowed up and swept away like the exiles of Samaria after 722 BC.

None of the above scenarios is pleasant, humanly speaking; even the first (victory) would have been distressing in its way. As Scripture says: “For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant…. But some scenarios – call them ways of obedience – are hopeful; as the writer continues: “later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it” (Hebrews 12:11).

I think realignment through the Common Cause Partnership offers the best amalgamation of parish and diocesan scenarios that we can ask for at present. Yes, there is danger of splintering. Yes, there are thorny issues like women’s ordination to be faced. And certainly, there is no way we shall return to “business as usual.” On the other hand, I think this movement has garnered the best leadership in the church, and above all, it has the promise of our Lord Jesus Christ that those who are faithful over a little will be entrusted with more (Matthew 25:21).

Some of my friends and former students have concluded that Anglicanism has lost its saltiness and have departed to other churches. I believe Establishment Anglicanism is dying, both nationally and internationally, but the Anglican tradition, chastened and reformed, has an ongoing witness to make. Certainly, the Anglicans in the Church of Uganda see it that way. So I plan to continue an Anglican come what may.

I serve in Uganda, but I am proud to be a priest of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. I am in awe of my bishop, who has exhibited sacrificial courage, biblical faithfulness, and practical wisdom in leading the Network and Common Cause movements. I cannot in good conscience remain a priest of The Episcopal Church much longer, but it is my hope that I may remain a priest of this diocese for years to come. Your decisions this week may enable that possibility.

May God bless and guide you in your deliberations. We shall be praying with you as you meet.

Cordially in Christ,

Stephen

The Rev. Prof. Stephen Noll
Mukono, Uganda
28 October 2007

The Rev. Canon Dr. Kendall Harmon, spokesman for the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, said he was notified late Sunday night that "a majority of bishops with jurisdiction and a majority of standing committees" -- 56 out of 111 -- have consented to the second election of Lawrence as bishop of South Carolina. The voting took place in August.

"We've been on a slow train to Charleston and it's finally got a head of steam and it's leaving the station," the 57-year-old Lawrence said.

"I was confident that the election would be confirmed and that the necessary votes would come in and be ratified by the weekend," he said. "The feeling afterward was just a relief that I could tell people, 'Yes, it was ratified.'"
But the news came too late for Lawrence to share with his flock during church on Sunday. He said he is sending out a letter to them this week.

The ratification put an end to a yearlong drama in which Lawrence was elected bishop of the South Carolina Diocese in September 2006, only to have his election declared "null and void" on a technicality in March by the Episcopal Church's U.S. presiding bishop, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori.
J
efferts Schori said the consents from three dioceses were improperly submitted at the time, gaining Lawrence only 54 votes -- not enough for a majority.

Lawrence opposes the ordination of gay priests and holds other traditional views that do not align with those of progressive leaders within the Episcopal Church, including Jefferts Schori.

"We're of course delighted and looking forward to Mark's leadership in our diocese and glad to be able to get on with our mission, which is very simply to spread the Gospel and make disciples," said the Rev. J. Haden McCormick, president of the standing committee of the Diocese of South Carolina. McCormick headed up the process of seeking and gathering consents from the standing committees.

McCormick described the 56 majority consent votes received so far as "solid" and "certified by the national chancellor," and said other consents were forthcoming. The validity of the standing committees' majority consent is unquestionable, he said.

"I think there's a sense of relief in the diocese because it's been a long, hard slog for a lot of faithful people," said Harmon, who added that "there's a sense of sobriety" around the complicated election process.

"It's a serious matter when someone as gifted and highly qualified as Mark takes this much work to confirm," he said. "It simply is one more manifestation of a church that is in a very serious state of struggle at this time."

Some have questioned recently the very standing of the progressive U.S. Episcopal Church within the traditional worldwide Anglican Communion -- of which it is a part -- because of differing opinions in such matters as the consecration of gay bishops, the blessing of same-sex unions and the oversight of traditional American dioceses that have asked to be under an authority other than Jefferts Schori's.

"I particularly want to extend my admiration to the parish of St. Paul's in Bakersfield for their graciousness and perseverance," Harmon said. "I think they're one of the unsung heroes in this whole story."
Lawrence agreed: "They have been spectacular in all of this."

Lawrence and his wife, Allison, plan to move right after the new year. A consecration ceremony is planned for Jan. 26 Harmon said, whereupon Lawrence's title will change from "very reverend" to "right reverend."
The task that awaits him, Lawrence said, is "a little scary": He will be responsible for overseeing some 70 missions and parishes and about 30,000 diocesan members.

"The first order of business," he said, "is to get to know the clergy and their families and as many of the parishes as possible. A bishop is to be the pastor to the pastors, so the first thing you need to do is to begin forming a relationship with the priests," he said, because "a bishop primarily leads through the clergy. I'll be in a different parish every Sunday."

Besides missing his native Bakersfield and his hikes in the Sierra Nevada, Lawrence said, "I will certainly miss the Sunday-by-Sunday, week-by-week, day-by-day relationship with parishioners."

The Council, the church's governing body between meetings of General Convention, will discuss the draft response on October 27 in another private conversation during the second day of its three-day meeting at the Hyatt Regency in Dearborn, Michigan.

Also on October 26, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, during her opening remarks to the meeting, discussed her plan to reorganize the staff of the Episcopal Church Center in New York. The goal is to create an "organic and flexible structure that is mission-driven" that is dispersed in terms of decision-making and actual location, she said.

"We're looking for a system that tends to be more self-organizing rather than directed from the top," she said.

Draft covenant response consideration begins
Rosalie Ballentine of the Virgin Islands, chair of the work group assigned to draft the response, told the Council's International Concerns Committee (INC) earlier in the day that the drafting group was representative of the whole Episcopal Church and set a goal "to try to be reflective of the various views within the Episcopal Church."

She said the group found that "the Episcopal Church is not of one mind with respect to anything in the draft covenant."

The Rev. Canon Mark Harris of Delaware, a member of the drafting committee, told INC that "there was a lot of generosity with the group itself," adding that "there was real listening" during the group's writing efforts. Harris said that the resulting draft makes "an honest attempt" to reflect the diversity of the church's feelings.

Ballentine reminded the committee that the idea of an Anglican covenant is "evolving" and that she understood that "the decision about signing any covenant would have to be General Convention's."

In a letter to the Episcopal Church at the close of its March 2-4 meeting in Portland, Oregon, the Executive Council said "responding to the draft covenant does not presuppose agreement with the terms and principles advanced in the draft."

Responses to the proposed draft covenant from around the Anglican Communion are due by January 1, 2008. Responses received thus far are available here.

