Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori will offer a revamped primatial vicar plan to the House of Bishops at their meeting next week in New Orleans, sources who have been briefed on the broad outline of the new proposal told The Living Church.

The plan is said to call for a nominee of the Presiding Bishop’s to exercise delegated pastoral authority over those dioceses that had requested alternate primatial oversight from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams following the 2006 General Convention.

However, the Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker, Bishop of Fort Worth, said a plan that placed the ultimate authority in the hands of the Presiding Bishop was a non-starter. Fort Worth would not accept the “unilateral dictates” of the Presiding Bishop, he said.

Last November, Bishop Jefferts Schori proposed a “primatial vicar” scheme where she would appoint a bishop to serve as her “designated pastor,” presiding at consecrations and acting in her stead for “any other appropriate matters.”

Read it all.

Read it all.

[Rowan Williams]… has been warning some of his colleagues, he said, that “the underlying issue is not going to go away.” Acts and decisions by one province have an impact — and sometimes a cost — elsewhere, and it is “an illusion” to imagine otherwise. “If we’re going to be in any sense a global communion and not just the loosest possible federation of local churches, then not only do we have to ask about primacy, we have to ask about structures of responsibility.” And he detects “a very strong groundswell of opinion in many quarters” toward that conclusion.

Maybe, but the Episcopal church in the United States took no such global view when it ordained Gene Robinson to the episcopate. Indeed, the presiding bishop at the time, Frank Griswold, announced that “we thought it was a local matter.” For the American Anglicans, what they have done in ordaining Robinson, according to the procedures laid down in their church’s constitution, is a legitimate prophetic action in the cause of justice and human rights. They have always regarded themselves as the cutting edge of the communion, and since the foundation of their church in the wake of the American Revolution, have understood their General Convention to be juridically independent.

Williams, as always, sees both sides of the question. “I do accept that there are moments when people say, truth before unity. I understand why the Reformation happened, why in the 1930s the German church divided so violently, where the only unity that could have survived the acceptance of Hitler’s racial laws was a unity which absolutely undermined the integrity of the church.” He commented: “Clearly some people in the United States have seen this as that sort of moment. I don’t.”

Read it all.

Welcome to the Alice in Wonderland world of “process” which so dominates the upper echelons of the leadership life of the Episcopal Church. If words COULD be interpreted in a way that does not favor the leadership’s goals, they are not, but when the wording does, they are interpeted that way, restrictively. There is some talk that this whole conflict and crisis among Anglicans is all about power, and it is not primarily about power, actually, but about truth and other things. Yet power plays a role, it is just that TEC leadership does not do much self-criticism about how they exercise their own power. Words mean what those in leadership in TEC want them to mean in too many instances. One wishes there would be some self-scrutiny on such matters because the implications would be considerable. The lack of honesty in this church in some matters has become intolerable. People are saying one thing and doing another and using words to mislead others into thinking they are not doing what in fact they are doing….

The key language in this resolution may be found here: Lambeth “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions.” Anglican practice needs to be in accord with anglican teaching. Therefore, there can be no pastoral practice in a local setting which either is or is seen to be somehow “legitimising or blessing”¦same sex unions.” And this means that local blessings, whether in houses or churches or wherever, and whether they have official sanctioned liturgies or not, cannot be done, if they are of non-celibate same sex couples.

Lest there be any doubt about this, the Archbishop of Canterbury said at the concluding press conference of the Tanzania primates meeting:

The teaching of the Anglican Church remains that homosexual activity is not compatible with scripture.

Read it all. And note that Bishop Councell’s article posted below is exactly legitimizing a same sex union in his diocese. This is the new theology and practice which TEC has embraced. Why will its leaders not admit this openly and honestly? Do they lack the courage of their convictions?

We in the Diocese of New Jersey respect the discernment of the local congregations as they search for and call clergy to serve in leadership. All clergy candidates are subject to the same reference and background checks, including conversations with the bishops and deployment officers of those applying from other dioceses. Among the questions that I always ask is the following, based upon one of the ordination vows in our Book of Common Prayer: “Is this priest’s personal life a wholesome example to the people?”
I believe that gay and lesbian clergy, living in monogamous, faithful and stable unions, are a wholesome example to the people of our churches. Once assured of that, I welcome congregations to call such clergy to lead them in their life and ministry.
I have met the Rev. Debra Bullock, who comes with the very highest recommendations from her seminary faculty and from the clergy and lay leaders where she served in Chicago. She is a faithful, dedicated, hard-working, warm and talented priest. She will bring new life and new energy to St. Barnabas in Villas and to St. Mary’s, Stone Harbor.
I welcome her to this Diocese and I give thanks that she and her partner will join our Episcopal community.

Read it all.

The Diocese of Quincy, headquartered in Peoria, Illinois, announced today that it will consider proposals at its October Synod that would cut its ties with the General Convention of the Episcopal Church if leaders of that Church continue to pull away from mainstream Anglicanism.

The Archbishops of the Anglican Communion have set September 30th as the deadline for the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops to give “unequivocal” assurance that they will stop advocating teaching and practices that are incompatible with Holy Scripture.