Ballentine's group was convened as a result of Executive Council Resolution INC021, which authorized Jefferts Schori and House of Deputies President Bonnie Anderson to appoint a work group to draft the Council's response. The drafting group will remain together to follow the covenant-development process, enable comments from the wider Episcopal Church and provide comments on behalf of the church to the Communion's Covenant Design Group.

The Windsor Report, released in October 2004, proposed a covenant as a way for the Anglican Communion to maintain unity amid differing viewpoints. The Primates received and discussed the draft during their February meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. They then released both it and an accompanying report to the entire Communion, asking for comment from the 38 Anglican provinces by January 1.

Based on those responses, it is expected that a revised version of the covenant will be presented to the 2008 Lambeth Conference of Bishops, to be followed by a final text that would be proposed to the 2009 meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC). If the ACC adopts the text, it would offer it to the provinces for consideration.

Presiding Officers make opening remarks to Council
Jefferts Schori summarized her work since the Council's last meeting in June, beginning with her description of the "health and vitality" she has seen during her travels around the Episcopal Church. She said it was exciting "to see the passion with which dioceses and parishes in this church are engaged in mission."

"More and more people in this church get mission," she said.

Jefferts Schori cited the vitality of the health ministry of the Diocese of Puerto Rico and the Diocese of Northern Michigan's exploration of various models of an episcopacy to succeed Bishop Jim Kelsey, who died in June, as the kind of "unexpected places" from which others in the church can learn lessons about being responsive to mission needs.

The Presiding Bishop also told the Council that she'd twice spoken to Diocese of San Diego Bishop James Mathes on October 25 concerning the devastating effects of the wildfires burning in southern California. "They are enormously grateful for the ministry of ERD" and others across the church, she said.

She also spoke during lunch on October 26 with Diocese of Los Angeles Bishop Jon Bruno about the somewhat less-dire wildfire situation in his diocese.

Saying that many dioceses and congregations will be taking up special collections on October 28, Jefferts Schori said "please, please, please keep the people of southern California in your prayers and bless them with your generosity."

Jefferts Schori also reported briefly on the September meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans. Noting the presence of members of the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion at the New Orleans meeting, she said "the bishops heard some very challenging words from the visitors."
She said that she was pleased with the statement the bishops issued to the Anglican Communion at the end of the meeting. "Not everyone was comfortable where we stood, but we stood together," she said.

The JSC also recognized that the Episcopal Church has a "vocation in this season to keep the issues of human sexuality before the communion," Jefferts Schori said, adding that not all of the JSC members like that situation, but she said they do recognize the Episcopal Church's vocation.

The communion is involved in a "signal shift" these days, Jefferts Schori said, back to mission questions and "basic living issues." She cited the recent communiqué from the Council of the Anglican Provinces of Africa as an example.

Anderson spent the majority of her opening remarks describing her September visit in the Diocese of Fort Worth to meet with those Episcopalians who are not happy with the diocesan leadership's desire to distance the diocese from the Episcopal Church. Her presentation included a series of questions asked of her during that visit which were projected onto a screen in the Council's meeting room.

"These are heartfelt questions that are coming from faithful Episcopalians," she said.
Anderson said it was important for the Executive Council to know the kinds of questions being asked in Fort Worth and similar dioceses which she has visited. And, she said, the Council needs to help answer those questions.

Reorganization plans outlined
Members of the Church Center must become "self-effacing in our own ministry" and "servant leaders" who can help dioceses, build networks and "be responsive to the priorities and resolutions of General Convention" and to "emerging mission opportunities and challenges," Jefferts Schori told the Council in explaining her reorganization plan.

The staff must also be able to help all the members of the Episcopal Church use their gifts and skills for the mission of the church, she said. And, there must be "excellence in management" at the Church Center, along with ways to help managers achieve that excellence, she said.
Using the metaphor of a school of fish, a pod of whales, a flock of birds or a herd of deer which has no obvious leader to describe the dispersed sense of a new Church Center structure, Jefferts Schori said "they respond to cues in the environment and move as a body."
"That's the kind of responsiveness we're looking for," she said.

Chief Operating Officer Linda Watt, using a document available only to members, led the Council through the details of the plan. She said the reorganization was prompted by three concerns: the need to work within General Convention's priorities and governance structure, the need to listen to the church and the need to develop "new ways of working" similar to the ways being used in other organizations.

A concept for considering those new ways of working is based in that of "wikinomics," which essentially says that these days "customers expect to shape the product," Watt said. The Church Center staff must be able to engage the church in that way, she said.

The reorganization process "began by listening and is evolving by listening" and the reorganization task force heard a call for the Church Center to be relevant, Watt said. The Church Center must have speed, flexibility, and agility to respond to the needs of the church, using project teams that assemble and then re-assemble to meet new needs, she said. The "passionate, hard-working dedicated servants" who work at the Church Center have more work to do that they can currently accomplish in the existing structure, Watt said.

"The future as we see it is to have the Episcopal Church Center as a model of servant leadership," Watt said.

The Council, beginning with its committees, is due to discuss the budget implications of the reorganization during the Dearborn meeting. Watt also invited them to submit written questions on the reorganization.

The Executive Council carries out the programs and policies adopted by the General Convention, according to Canon I.4 (1)(a). The council is composed of 38 members, 20 of whom (four bishops, four priests or deacons and 12 lay people) are elected by General Convention and 18 (one clergy and one lay) by provincial synods, plus the Presiding Bishop and the president of the House of Deputies..

Following two hours of debate on Oct 19 the resolution passed both houses of synod, by a margin of 44-25 amongst the clergy and by 59-32 in the laity, making Montreal the third Canadian diocese after New Westminster and Ottawa to vote for gay blessings.

Montreal Bishop Barry Clarke, who at last June’s General Synod backed giving diocesan synods the authority to authorise gay blessings, support ed his diocese’s move, saying he was ‘glad we came to a place where we made a decision.’ Asked by the Montreal Gazette if the gay blessings vote would promote controversy, Bishop Clarke responded: “Hey, why not?”

However, Bishop Clarke said the vote will not immediately change diocesan policies. He said he needed ‘time to reflect’ and would ‘consult further’ with the Canadian bishops at their Oct 25-30 meeting.

The conservative Anglican Network in Canada [ANiC] said it was ‘hurt and deeply saddened’ by the vote. “There is a growing momentum [in the Canadian Church] to ignore biblical teaching, disregard the views of the global Church, and even ignore the principles on which the Canadian Church was founded,” said ANiC’s moderator, Bishop Donald Harvey.

“Biblically-faithful Canadian Anglicans are increasingly feeling that they no longer have a home within their denomination,” ANiC said. “In its rush to discard its heritage and conform to current culture, their church has abandoned them.” Archbishop Fred Hiltz said the vote was a ‘reflection of the mind of the church.’ He said: “Due process was followed in the handling of this resolution.”

The meeting, called by Anglican Network, an arm of Anglican Essentials Ottawa, attracted about 75 people wanting to discuss the impact of the synod's decision and what should be done to remain true to tradition.

According to its website, Anglican Essentials Ottawa "is a growing collection of Anglicans who follow the traditional teaching and beliefs of the Anglican church, rather than the more liberal agenda of many church leaders today."

Many of those who attended had questions about what the new ecclesiastical structure would look like, what it would mean for priests currently in the diocese's employ, what would happen to church buildings, and its relationship with the wider church.

However, the meeting's hosts could provide few concrete answers and a meeting is planned in Burlington for late November to further discuss the issue.

For Anglican Essentials Ottawa president Tony Copple, the decision to approve the blessing of same-sex marriages is just one more sign of the church's incorrect move toward more liberal social values.

He advised the crowd at the meeting to stand up for tradition instead of remaining silent in their disapproval.

"Are we being too confrontational? Shouldn't we be compromising?" he asked. "I don't remember Jesus compromising to anybody. He didn't make deals with people. Jesus knew what was right and what was wrong."

The sense that the church is abandoning its traditional values is what motivated many to attend the meeting.

"I'm very dissatisfied with the direction the Anglican Church of Canada is going," said Peter Scotchmer when asked why he attended the meeting. "I'm certainly not happy to see the liberal drift of the church. It's an erosion of what the church has always stood for."

Anglican Essentials prayer co-ordinator Patricia Birkett echoed Mr. Scotchmer's concern.

"I'm very unhappy with the vote. I believe it's contrary to the Bible," she said.

And so the debate on what to do next begins for some church members.

"We don't want to stop being Anglican, but we don't want to be part of a church that is not biblically faithful," said Karen Bergenstein, who is seeking to become a priest in the Anglican Diocese in Ottawa. "The question is where do we go from here?"

Ms. Bergenstein said churches can decide to be part of the new structure, or stay within the current Anglican Church of Canada.

"It's not going to be easy, but it will be a wonderful opportunity," she said, emphasizing the importance of sacrifice when it comes to building the kind of church they want.

And for Mr. Copple, the meeting's large turnout was an indication the new structure will find success amongst dissatisfied Anglicans.

"We're working on something tangible for the future," he said. "We sense there is potential for three new churches in the Ottawa area. We want to give people a place where they feel comfortable."

The departing members of Holy Trinity Church in Marlborough will celebrate their last Eucharist in Holy Trinity's building on October 28 and then process to the nearby First United Methodist Church where it will re-form as Holy Trinity Anglican Church. That congregation will be part of the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA). The AMiA calls itself "a missionary outreach of the Province of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda."

The departing members have already re-configured the parish's website to bear the name of Holy Trinity Anglican Church.

"The prayers of the bishops are with the Rev. Michael McKinnon as well as with the members of Holy Trinity who feel God calling them to this path in their faith journey," said Maria Plati, diocesan communications director.
The diocese and leadership of Holy Trinity have been in cordial conversation for at least three years following Massachusetts Bishop M. Thomas Shaw's decision to allow the parish to be under the 'delegated episcopal pastoral oversight' (DEPO) of Donald F. Harvey, retired Bishop of Newfoundland and Labrador in the Anglican Church of Canada, Plati said. Harvey ordained McKinnon in 1996.

DEPO is a plan developed by the House of Bishops to accommodate congregations that, due to theological differences, do not believe that they can "receive appropriate pastoral care" from their own bishop. The bishop delegates another mutually agreed-upon bishop to provide pastoral care. DEPO provides temporary oversight while other steps toward restoring the relationship between a diocesan bishop and parish are pursued.

"This process of discernment has been marked by mutual respect for one another as brothers and sisters in Christ and for the different theological views that have brought us to this place," said Plati.

No decision has been made about the status of the Holy Trinity Episcopal church property which remains with the diocese, according to Plati.

When individual members of the Episcopal parishes in Attleboro and West Newbury (both named All Saints Episcopal Church) left those parishes and formed congregations affiliated with Anglican provinces in Africa, the Episcopal parish remained, she said.

Other Massachusetts Episcopal congregations have grown over the last few years, Plati said, including those in Groveland (next to West Newbury), Lowell, Bedford, Chatham, and Norwood.

Some individuals have left the diocese in years past over theological differences with the Episcopal Church over the adoption of the Book of Common Prayer in 1979 and the ordination of women, Plati noted.

McKinnon, in a statement provided by the diocese, attributed the move first to a "growing membership" and second to a desire to be with others who are "uniting for the Gospel and traditional Anglicanism in North America."
According to the information supplied in the parish's 2006 parochial report, Holy Trinity has slightly more than 80 baptized members and a worship-attendance rate of just under 40 people.

"Our faith, preaching and teaching is grounded in the Holy Bible as God's Word," McKinnon continued. "We describe ourselves as evangelical, sacramental and Spirit-filled. We claim both the historic Faith and Order of the ancient Christian Church and the principles of the English Reformation of the 16th Century as our own."

He said the members are "very grateful" to Shaw for allowing the DEPO arrangement the last three years.
-- The Rev. Mary Frances Schjonberg is national correspondent for the Episcopal News Service.

Lane, 58, canon for deployment and ministry development in the Diocese of Rochester, was elected on the first ballot out of a field of three nominees. He received 140 votes of 220 cast in the lay order and 96 of 124 cast in the
clergy order. An election on that ballot required 111 in the lay order and 63 in the clergy order.

The election took place during the 188th annual diocesan convention at the Bangor Civic Center in Bangor, Maine.

Lane will serve with diocesan Bishop Chilton R. Knudsen until her planned retirement in 2008 and will then succeed her as the ninth bishop of Maine.

However, what emerged over the ensuing decades, and indeed centuries, was a national and then international church which underwent reformation. This was on a different path from the continental Reformation and Counter Reformation but was heavily influenced by at least the former. However, we can pretend no longer that it was a peaceful reformation that met with little resistance. It had many martyrs and the acts of uniformity were ruthlessly and tyrannically imposed on the English people.