“We’re praying the House of Bishops will have a change of heart when they meet in New Orleans September 20th-25th,” said Bishop Keith Ackerman of Quincy. “As a diocese, our goal has always been to uphold the historic faith and order of the Church. This is reflected in our diocesan Constitution. If the Episcopal Church refuses to turn back, we will be forced to make a decision.”

Fr. John Spencer, President of the Quincy Standing Committee, made it clear that the Diocese is not trying to preempt the upcoming meeting of the House of Bishops. “We’re required to finalize proposed Synod resolutions now to meet canonical deadlines. It’s not our intention to prejudge what the House of Bishops may or may not do when they meet later this month.”

Spencer also stressed that Quincy is not acting alone. “Other dioceses will consider similar proposals this fall,” he said. “They will announce their plans in due course. If the Episcopal Church continues to reject the pleas and counsel of the Anglican Communion, we’ll be compelled to seek a home in a different Province of the Communion where we can practice the Christian faith in good conscience.”

Quincy would join hundreds of parishes that have cut ties with the Episcopal Church in recent years to affiliate with overseas Provinces of the Communion. Many Episcopal Church leaders are on record denying basic Christian teaching such as the uniqueness of salvation through Jesus Christ and the primacy of Scripture in determining theological and moral teaching.

“It’s become obvious over three decades,” Bishop Ackerman said, “that two churches now exist under the same name. The original church encompasses the parishes and dioceses like Quincy who are committed to the authority of Holy Scripture and Christian orthodoxy. The second is a new culturally-driven religion that advocates revolutionary social change and has abandoned orthodox Christianity. Sadly, this new group has gained control of the national General Convention and Executive Council. Leaders of the Anglican Communion have repeatedly asked the Episcopal Church to repent and heal the schism they’ve caused in our Communion. The Episcopal Church has simply refused.”

Last year, Quincy and six other dioceses asked for alternative oversight from an Archbishop outside of the United States. The House of Bishops and Executive Council both rejected the most recent proposal earlier this year.

“We’ve gone the extra mile in demonstrating patience,” Spencer said, “and then some. But many of our people are simply unwilling to wait any longer, when we see absolutely no sign that the Episcopal Church will hear the pleas of our Anglican brothers and sisters around the world and turn back from the destructive path it is on.”

We are ordained leaders in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and we write to our fellow Anglicans across this Church in this season of great importance concerning our future. We are glad followers of Jesus Christ, working for the mission of his Gospel, and have for decades labored for the reform and renewal of the Episcopal Church under Holy Scripture and through the Holy Spirit. We are deeply thankful for this call upon our lives; we love the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and we love this Church.
We write in a season where it is evident that differences of faith and practice have torn our Church and our Communion, perhaps beyond mending. We have all experienced this rending in painful and personal ways.
The presenting issue is the question of human sexuality, but underlying issues go deeper, to the very heart of our faith, including our understanding of the Triune God, the devastating impact of the fall upon human nature, the unique work of Jesus as the only Savior of the world, our understanding of God’s Gospel mission to the world, the interdependence of our Communion, and ”“ above it all ”“ the final authority and full trustworthiness of Holy Scripture guiding us through these matters. Though our faith is in concert with the majority of our Communion and the historical roots of our Church, we now find ourselves fundamentally divided from the majority of the leadership in the Episcopal Church over these issues of first importance.

We have noticed a widespread and growing trend in The Episcopal Church: in many places congregations and dioceses are no longer free to recruit, develop or choose leaders who share their faith and values; mandatory diocesan assessments are used to fund causes that many believe are in opposition to their own principles; and, if the trend continues, acceptance of behavior Scripture reveals to be immoral and destructive will be soon required. Litigation and presentments are being widely used against congregations and their leaders who in conscience resist or who seek the freedom to realign with other parts of our Communion. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that opposition to classical, creedal, biblical theology and to our ministries is being orchestrated from the highest levels of the Episcopal Church. We wonder if we really are welcome here.
Mindful of Jesus’ guidance we have worked to bring our concerns to the leadership of the Anglican Communion. We have been heartened by the broad attention and support we have received. We hoped that the Lambeth Conference, the Windsor Report, and the Tanzania Communiqué would provide a workable way forward for our ministries and the Anglican Communion itself.
We were stunned by the rapid, summary dismissal of the Tanzania Communiqué by our House of Bishops and Executive Council early this year. We understood this to signal a decided rejection of Communion authority, of our most deeply held values, and of our future ministries. We believe there shall be no viable long term future for our ministries in this church unless we make unacceptable compromises on matters of first importance. Many of us sense we are being compelled to realign. All of us believe we must act to protect the churches and people we serve. We now fear for the future of the Anglican Communion itself.
We do not want to act in haste or in a spirit of judgment. We are concerned that the history of the Church is littered with the wreckage of strife and division, and we do not wish to add to the ruins. We are mindful that our own hands are not clean in the development of this history, and are particularly brokenhearted over the pride that has too often accompanied our witness. We beg God and others across our Church for the forgiveness we need and for the opportunity for a different future than the one we fear is rapidly coming upon us. More than anything we wish to see God’s Gospel healing upon our Church.

We have an urgent request for our leaders as they take counsel in the months to come.
In all humility, with all prayer, and with great respect for the importance of your leadership in God’s Church, we beg you, implore you, to reconsider and comply with the unanimous requests of the Anglican Primates in the Tanzania Communiqué.
We believe this plan to offer the greatest and perhaps last opportunity for a much needed halt in the rending of our Church and for the ”˜grace space’ that might offer us a different, ordered, and hopeful way forward.
We shall be much in prayer in the coming weeks, seeking the leading and help of Him whose grace upholds us all.
Signed
The Rev. John P. Bailey, Vicar, St. Andrew’s Church, New Kensington
The Rev. Ronald J. Baillie, Vicar, Church of the Good Samaritan, Liberty Boro
The Rev. Dr. James Bauer, Priest, Indiana
The Rev. Douglas R. Blakelock, Rector, St. Mark’s Church, Johnstown
The Rev. Dr. Dennett Buettner, Priest in Charge, Church of the Savior, Ambridge
The Rev. Stanley Burdock, Rector, Christ Church, Brownsville
The Rev. Donald W. Bushyager, Assistant Rector, St. David’s Church, Peters Twp
The Rev. Geoffrey W. Chapman, Rector, St Stephen’s Church, Sewickley
The Rev. James Chester, Deacon, Shepherd’s Heart Fellowship, Pittsburgh
The Rev. Dr. Ruth E. Correll, Assistant & Chaplain, St. Francis Church and Day School, Potomac, MD
The Rev. Dr. Daniel F. Crawford, Rector, St. Thomas-in-the-Fields Church, Gibsonia
The Rev. John T. Cruikshank, Rector, All Saints Church, Brighton Heights, Pittsburgh
The Rev. Dallam G. Ferneyhough, Priest-in-Charge, St. Luke’s Church, Georgetown
The Rev. John E. Fierro, Rector, St. Paul’s Church, Monongahela
The Rev. James Forrest, Associate Rector, St. David’s Church, Peters Twp
The Rev. Matthew Frey, Rector, Church of the Advent, Brookline
The Rev. Dr. Jack Gabig, Director of the Children &Youth Initiative, Anglican Communion Network, Pittsburgh
The Rev. Canon Mary M Hays, Canon Missioner, Diocese of Pittsburgh
The Rev. John Heidengren, Rector, Prince of Peace Church, Aliquippa
The Rev. Marc Jacobson, Priest, Manila, Philippines
The Rev. Sam Jampetro, Church Planter, Coraopolis
The Rev. Paul Johnson, Assistant, Trinity Cathedral, Pittsburgh
The Rev. Carrie Klukas, Deacon in Residence, Trinity Cathedral, Pittsburgh
The Rev. Christopher M. Klukas, Rector, St. Martin’s Church, Monroeville
The Rev. Dr. Grant LeMarquand, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies & Mission, Trinity School for Ministry, Ambridge
The Rev. Canon John A. Macdonald, Director of the Stanway Institute for World Mission & Evangelism and Assistant Professor of Mission & Evangelism, Trinity School for Ministry, Ambridge
The Rev. Canon Dr. J. Douglas McGlynn, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Parish Ministry, Nashotah House Theological Seminary, Nashotah WI
The Rev. Christine McIlvain, Deacon, Christ Church, North Hills
The Rev. Peggy Means, Assistant Rector, Christ Church Greensburg and Associate Priest, Seeds of Hope Church, Bloomfield
The Rev. Jonathan N. Millard, Rector, Church of the Ascension, Pittsburgh
The Rev. Gary D. Miller, Rector, Church of the Holy Innocents, Leechburg
The Rev. James C. Morehead, Assistant Rector, Shepherd’s Heart Fellowship, Pittsburgh
The Very Rev. Dr. Peter C. Moore, Dean Emeritus, Trinity School for Ministry, Ambridge
The Rev. James C. Morehead, Assistant Rector, Shepherd’s Heart Fellowship, Pittsburgh
The Rev. Jeffrey Murph, Rector, St. Thomas Church, Oakmont
The Rev. Andrew Ray, Assistant Rector, Fox Chapel Church
The Rev. David B. Rucker, Rector, All Saints Church, Rosedale
The Rev. Rebecca C. Spanos, Deacon, Shepherd’s Heart Fellowship, Pittsburgh
The Rev. Elaine Storm, Assistant Rector, St. Philip’s Church Moon Twp
The Rev. Dr. Justyn Terry, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology, Trinity School for Ministry, Ambridge
The Rev. David D. Wilson, Rector, St. Paul’s Church, Kittanning
The Rev. Karen Woods, Deacon, Seeds of Hope Missionary Fellowship, Pittsburgh
The Rev. Michael D. Wurschmidt, Rector, Shepherd’s Heart Fellowship, Pittsburgh
The Rev. Dr. Mark Zimmerman, Rector, St. Francis-in-the-Field Church, Somerset

At the end of this month the House of Bishops will hold its annual fall meeting in New Orleans. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and several members of the Primates’ Joint Standing Committee will be with us at the unanimous request of our Bishops. It is still theoretically possible there will be some surprises, but nearly every observer of the events of the past several years is convinced that a watershed moment is at hand.