In a recent article for the Church of Ireland Gazette (Anglicanism and Protestantism, October 19) Professor Alister McGrath attacks a sort of wishful thinking that places Anglicanism solely in the Catholic tradition. This type of thinking primarily emerges through the plainly unhistoric way in which Anglicans have imagined themselves to be always in a via media between Protestantism and Catholicism.
Yet as recent historians have pointed out the original English reformation was far more self-consciously about finding a middle way between Zwingli and Luther than between Rome and Geneva. Furthermore, other Protestant churches, not just Anglicanism, retained aspects of Catholic order, high views of the sacraments and even an episcopate while still maintaining a Protestant outlook. Anglicanism can therefore be rightly considered different and unique, like every other single church, but certainly cannot claim to uniquely occupy that mythical via media.

Instead it was a later development, the Oxford Movement, which resulted in Anglicanism tilting itself towards a Catholic ecclesiology. While it is true that there were always tensions between Catholic and Protestant elements in the Church of England these cannot ever be said to have represented a via media, as much as a very broad church. Anglicanism has been captured by this Catholic ecclesiology for the past century or so most notably in the ARCIC process. Furthermore, in the proliferation of Anglican Churches throughout the world, there are indeed many provinces which view themselves solely through a Catholic ecclesiological perspective and others which take a more pragmatic Protestant view of things.

The crucial point of the current debate about the future of Anglicanism during this crisis over human sexuality is that either Anglicanism becomes a family of Protestant churches with varying degrees of relationship between its parts, or it continues on its trajectory towards a more fully Catholic vision of
the church. And it is here that the Archbishop of Canterbury is signaling the direction he favours in a letter to the Bishop of… [Central] Florida, John Howe.

In the letter, he signals a vision of Anglicanism which rejects the Protestant emphasis on national churches, and instead argues that Anglicanism’s catholicity is expressed through its bishops and dioceses. He writes: “Any diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such.”

This letter was written in the context of a traditionalist bishop seeking reassurances from the Archbishop as a number of his ministers contemplate separating from the diocese in order to retain their Anglican identity. In other words, that Anglican identity is to be found through a bishop in communion with Canterbury, rather than establishing new non-geographic episcopates whose relationship to Canterbury is less clear.

This provides one possible way through the current mess in which the American Episcopal Church finds itself, but leaves a huge number of questions up in the air. Should Anglicanism be solely defined by relationship to Canterbury? What does this emphasis on Bishop and diocese say about Anglican decision making? Only a few years ago, liberal Americans were arguing that the Bishop and diocese were the basic ecclesiological unit and therefore that was where these controversial decisions on same sex blessings and gay clergy should be taken.

On the other hand, the more Catholic view at that time seemed to suggest that such controversial decisions should be taken at the highest synodical level possible. And for many whose consciences are troubled by being in relationship with what they regard as an heretical and apostate denomination such as The Episcopal Church, is it going to help to be separately in communion with a Canterbury which is hedging its bets?

--This article appears in the October 25th , 2007, edition of the Church of England Newspaper on page 14

There was no theft or tax fraud found, according to a statement about the audit released Tuesday. The audit, conducted for Grace Church CANA vestry and Armstrong’s attorney Dennis Hartley, was done by Robert D. Johnson, a Colorado Springs certified public accountant.

His audit found that six counts against Armstrong presented by the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado in an ecclesiastical court had reasonable explanations and that financial transactions had been approved by parish officials.

“I am grateful for this report, for its clarity and completeness in addressing the false accusations against me and our vestry by the Diocese of Colorado, its Bishop, and their representatives,” Armstrong said in a statement.

In March, Armstrong and a majority of the Grace vestry, its directors, left the Episcopal Diocese and formed the congregation of Grace Church that is affiliated with the conservative Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA).

Grace CANA’s Senior Warden, Jon Wroblewski, said, “The vestry is delighted to see the good name of our rector and priest of twenty years cleared of the allegations of fraud and theft.”

Johnson’s audit of Grace Church is at odds with a 2006 audit by a Denver accountant commissioned by the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado that found financial irregularities. Because of that audit and a diocesan investigation, an ecclesiastical court in August convicted Armstrong of theft. The court recommended that Bishop Robert O’Neill defrock Armstrong.

The diocese stands by its audit, spokeswoman Beckett Stokes said Tuesday. “Bishop O’Neill today expressed his confidence that the criminal justice system will respond appropriately.”

The diocese filed a complaint in July with Colorado Springs police. Police said Tuesday that the investigation is ongoing.

At least one Grace Episcopal Church member is skeptical of Johnson’s audit. “If there was not sufficient evidence to indicate problems, police and IRS (Internal Revenue Service) investigations would not have proceeded,” said Clelia de-Moraes, Grace Episcopal senior warden.

The Ecclesiastical Court of the Diocese of Colorado, made up of clergy and lay church members, said Armstrong underreported his income to the IRS; received $392,410 from the church without authorization; received illegal loans totaling $122,479; and encumbered the church with deeds of trust totaling $2.5 million without approval from the bishop of the Standing Committee of the Colorado diocese.

Alan R. Crippen II, a Grace CANA ordained deacon and spokesman, said the Grace CANA audit results were given to CANA Bishop Martyn Minns, who had requested Grace CANA address the allegations brought against Armstrong.

The audit for Grace CANA comes a week before O’Neill is set to pronounce sentence as the final step in the disciplinary process outlined in the canons of the Episcopal Church.

The bishop can either concur or lessen the ecclesiastical court’s sentence, although it’s a symbolic action because Armstrong left the diocese.

The Grace CANA congregation meets in the historic church on Tejon Street, and Grace Episcopal Church meets elsewhere while a lawsuit is pending to determine who owns the $17 million property.

Grace CANA Church says it has spent $400,000 to $500,000 this year on legal fees and updating its accounting practices.

In the past decade, the ordination of gay clergy and other theological issues have prompted hundreds of congregations to break away from Episcopal parishes nationwide, including several in the Diocese of Colorado. Armstrong has maintained he was targeted by the diocese because of his conservative views.

“I am sorry that this theological conflict in the larger Episcopal Church has reached its hand down into our own parish and played itself out in such a destructive and divisive end,” Armstrong stated.

He also apologized to the congregation for the turmoil.

The diocese has said theology had nothing to do with its audit and financial allegations against Armstrong.

CONTACT THE WRITER: 636-0371 or carol.mcgraw@gazette.com

The Primates commissioned the Windsor Report to ask the TEC to comply with the teaching and practice of the Anglican Communion. The TEC General Convention responded in June 2006. The Archbishop of Canterbury judged that their response was adequate in the opening presentation to the Dar-es-Salaam Primates’ meeting in February 2007. Most primates disagreed. After five very uncomfortable days for the Archbishop of Canterbury, the primates unanimously drafted three questions to the TEC to answer by September 30.