In their meeting in Dar es Salaam in February the Primates asked the American House of Bishops to clarify the decisions of last year’s General Convention, which, in turn were The Episcopal Church’s response to the recommendations of the 2004 Windsor Report and subsequent requests from the Primates themselves. More specifically, they asked our Bishops to give “unequivocal assurances” that we will not consent to the election of another noncelibate homosexual Bishop, and we will not authorize or permit any (more) “same-sex blessings.” And they set a deadline of September 30 for our response.

Nearly thirty of our Bishops ”“ myself among them ”“ have given the assurances requested, but a larger number than that have said they will never agree to these requests, and more than a third of the Bishops have yet to declare themselves. (Note: The Episcopal Church has never officially authorized the blessings, but some Bishops have done so in their own Dioceses.)

Everyone hopes that clarity and understanding will be improved on all sides when the Archbishop meets with us, but I know of no one who expects that at the end of the meeting the unequivocal assurances will have been given by the House as a whole.

Archbishop Williams will need to consult with the other Primates to consider and evaluate whatever responses we will have given them. The Archbishop has recently said he is “hopeful, but not optimistic” that the Anglican Communion will be able to stay together after that point.

Read it all.

Update: Another letter from Bishop Howe is here.

Which way will Rowan jump? With just a fortnight to go before the crucial meeting of the Episcopal House of Bishops in New Orleans, that question is becoming ever more pressing. But the answer remains frustratingly elusive. Few believe that the American bishops are willing or able to deliver the moratoriums asked for in the Dar Es Salaam communiqué.

But what will Dr Williams do about it? The tactics displayed by Lambeth Palace and the Anglican Communion Office in recent months have done little to dissipate the clouds of confusion. The messages coming out have been mixed, to say the least. On the one hand, sources close to the Archbishop are insisting that he is committed to following through the Dar Es Salaam communiqué when he flies out for talks with the American bishops during the first two days of their meeting. But how strictly will he insist on its terms?

Even if the American bishops overcome their initial huffiness at being asked to respond at all, and that is not certain, it is difficult to see how they could come up with a response that is both adequate and credible. The liberal tide seems to be running just too strongly. Too many of the American bishops have pledged their allegiance to the pro-gay camp. A lesbian is on the shortlist to be elected as the next bishop of Chicago; Gene Robinson has given the go ahead for clergy in the New Hampshire diocese to conduct same-sex blessings; at least two dioceses are developing official blessing rites. Moreover, the American bishops have already resoundingly rejected the primates’ scheme for pastoral oversight for American conservatives. The Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori is understood to be preparing yet another version that may well prove acceptable to her liberal colleagues, but is highly unlikely to pass muster with the conservatives.

It also appears that there is little room for manoeuvre. Dr Williams himself, in a press conference following the eleventh hour agreement of the communiqué at the primates’ meeting in Tanzania, said it would be ”˜difficult’ if the Americans failed to follow its exact wording. So, if the Americans do fail to respond adequately in New Orleans, it would seem that Rowan will have little choice but to carry out the implicit threat in the communiqué and withdraw their invitations to Lambeth. Or does it?

The conservatives remain far from confident that this will be the case. There is a growing concern among them that the Archbishop of Canterbury will yet again attempt to play for time by forging another tortuously ambiguous compromise. At last week’s consecrations in Kenya and Uganda, at which 10 provinces were represented and eight primates attended in person ”” a sign that the core group of Global South hardliners may be larger than some believe ”” all these fears were expressed.

Doubts first began emerging when Lambeth Palace unexpectedly issued invitations in June to all but a handful of bishops for next year’s Lambeth Conference. Not only had Rowan invited nearly everyone”” albeit with caveats ”” but he had done so without consultation. Liberals saw this as a sign that Dr Williams had finally jumped into their camp, and was determined to keep the Americans in the Church even if this meant losing Africans and Asians. In contrast, many conservative primates, including those regarded as relatively moderate such as the Primate of the West Indies, Archbishop Drexel Gomez, were dismayed at the lack of consultation. Some also fear that Dr Williams, having issued the invitations, will find it psychologically difficult to withdraw them from liberal American bishops even if they fail to come up to the mark in New Orleans.

There has also been confusion about the role of Canon Kenneth Kearon, the secretary general of the Anglican Communion, who appears to have been exercising a growing influence in the absence of Dr Williams on study leave. Conservatives suspect that Canon Kearon, with his experiences of the peace process in Northern Ireland, has reinforced Dr Williams’ natural tendency to believe that the crisis can be resolved peacefully if only all the parties can be kept talking long enough.

The hardcore of conservatives, however, want a resolution and they want it now. A number of them are poised to split if nothing clear happens in the wake of New Orlea ns, and the recent consecrations in Africa are a preparatory step for a fully fledged parallel Church if it proves necessary. They have not been reassured by Lambeth Palace’s seeming reluctance to call another meeting of all the primates to make a judgment about the outcome of New Orleans.

Dr Williams has said in the past that he will be guided by his fellow primates about how to proceed, but there has been little indication as yet as to how this will be done. Global South primates believe that only a full primates meeting will suffice, even though Dr Williams will be accompanied to New Orleans by members of the primates’ standing committee.

Aides to Dr Williams are, however, less convinced of the need for another costly and precipitous summit, and may try to pursue other means of taking soundings. With all these variables up in the air and anxieties swirling like smoke, Dr Williams will not find his return to work this week a comfortable experience.