One primate has told me personally that the Primates understood that September 30 was a deadline and that the TEC response would be evaluated by their meeting. The Primates’ Meeting has been taking responsibility for addressing the crisis. “The questions posed to TEC were posed by the Primates together. We expect to evaluate the answers together,” he said.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has now reversed that direction because the Anglican Communion establishment still thinks that it can manage this matter. The Archbishop indicated in his New Orleans Press Conference that the September 30 date was not a deadline; he has said that that he will not call a Primates’ Meeting ( because he has no funds for it and a number of Celtic archbishops have said they will boycott it); and that he will not postpone the Lambeth Conference as strongly recommended by the Primates of the Council of the Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA). Jonathan Petre in the Church of England Newspaper for October 5 said that “the Archbishop of Canterbury and his advisers are making up the rules of the game as they go along.”

The communiqué from the CAPA primates who represent 37 million of the 52 million Anglicans in the Anglican Communion, and the statements from Archbishop Orombi of Uganda, Archbishop Mouneer Anis of Egypt and Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney are very substantial and positive contributions to the future of the Anglican Communion.

The African Primates argue for a meeting of the Primates. Financial sources outside the Western world can support this. Archbishop Orombi has clearly stated that western hegemony is over in the Anglican Communion. African and Asian Primates are willing to put their money where their mouth is.

The African Primates argue that “what is at stake in this crisis is the very nature of Anglicanism - to understand it simply in terms of the need for greater inclusivity in the face of changing sexual ethics is a grave mistake. It is not just about sexuality but also about the nature of Christ, the truth of the gospel and the authority of the Bible. We see a trend that seems to ignore the careful balance of reformed catholicity and missionary endeavour that is our true heritage and replace it with a religion of cultural conformity that offers no transforming power and no eternal hope.” Archbishop Henry Orombi and Bishop Harold Miller of Down and Dromodre in Ireland have said the same.

But the Anglican Communion establishment is out of touch. In old colonial style they sent the Archbishop of York, a Ugandan, rather than the secretary of the Lambeth Conference, Kenneth Kearon, to urge the African Primates to come to Lambeth. The CAPA meeting documents indicate that he made little impact.
The tone of the statements from New Orleans and from the Joint Standing Committee (whose report was originally intended to be private to Archbishop Williams, but which was made public before all its members had responded for Archbishop Sentamu to take to the CAPA meeting) lack understanding of the genuine concerns of the orthodox primates to provide pastoral care for those Anglicans who cannot in conscience remain part of TEC. They are rigid on issues of jurisdiction, and overflexible on doctrine. This is the wrong way around.

Bishop elect David Anderson writes of the plans being put forward by the Presiding Bishop of TEC, and also by Bishops Michael Scott-Joynt and Tom Wright for the orthodox to continue within the current TEC: “I do not believe that any parish, vestry member, clergy or diocese that has been personally sued by TEC, had their health insurance jerked out from under them, had their property confiscated, their pensions lost or frozen, and publicly deposed when they had already announced they had left, would ever forget why they left and why they can not go back. The current Episcopal Church cannot and will not repent. Such a plan will fail because the parishes which have left TEC will not go back to TEC, not even to a collaborationist accommodation. If forced hard enough they will leave Canterbury Anglicanism, but they will not go back. Does Rowan Williams not care?”

Rev Giles Goddard, the chair of Inclusive Church indicates that this approach means ultimately following the direction of TEC and accepting their inclusion in the Anglican Communion.

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s vision appears to be a) to take personal charge now of developments. He has requested the provinces to report their responses to the New Orleans statement to him by the end of October. The CAPA Primates have already replied. They are unwilling to engage in the seemingly imperialist divide and rule approach of contacting primates and provinces one by one.
His vision is b) that TEC is allowed to continue in the Communion, even if the rest disagree with them. This is unity at any price.

He is c) prepared to go ahead with the Lambeth Conference, though he knows that hundreds of bishops, including some in the Church of England, will not attend.

He is also reported d) to be planning to preside at a service of Holy Communion at St Peter’s Eaton Square, London on November 29 for gay clergy and their partners, even though such clergy are living in defiance of the teaching of his own House of Bishops report: Further Issues in Human Sexuality. This public endorsement of same-sex partnerships also sits at odds with the Focus on Families report just published from the Office of National Statistics. It shows that married mixed-gender couples live longer, enjoy better health and can rely on more home care in old age than their divorced, widowed, single and cohabiting peers. Children who live with their married parents are also healthier, and can expect to stay in full time education for longer. (The Times October 5).

The CAPA Primates say that “a divided conference with several provinces unable to participate and hundreds of bishops absent would bring to an end to the Communion as we know it.” They ask that the conference be postponed to ensure that those invited to Lambeth have already endorsed the Anglican Communion Covenant and so that they can come together as witness to our common faith. The Bishop of Rochester has said that he would find it difficult to attend a Church council alongside those who consecrated or approved the appointment of Anglicanism’s first openly gay bishop.

There are currently three groups of people in the current debate.

There are those who think that the approach of The Episcopal Church is the way ahead for the Anglican Communion. These would include the Archbishops of Wales and Scotland.

There are those who do not agree with The Episcopal Church in its teachings on doctrine and ethics. Bishop Jonathan Gledhill of Lichfield said he believed that 95% of the Anglican Communion would hold this view.

Of the second group, there are those some who no longer trust the Archbishop of Canterbury to deal adequately or fairly with the problem. Others still trust that the Archbishop of Canterbury is willing and able to address the problem as one charged with contending for the faith once delivered to the saints.

But it is become increasingly clear that there are only two options: either go with TEC, or go with the African Primates, the Bishop of Rochester and the Common Cause College of Bishops representing orthodox Anglicans in the USA.

The statements of those cited can be found on http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/

Abp. Williams has stated to Bp. Howe that: "...any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such. Those who are rushing into separatist solutions are, I think, weakening that basic conviction of Catholic theology and in a sense treating the provincial structure of The Episcopal Church as if it were the most important thing - which is why I continue to hope and pray for the strengthening of the bonds of mutual support among those Episcopal Church Bishops who want to be clearly loyal to Windsor." He later said that the orthodox "need to regard the Bishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the 'national church'."

So, now we are to understand that each individual American Diocese is considered to have separate membership in the Anglican Communion? If this is the case, why is there an 815 and a TCGC with a General Convention? Why is there a Provincial Primate, i.e., TCGC's Presiding Bishop, and why does she wield such power? Why are there national Constitution and Cannons to which 815 demand each parish pay fealty? Why does TCGC purport to set theology and policy for the entire American Church? Why is there a national Chancellor who is directing litigation in several individual Dioceses which is being funded by the national Church? And why are all pledges and donations to individual parishes in part being transmitted to TCGC by way of so-called "fair-share" giving?