–Jonathan Petre is the religious correspondent for the Daily Telegraph; this article appears in the September 7, 2007 issue of the Church of England Newspaper, page 24

Dear Christ Church family,

I am writing to inform you about an important matter. The upcoming House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans (September 19- 25) is one of the most important meetings in the history of the Episcopal Church. Weighing in the balance is whether the Episcopal Church will walk with the Anglican Communion or choose to walk away from our Anglican heritage. It’s perhaps the last opportunity for the Episcopal Church to choose “communion” over “independence.” No one expects overnight changes from this meeting, but the House of Bishops actions (or failure to act) will determine the future of the Episcopal Church.

Nineteen “Windsor Bishops,” of whom Bishop Lillibridge is an active member, met a few weeks ago. I have high hopes that their presence at the House of Bishops meeting will be known and recognized, if for nothing else as a minority group of bishops (there are about 120 diocesan bishops in all) who are committed to be constituent members f the Anglican Communion by agreeing to follow the directives of the Windsor Report and the Tanzania Communiqué. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams will interrupt his sabbatical to meet with the bishops gathered in New Orleans for the first part of their time, along with the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and representatives of the Anglican Consultative Council.

There is still much that isn’t clear. For example, it’s not clear if moderate uncommitted bishops will join the nineteen in support of traditional values. It’s not clear if the meeting with the Archbishop will impact the invitations to attend Lambeth 2008 (if at all). If it doesn’t impact the invitations as they stand, a number of Global South Primates have already said they will not be attending. It’s unclear how Canterbury will lead: with his personal sympathies, or with the will of the wider Communion that overwhelmingly upholds what the Bible teaches about marriage and sex? And it’s not clear what kind of solution will be offered by the Primates for oversight of churches and dioceses for whom it would be a violation of conscience to continue as Episcopalians.

Even though there are many unknowns, there are some things that are clear at this point. First, there is no indication that Episcopal Church leaders (House of Bishops and our Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori) will change their direction back to traditional and biblical values. And they seem largely unfazed by the possibility of severing our tie to the Anglican Communion. This was evident by their rejection of portions of the Primate’s Communiqué at the last House of Bishops meeting. Secondly, Bishop Lillibridge has repeatedly told the diocese that he will continue to uphold the values and principles of the Windsor Report that uphold traditional Christianity. We have a bishop who courageously stands against the tide for the things that are most important to us and to the people of the Diocese of West Texas. Thirdly, it seems that the different groups and personalities that make up the conservative wing of the Episcopal Church will argue and bicker among themselves, not understanding that different churches have had to respond differently because of different circumstances. And lastly, for the traditional-minded churches and dioceses who feel that they have been pushed off the back of the boat, the Primates will not leave us to drown but will provide some means for us to connect to the Anglican Communion. It’s clear that one of the results of the realignment will be to rethink the way we do dioceses and provinces.

Even though this is an unprecedented time in the life of the Episcopal Church, I couldn’t be prouder of our vestry and people who have stood strong for our core values and for the historic Christian faith. Because we have been principally rather than politically led, we’ve had a clear path to follow. It has demanded more from our vestry and staff in terms of prayer, study and surrender. We love the institutional church in which many of us have come to know Christ and have called home for many years, but we have an even greater commitment to the doctrinal foundations that have always defined what the church believes. Unity that is institutional and not doctrinal is not unity at all (John 17:17).

Bishops Lillibridge and Reed continue to be strong supporters of the Windsor Report and the recommendations therein. I have asked for a Service of Prayer for the Episcopal Church and the House of Bishops. I hope everyone will come. We will celebrate Holy Communion and pray for our bishops on the day their meeting starts in New Orleans. Our vestry members have agreed to each take a day during the House of Bishops meeting to concentrate their prayers for Bishop Lillibridge and Bishop Reed. Please join us in pleading to God for the Episcopal Church.

ALMIGHTY God, giver of all good things, who by thy Holy Spirit hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church; Mercifully behold this thy servant, now called to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop; and so replenish him with the truth of thy Doctrine, and adorn him with innocency of life, that, both by word and deed, he may faithfully serve thee in this Office, to the glory of thy Name, and the edifying and well-governing of thy Church; through the merits of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the same Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen. (1928 Prayer Book)

With gratitude for God’s mercy,

–The Rev. Chuck Collins is rector, Christ Church, San Antonio, Texas

The rift within the worldwide Anglican church over homosexuality is focusing attention on this month’s meeting, from Sept. 20-25, of the Episcopal Church’s bishops, since the national archbishops, or primates, of the worldwide Anglican Communion gave the bishops until Sept. 30 to agree to their demands concerning sexuality.

The controversy is also causing turmoil in the planning for the 2008 Lambeth Conference, the once-per-decade gathering of all the world’s Anglican bishops.

The primates want the U.S. church to agree not to authorize a blessing rite for same-sex couples and not elect another bishop in a same-sex relationship “unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the communion.”

The bishops will be meeting in New Orleans and will be joined for two days by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. The sessions are not open to the public, but news conferences are scheduled.

Read it all.

Bishops who have made a public commitment to support the Windsor Report have asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to be clear and articulate in explaining what the consequences will be if the House of Bishops fails to give the assurances sought by the primates.