If the Archbishop is right, let's sell 815, fire Schori and the entire staff in New York, and each Diocese do its own thing. Of course, this solution still abandons the thousands of orthodox Anglicans who are trapped in Diocese with liberal Bishops. It still offers the orthodox who are not in Pittsburgh, Ft. Worth, Quincy, San Joaquin, or Western Louisiana little or no alternative than to either leave TCGC individually for another denomination, or leave as separate parishes and enter litigation with TCGC.

++Williams' criticism of "separatist solutions" and this statement: "Breaking this up in favour of taking refuge in foreign jurisdictions complicates and embitters the future for this vision" are also quite misplaced and grievously in error to whatever extent he wants to maintain Anglican unity. The orthodox have had no choice but to "take refuge in foreign jurisdictions" because NO ONE, including ++Williams, have offered the American orthodox any refuge, any protection, any pastoral care or oversight, nor any assistance in our struggles against TCGC.

It was only once courageous Primates such as ++Akinola, ++Orombi, and others were willing to step outside their own jurisdictions that the orthodox in America began to feel some hope and some voice in the affairs of the Communion. Much as the French were invaluable in aiding the Colonists in the American Revolution, these Primates have been instrumental in showing a way out from under the ruthless oppression of TCGC of any conservative opposition. That anyone is "embittered" was caused first and foremost by the Anglican Communion failing to take any action to enforce its own theological pronouncements, and by TEC, in its alleged quest for "inclusion", abjectly excluding anyone who disagrees with its "innovations."

I find no encouragement in ++Williams' letter to +Howe. Instead, I find only more prevarication in trying to re-cast the alignment and relationships between various hierarchical levels of TCGC. Provide some real, clear, direct answers to my questions above if what you say is true. This looks to me like an effort to grasp and hold onto departing Dioceses and parishes to be able to subject them to more of the wearing-down of the "listening process" as opposed to losing them outright. It is the old bait-and-switch game - "stay in TCGC and you can have autonomy at the Diocesan level." Sorry, Archbishop, but no sale, at least not until you take some concrete steps to discipline TCGC and give the orthodox some realistic relief. Until then, its just another batch of fudge.

14 October 2007

Dear John

I've just received your message, which weighs very heavily on my heart, as it must - though far more so - on yours. At this stage, I can say only two things. The first is that I have committed myself very clearly to awaiting the views of the Primates before making any statement purporting to settle the question of The Episcopal Church's status, and I can't easily short-circuit that procedure. The second is that your Rectors need to recognize that this process is currently in train and that a separatist decision from them at this point would be irresponsible and potentially confusing. However, without forestalling what the Primates might say, I would repeat what I've said several times before - that any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such. Those who are rushing into separatist solutions are, I think, weakening that basic conviction of Catholic theology and in a sense treating the provincial structure of The Episcopal Church as if it were the most important thing - which is why I continue to hope and pray for the strengthening of the bonds of mutual support among those Episcopal Church Bishops who want to be clearly loyal to Windsor. Action that fragments their Dioceses will not help the consolidation of that all-important critical mass of ordinary faithful Anglicans in The Episcopal Church for whose nurture I am so much concerned. Breaking this up in favour of taking refuge in foreign jurisdictions complicates and embitters the future for this vision.

Do feel free to pass on these observations to your priests. I should feel a great deal happier, I must say, if those who are most eloquent for a traditionalist view in the United States showed a fuller understanding of the need to regard the Bishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the 'national church'. I think that if more thought in these terms there might be more understanding of why priests in a diocese such as yours ought to maintain their loyalty to their sacramental communion with you as Bishop. But at the emotional level I can understand something of the frustration they doubtless experience, just as you must.

With continuing prayers and love,

+Rowan

However, as Proverbs 18:17 says: 'The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.' My difficulty with the Primate's summary is that it omitted to account for the many and strong voices on the other side of this debate. Thus, we already have a negative statement on behalf of thirteen African primates. Since we have been invited to join a political process, we need to hear the concerns of those equally weighty witnesses who believe that the House of Bishops has failed to give the assurances for which it was asked. The political forces which are understandably pushing this forward as a decisive reply by the Americans and one which will lead to an outbreak of peace, are bound to be frustrated.

These are complex issues. You can get a sense of what I am saying by reading both the whole of the HOB statement and Bishop Mouneer's dissenting opinion. If it is true that the Americans have failed to deliver, you can see why this is the case. We are confronted with two great passions for a gospel. It is hardly an answer at all to the Primates: it's really, passionately all about a gospel of inclusion. Most don't regret what they have done - not for a moment. This is a missionary faith. Far from retreating, they hope that all will come to agree with them and they are making arrangements for this to happen.

Then read the pain and passion of Mouneer - who lives out the life of a Christian in Egypt and the Middle East, in places of difficulty such as we can only half imagine. Do you see why he is so impatient by his constant experience of what he must see as double-speech and fudging? He does not think that the Americans have given a straight answer at all. To him, the American position is the opposite of the Bible which gives him his faith. At its heart this is a contest over the authority and reading of scripture. It takes a brave person to think that the solemn, black-letter, Joint Committee document, is going to succeed in awarding all a prize and making all well again. The contest is too deep, the stakes are too high, and the events which have already occurred are too decisive. We are living in a new order.

Part of the distrust in the Communion at the moment is caused by the sense that we in the west have not been straight with our Communion partners, that we speak with deceptive lips. As I have listened to such significant Christian leaders as Orombi of Uganda and Mouneer of Egypt and Chew of Singapore, I have to say that they have reason to distrust us. We have said one thing and done another, not least in this whole business of the western sexual revolution. Now we are splitting hairs about words like 'authorise' and 'public' and 'rite'. What Mouneer wants to know, I think, is whether American bishops have ceased permitting and encouraging the blessing of same sex unions in their diocese, by whatever method this may have come about. It seems clear to me from what has been said in the statement and afterwards that they have not.

The Primates specifically raise the question because of what they see as lack of clarity in American responses. They say that 'At the heart of our tensions is the belief that The Episcopal Church has departed from the standard of teaching on human sexuality...by permitting Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions (Dar,17). They know that the General Convention has not made any provision for this practice, but they 'believe that there is a lack of clarity...an inconsistency between the position of general Convention and local pastoral provision...we understand that local pastoral position is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.' (Dar, 21)

They knew already that there was no authorised provision for this practice, but there was talk of much local permitted liturgical blessings. This was the point also made by a special Committee of the Joint Standing Committee; 'it is clear that the authorisation by any one bishop, diocese or Province, of any public Rite of blessing, or permission to develop or use such a rite, would go against the standard of teaching...' (JSC,4). It is not the fact of permission giving as such, which I suppose all wise bishops do about a range of things. It is what is permitted.