Seventeen diocesan bishops and one bishop suffragan from The Episcopal Church received an extensive briefing on the primates’ communiqué from the Rev. Canon Gregory Cameron, and shared with him their hopes for the meeting in September between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the House of Bishops during a conference held Aug. 9-10 at Camp Allen near Houston.

Read it all.

From here:

The Standing Committee [of Alabama] and Bishop Parsley hosted a Diocesan Forum on “Communion Matters: A Study Document for the Episcopal Church”, at All Saints’ Church in Homewood, on July 24th, 2007. Here are the comments offered by Mr. George Elliott, our Senior Warden:

“Bishop Parsley, Mr. President, I am George Elliott, Senior Warden of the Cathedral Church of the Advent. I am joined by our Junior Warden and the members of the Vestry who stand here with me. I speak on behalf of this Vestry and have good reason to believe that I also speak for at least 70% of our 3,800+ member parish. As a friend in Christ, I am here to speak to you in love and with all due respect about the document, ‘Communion Matters’.

“We at the Advent are disappointed with the document because it does not lead us even to consider repentance and compliance with the clear advice and requests of the Primates; actually, it leads us down the path of attempting to justify the current direction of the Episcopal Church. We do not believe this is the course that God intends for us as Christians to follow. We humbly and respectfully implore the leadership of the Diocese of Alabama to stand up and do the right thing. Tell the leaders of the Episcopal Church to turn back from their current direction and comply with the recent demands of the Primates of the Anglican Communion.

“Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you.”

Read it all. This is sad but also very predictable. What is particularly lamentable is how blatantly American-centric this piece is, with so little attention to what has been occurring and why.

For example, there is no mention of most of the central argument of the Primates Tanzania Communique.

One would have thought that might have mattered since the communique said in part:

21. However, secondly, we believe that there remains a lack of clarity about the stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the authorisation of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions. There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.
22. The standard of teaching stated in Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 asserted that the Conference “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions”. The primates stated in their pastoral letter of May 2003,
“The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke for us all when he said that it is through liturgy that we express what we believe, and that there is no theological consensus about same sex unions. Therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorisation of such rites.”.
23. Further, some of us believe that Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention8 does not in fact give the assurances requested in the Windsor Report.
24. The response of The Episcopal Church to the requests made at Dromantine has not persuaded this meeting that we are yet in a position to recognise that The Episcopal Church has mended its broken relationships.

What the communique went on to say was that “interventions” would need to continue unless certain conditions were met, and given the House of Bishops’ aggressive rejection of the pastoral scheme proposal and failure to provide any adequate alternative that will actually deal with the real need involved that did not happen. There are also same sex blessings in various dioceses which continue to occur with official knowledge and in a number of cases sanction, in spite of now nearly incessantly pleas from other Anglicans throughout the globe that they cease.

So the Episcopal Church still has not done what it has been asked to do by the Anglican leadership, and what is occurring is entirely in accord with the Tanzania communique. None of this is mentioned by the official TEC house organ, and the sound of one hand clapping continues–alas–KSH.

Frank Limehouse is the Dean of the Cathedral Church of the Advent in Birmingham, Alabama
———–

A Response to “Communion Matters”
by The Very Rev. Frank F. Limehouse, III

July 12, 2007

From the Preface of “Communion Matters: A Study Document for the Episcopal Church”:

“The Theology Committee of the House of Bishops has been asked to prepare this study document as a resource for the bishops, dioceses, and the people of the Episcopal Church in considering the communiqué of the Primates Meeting of the Anglican Communion.

“As most Episcopalians know, issues of human sexuality recently have threatened to impair our relations with other Anglicans. To seek godly wisdom and prevent further damage to our bonds of fellowship, we have been engaged in global conversation involving back-and-forth position papers and dialogue that are both prayerful theology and ecclesial diplomacy.

“This most recent statement in this ongoing process is the Communiqué of the Primates’ Meeting of the Anglican Communion issued in February 2007 from Tanzania. The Communiqué addresses our 2006 General Convention response to the requests of the Windsor Report on Communion, and makes additional requests of our House of Bishops. It asks for a response by September 30, 2007”¦

“This study document”¦ poses questions for our (Episcopal church) corporate reflection to assist the bishops as they prepare for the fall meeting of the House of Bishops.”

+ + +

The clergy of the Diocese of Alabama have been encouraged to make “Communion Matters: A Study Document for the Episcopal Church” available to the people. It is meant to engage the people of the church and ask, “What do you think?” As Dean of the Cathedral Church of the Advent, and at the encouragement of the vestry, I am taking this opportunity to briefly respond with my own thoughts. On July 24 at 6:30 pm, the people in this part of the diocese will have the opportunity to meet with Bishop Parsley at All Saints’ Church, 110 West Hawthorne Road, in Homewood.

The clergy of the diocese have already met (June 19) for the purpose of this discussion. Let me say first of all that I appreciate our bishop’s kind tolerance and patience in allowing a guy like me to express my honest feelings toward the document. This is especially so considering the fact that he himself chairs the Theology Committee that put it together. Had he been a one-man committee, I suspect we would have a better document!