You have Mouneer's response to the House of Bishops. He is clearly exasperated by the American reply. Like our Primate, he attended. Unfortunately, tragically, his dissenting voice was not incorporated into the document. It came out afterwards. Archbishop Orombi declined even to attend: he thought that the whole process was flawed to start with. It was not what the Primates had wanted when they asked their questions.

How has the verdict of the Joint Standing Committee been received around the world? The Church of England Evangelical Council headed by Bishop Benn has dissented from it. Those American Bishops and Dioceses who have been planning to leave The Episcopal Church have not been stopped in their tracks. A large group of African Primates - representative of the people who posed the questions - have said, 'on first reading we find it to be unsatisfactory. The assurances made are without credibility and its preparation is severely compromised by numerous conflicts of interest. The report itself appears to be a determined effort to find a way for the full inclusion of The Episcopal Church with no attempt at discipline or change from their prior position.'

Why this dissent from the Joint Committee? It would of course be best to have the whole Dar es Salaam communique, but, failing that, here are the two questions which were put to the Americans for an answer by September 30th: 'In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church 1.make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their diocese or through General Convention (cf TWR, 143, 144); and 2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, 134; Unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, 134).'

We only have time to look at the response to the first request. The wording of the reply certainly does not give the assurance that is sought. The Americans were asked to restrain General Convention from authorising a Rite of Blessing; they could do this, I am told, by exercising what amounts to a veto; but they undertake only to refrain 'until General Convention takes further action', a different proposition altogether. In fact the Primates used, and stressed the word unless, the Bishops replied with 'until'. The difference tells us a something about the enthusiasm of many Americans to see these developments agreed to. In short the different heart of the Americans and the different heart of their critics is not going to understand these words in the same way even if they were not ambiguous. This is not black-letter dispute over words.

The Primates already knew that no rite has been approved as yet by General Convention; the Americans observe that the majority of bishops 'do not make allowance for the blessing of same sex unions.' But that concedes the very point at issue. This is a practice allowed by some Bishops at least; perhaps many. The consequence is, then, if I understand the situation correctly, at least one American Bishop, though a believer in same-sex blessings, has now forbidden them occurring. He understood that even permitting them was not an option. But they will still occur elsewhere. Thus Bishop Chane of Washington is reported in Washington Window, his own newspaper, as saying, that, 'the Diocese of Washington does not have an authorised rite for blessing same-sex relationships. However, he added that the statement passed by the bishops will allow for such blessings to continue in the Diocese.'

And here are the honest reflections of Bishop Gene Robinson on what has occurred. 'Let me also state strongly that the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and the Primates misunderstood us when they stated that the HOB in fact "declared a moratorium on all such public Rites." Neither in our discussions nor in our statement did we agree to or declare such a moratorium on permitting such rites to take place. That may be true in many or most dioceses, but that is certainly not the case in my own diocese and many others. The General Convention has stated that such rites are indeed to be considered within the bounds of the pastoral ministry of this Church to its gay and lesbian members, and that remains the policy of The Episcopal Church.'

I believe that this is what Canon Kearon was referring to when he spoke of the need for some episcopalian bishops to consider their position in the Communion. It already dents the modified rapture of the Joint Committee in saying, 'The Communion should move towards closure on these matters, at least for the time being,' It certainly justifies the response of Bishop Mouneer and others. The matter is not resolved.

But none of this is surprising. In the end, the matters at stake are theological, not legal; about the heart, not mere politics. Integral to the discussion is the authority and interpretation of the Bible. Scripture is the way in which God rules his church and we as Anglicans are committed to listening to scripture with unique attentiveness.

We have learned from the American experience that the matter of human sexuality is never going to be regarded as a minor one. It goes to the heart of our humanity and God's authority. I am sure that the American response was well-intentioned. But it has not yet healed the rift which opened as a result of their actions in 2003, because those actions arose from a way of looking at the world which most in the Communion believe to be unbiblical.

END

"Americans For Truth has learned that a White House official has boasted to pro-family leaders attending a private administration briefing that White House staffers were involved in the negotiations to craft expanded religious exemption language for the new ENDA bill," according to Peter LaBarbera's Americans For Truth organization.

"At the briefing, the White House official did not commit to the assembled evangelical leaders that the president would veto [ENDA], saying that they will wait to see the bill's final language, according to our source. This is troubling in that vetoing ENDA in any form is regarded as a 'no-brainer' by pro-family activists, who are counting on Bush to stop it," he continued

His organization is running a campaign to encourage people to contact the White House to express their opposition to the plan.

"Some religious leaders take comfort in ENDA's exemptions; we do not," he continued. "White House involvement in negotiations over ENDA is problematic in that makes it more difficult for President Bush to veto the bill.
"H.R. 3685's current religious exemption will hardly affect the many ways in which ENDA would erode and destroy the freedom of Americans to act on their deeply held moral beliefs about homosexuality," he said.

The proposal, for which homosexual and transsexual activists are crusading, "has tremendous potential to criminalize Christianity in the United States by creating federal 'rights' based on wrong and destructive lifestyle," he said. The plan was approved just days ago by the House Education and Labor Committee and is headed for a House floor vote.

As WND reported earlier, proposals such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act would give special privileges to "gay" and "transgendered" individuals.

"If passed, the bill would grant special employment rights and protected minority status to individuals who define themselves based upon chosen sexual behaviors," said Matt Barber, a policy analyst with Concerned Women for America, the nation's largest public policy women's group.

"It would force employers to abandon their First Amendment civil rights at the workplace door," he said.

Social conservatives have depended on President Bush to either use a veto, or threaten a veto, to halt the advance of such societal-changing plans being assembled in Congress. He's already expressed that there's "no need" for "hate crimes" legislation which also would create special privileges for those who identify themselves with an alternative sexual lifestyle.

But Barber said the "religious exemption" being assembled is anything but. "At best, only churches – and essentially pastors – could be exempt from the provisions of ENDA, and that's not even guaranteed."

"All other faith-based organizations – even though which are tax exempt – would be discriminated against under the bill. Groups such as Christian schools, Christian camps, faith-based soup kitchens and Bible book stores would be forced to adopt a view of human sexuality which directly conflicts with fundamental tenets of their faith," he said.