In the second paragraph of the preface of Communion Matters, it is written, “As most Episcopalians know, the issues of human sexuality recently have threatened to impair our relations with other Anglicans.” While this is true, the fact of the matter is human sexuality is only the presenting issue. The underlying issue is the authority of our Scriptures. Be that as it may, I think this document is written from a revisionist-minded perspective. It indoctrinates, rather than seeks opinion. It feels like a kind of set-up. It seeks to dignify the direction of the Episcopal Church; it begs for self-justification for all of the recent actions of the Episcopal Church.

Read it all here.

Dear Ms. Anderson,

I read with interest the ENS report of your visit to Albuquerque a few days ago. If the report is accurate, it’s shocking the veiled and not so veiled attempts you made as a guest in the Diocese of the Rio Grande to undermine the authority of their bishop and the leadership of the Diocese of the Rio Grande.

My purpose in writing, however, it to ask you to not include me or Christ Church San Antonio in your reports about the “majority” in the Episcopal Church. The talking point that you and the Presiding Bishop continuously repeat – that only “45 of the Church’s 7,500 congregations have decided to leave” – suggests that parishes like ours in San Antonio are with you. I want you to know that, even though we have not joined another Anglican body, we are emphatically not with you and we do not support the revisionist agenda that seems bound and determined to lead us away from the wider Communion.

In a letter to Bishop Gary Lillibridge (July 26, 2006) we stated: “In a unanimous vote, the clergy and [18 member] vestry of Christ Church and Christ Church in the Hill Country affirm our commitment to Jesus Christ, to the authority of Holy Scripture, and to that which binds us to our Anglican heritage. As a consequence, when the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates offer us an acceptable option, we will disassociate from the Episcopal Church. We feel that we must do this because we believe The Episcopal Church has left the Anglican Communion, and us, and now no longer lives under the authority of the Bible.”

Ms. Anderson, in the future, please report that “46 of the Church’s 7,500 congregations have decided to leave,” or at least have the intention to leave once the Primates together offer an option. If the Presiding Bishop, House of Deputies President, and the House of Bishops were to give even passing affirmation to the Tanzania Communiqué and the Windsor Report, if there was even slight movement in the direction of wanting to follow the direction of the Primates, we would feel differently. But the trajectory of the Episcopal Church appears to be set in stone, and it is a direction that clearly leads away from historic Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion.

We at Christ Church wait prayerfully and with eager expectation to see how God brings together orthodox churches and dioceses, with the support of the Primates. We are committed to our bishop who strongly upholds the Windsor Report and the Anglican Covenant as the hope for our future. Until the Episcopal Church begins to support the mind of the world-wide Anglican Communion, Christ Church San Antonio cannot be counted on to support the Episcopal Church.

Respectfully in Christ,

Chuck Collins
Rector, Christ Church
San Antonio, TX

[elves add: the T19 post of the ENS article about Bonnie Anderson’s visit to Rio Grande is here.]

The hot rumor before Dar Es Salaam was that North American reasserters would get a new college of bishops. We got the Pastoral Scheme instead, and a lot of us were steamed. It never seemed like something TEC would actually do. What’s Plan B, we wondered. Well, it seems that the Pastoral Scheme was Plan B. TEC having decided to follow the “you’re not the boss of me” path, those Primates involved in US oversight are reverting to Plan A.

”˜Course, this is difficult and uncertain work. Anyone who thinks that it’s just a matter of out with the old, in with the new” needs to read the chapter “Bad Bishops” in [Ephraim] Radner’s Hope among the Fragments. Dealing with corrupted parts of the Church has always been extremely difficult, and those of us who call ourselves traditionalists should be at least listening to older voices about this mess. We shouldn’t be doing whatever we want, because we want to. That’s the behavior that got us into this mess. On the other hand, I’m not sure that this situation isn’t wholly unprecedented. We’ve got an independently governed Christian unit that is fully in the hands of heretics who have rejected any outside calls to mend their ways, who are actively engaged in persecuting those who disagree with them, and who reject any interference.

So what will ++Rowan do after he writes his book on Dostoevsky? I dunno. His recent actions, or actions taken on his behalf, have fallen even deeper into a sort of chaotic inscrutability….

Read it all.

Anderson summarized the work of both the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion and the special legislative committee that was appointed to deal with the commission’s proposed resolutions in response to the Windsor Report for the 75th General Convention, which met in June 2006.

She also explained the five resolutions passed by the Convention. The resolutions Anderson discussed were A160 Expression of Regret, A165 Commitment to the Windsor and Listening Processes, A166 Anglican Covenant Development Process, A167 “Full and Equal Claim” for all the Baptized, and B033 On Election of Bishops.

Anderson reminded the groups that the Episcopal Church has not authorized a public rite for blessing same-gender relationships. Such blessings were one of the concerns of the Windsor Report.

Read it all.

Read it all from Stand Firm.

The Archbishop supports the decision of the Province of Kenya to provide resident Episcopal oversight for the clergy and congregations in the United States who placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Kenya after they had arrived at the conclusion that the Episcopal Church no longer offered them the assurance of continuity with “The faith once delivered to the saints.” The provision of adequate pastoral care and episcopate oversight constitutes a deliberate and intentional effort to provide stability in an environment in which Anglicanism is being severely tested and challenged.