"ENDA would ultimately give liberal judges the authority to subjectively determine who qualifies for the exemption. It's the goose that laid the golden egg for homosexual activist attorneys, and it would open the floodgates for lawsuits against employers who wish to live out their faith and even those who don't," he said.

LaBarbera said the word that White House staffers have been working on proposals makes the situation worse,
"Failure to veto ENDA would be a devastating defeat for pro-family forces and a huge gift to homosexual lobbyists. Call the president …. and urge him to 'please publicly pledge to veto ENDA ... in any form if it passes Congress,'" he said.

He said it is a dangerous precedent to install in federal law "rights" based on changeable homosexual/bisexual behavior.

"Homosexuality is not a 'civil right,' it is a human wrong – one that is redeemable as proven by thousands of contented former homosexuals and ex-lesbians. Our Founding Fathers, infused with a biblical view of fallen man, created limited government that sought to restrain the sinful outworking of men's hearts … The law once punished sin (e.g., sodomy and anti-abortion laws), so it is preposterous to say that homosexuality affirming laws are necessary to uphold basic 'constitutional rights,'" LaBarbera said.

The law as proposed would apply to any business with 15 or more employees and would declare "it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity."
LaBarbera said the law also could be used to defend placing openly homosexual and bisexual teachers in public schools.

"It must be remembered that top homosexual strategists now assert that their 'moral' claim (the right not to be treated differently based on their 'sexual orientation') trumps our religious/moral obligation to oppose homosexuality," LaBarbera said.

He also said the plan is built on house of cards, since there is no outbreak of homosexuals getting fired. Instead, it is Christians defending their faith in the public arena being mistreated, he said.

"ENDA would force all Americans who prefer to live within the realm of reality to pretend, by force of law, that a man is a woman – that an apple is an orange, simply because that apple thinks it's an orange (awkward, fruity pun not intended). It's 'The Emperor's New Clothes' meets George Orwell, and even if you're the Mary Lou Retton of mental gymnastics, you land flat on your keister on this one," Barber said.

He said the law actually would violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "by codifying the very thing it purports to prevent – workplace discrimination."

As WND has reported, this issue recently came to a head in California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a ban on anything that includes a "discriminatory bias" that could be perceived as being against bisexuals, transsexuals and homosexuals in all public schools.

There, analysts have concluded that even the terms "mom and dad" and "husband and wife" could be banned because someone in a same-sex lifestyle choice could perceive that as being derogatory.

The west-central Illinois diocese, based in Peoria, is among several U.S. dioceses unhappy with the actions, teachings and policies of The Episcopal Church, the American province of the Anglican Communion.

The Rev. John Spencer, the synod's press officer, said Saturday night that while several resolutions were approved by clergy and elected leaders of the diocese, no final decision was made to seek alternate affiliation.
Diocesan leaders are waiting to see what actions other dioceses take at their annual gatherings, he said.

Also being awaited are reactions by archbishops from around the world to actions taken in late September by The Episcopal Church's House of Bishops. The Anglican leaders had asked the U.S. bishops earlier this year to clarify their stand on blessings of same-sex unions and consecrating noncelibate homosexual bishops.

Spencer said diocesan leaders also are waiting to see who will attend next year's scheduled Lambeth Conference in England, a meeting of Anglican Communion archbishops and bishops from around the world held once every 10 years.

There also is the possibility of a special Quincy synod being called in upcoming months, Spencer said.

"We didn't put any specific date on the next gathering," he said. "We're able to call a special synod if we need to. The consensus was we need to be kind of open to the Holy Spirit here and open the door and leave it open, so that if it becomes clear we need to take further action, we'll do that."

The diocese last year asked for oversight from an archbishop of another Anglican province. So far, that request has been denied. At its meeting in September, TEC's House of Bishops adopted a resolution making eight TEC bishops available as "episcopal visitors," but Quincy Bishop Keith Ackerman pointed out he and the other dioceses making the request for alternate oversight hadn't been consulted in the process.

Ackerman wasn't available for comment Saturday.

Michael Miller can be reached at 686-3106 or mmiller@pjstar.com.

A Pastoral Letter from the Bishop of Central Florida
To be Read or otherwise Distributed in all of our Congregations
On Sunday, October 21, 2007

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

The following agreed statement was released by all of the participants in a meeting held at Diocesan House on Thursday of this past week:

“On Thursday, October 18, 2007, the Rectors and Senior Wardens of seven Parishes of the Diocese of Central Florida and two Church Planters met with Bishop John W. Howe and representatives of the Diocese to discuss the possible scenarios by which all or part of the congregations may disaffiliate from The Episcopal Church.

“Each Parish will now enter a process of conversation and negotiation with the Diocese based on its particular circumstances. Bishop Howe reiterated his commitment to provide pastoral care both to those who leave and to those who wish to remain.

“All parties agreed to enter into these negotiations in good faith using Biblical principles in an effort to avoid litigation and scandal to the Church of Christ”.

As Bishop of the Diocese of Central Florida, and as stated above, I remain committed to providing pastoral care both to those who wish to leave and to those who wish to remain. Individuals who wish to leave the Diocese of Central Florida and form another congregation are to be honored as brothers and sisters in Christ. The Diocese will do everything in its power to make their departure from the Diocese of Central Florida and The Episcopal Church a peaceful one without rancor or recrimination.

At the same time the Diocese is bound to work within the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church which state that a Parish holds in trust all real and personal property for the benefit of the Diocese and The Episcopal Church. We have a solemn responsibility to protect the interests of the Diocese and the larger church. We cannot and will not abandon those who wish to remain as members of The Episcopal Church and we will work diligently to determine whether in fact there is a sufficient number of Episcopalians in a given congregation to constitute a viable continuing congregation able to meet and worship in its own current facilities.

We are developing a detailed protocol for dealing with those who wish to disaffiliate, and I will discuss it with the clergy at our annual Clergy Conference this week. Only after receiving their input will this protocol be finalized. For now, let me assure you that all of you will have a say in these decisions, and they will not be made by Rectors and Vestries acting alone.

This is a very painful time for many of us. I feel a great sense of personal loss in contemplating these departures, but I want to reassure you that the Diocese of Central Florida remains steadfastly committed to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the authority and trustworthiness of God’s word written, and the anointing and empowering of the Holy Spirit. As your Bishop I am committed to proclaiming the Gospel, to strengthening existing churches and planting new ones, and to raising up the next generation as faithful followers of Christ. The painful loss of some of our brothers and sisters in Christ will not divert us from any of these commitments.

I have said repeatedly that it is my desire to remain both an Episcopalian and an Anglican. In that regard, let me share something with you that the Archbishop of Canterbury has written to me just this past week: “Any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of th