The Primates of the Communion at their meeting in Tanzania in February produced a communion response to the embattled state of Anglicanism in the United States in their offer of a provisional pastoral arrangement which provided space for the participation of all the major Anglican entities in the United States. Unfortunately, the unanimous offer of the Primates was rejected by the House of Bishops and the Executive Committee of the Episcopal Church. In the face of this unequivocal rejection, the Instruments of Communion must determine the most appropriate response to this unfortunate spectacle of a fragmented Anglicanism within the United States of America.

In this context, the decision of the Province of Kenya signals a willingness on the part of that Province to act responsibly to provide care for persons already under its jurisdiction. In addition, the selection of the Rev’d. Canon Bill Atwood as Suffragan Bishop is highly commendable. Canon Atwood is well suited for this particular ministry given his long association with Kenya and some of the other Provinces in CAPA and his unquestionable knowledge and appreciation of the ecclesial situation in the United States.

Finally, the willingness of the Province of Kenya to collaborate with the other orthodox Anglicans in the United States could serve the point towards a creation of a viable, stable and orthodox Anglican presence in the United States.

Read it all from the Church of England Newsaper.

Read it all.

Count me as one of the persons puzzled by the response of the Executive Council to the 2/19/07 Communique from the Primates and subsequent comments on this list. Our discussion would be improved, I think, if folks took the time to read once again just exactly what the Primates actually said and the rationale they provide.

The main issue for the Primates seems to have been a perception of ambiguity about the meaning of GC Resolution B033: “(23) Further, some of us believe that Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention does not in fact give the assurances requested in the Windsor Report.” In other words, GC spoke (ie, Bishops and Deputies acted separately but concurrently) but just what does B033 mean? As we all know, the Primates are not alone in wondering about the meaning of B033.

The Primates reaffirmed their commitment to “the establishment of a Covenant” (29), indicated that “an interim response is required in the period until the Covenant is secured,” (30) and stated “such is the imperative laid on us to seek reconciliation in the Church of Christ that we have been emboldened to offer a number of recommendations.” (35) Note the word “recommendations.”

So, the Primates ask the House of Bishops, speaking only on behalf of the HoB, to clarify its understanding of B033 (in which the HoB participated) and the meaning of the absence of any resolution from GC on the blessings of same gender relationships. So, to quote the Primates:

“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 authorize any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention;

[Note: in effect the Primates are asking whether the March 2005 pledge by the HoB not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions, and not to bless any such unions at least until the 2006 GC, is still in effect.]

and

2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidaate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent … .

“If the reassurances requested of the HoB cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and thus has consequences for the full participation of this Church in the life of the Communion.”

The Executive Council of TEC responded as follows:

“Still, the requests of the Primates are of a nature that can only properly be dealt with by our General Convention. Neither the Executive Council, the Presiding Bishop, nor the House of Bishops can give binding interpretations of General Convention resolutions nor make an ‘unequivocal common commitment’ to denying future decisions by dioceses or General Convention.”

So, here is the nub of the issue. The Primates have for all intents and purposes have asked the HoB of TEC to pass a “mind of the House” resolution not unlike the Port St. Lucie statement on conscience and women’s ordination in 1977 or the March 2005 pledge not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions. Such a resolution would speak only for the HoB; it is not binding on anyone else (at least as I understand the polity of TEC). EC has interpreted this as a “binding interpretation of General Convention resolutions” (or in the case of same-sex blessings, the meaning of the absence of any GC resolution). If I understand EC’s position correctly, such a mind of the House resolution from our Bishops acting alone somehow would be construed as binding on everydody in TEC. It feels like two ships passing in the night. And, as an aside, please tell me again who does not understand the polity of the Episcopal Church?

A more honest and forthright response from EC might have said something like this: “we support those Bishops who choose to authorize same-sex blessings, we promise not to make any attempt to force any Bishop to authorize such Rites in his/her Diocese (in sharp contrast to our recent actions on the issue of women’s ordination), and we applaud the ambiguity of B033 which will permit us to do whatever the hell we want to.”

Alas, such candor seems to be in short supply these days.

–The Rev. Nathaniel Pierce lives in Trappe, Maryland

From Religion News Service:

The church’s 40-member Executive Council, which is headed by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, also declined a proposal from Anglican archbishops to create a separate church structure for conservatives who reject her leadership.

The panel, meeting in Parsippany, N.J., questioned overseas archbishops’ power to “impose deadlines and demands upon any of the churches of the Anglican Communion or to prescribe the relationships within … our common life.”

The Executive Council declined to give a “yes or no, up or down decision,” to all of the archbishops’ demands, said the Rev. Lee Alison Crawford, a council member and rector of St. Mary’s Parish in Northfield, Vt.

But Crawford said the council provided “a strong affirmation that the Episcopal Church is not going to go backward from the commitment to our (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) brothers and sisters.”

Last February, primates — or top archbishops — in the worldwide Anglican Communion demanded Episcopalians pledge to stop consecrating gay bishops, halt blessings for same-sex unions and cede some authority to oversees Anglicans to minister to disaffected U.S. conservatives. The U.S. church was given a deadline of Sept. 30 or face “consequences.”

Generally, the Executive Council is charged with making decisions for the 2.2 million-member church between its triennial General Conventions. On Thursday, the council said the archbishops’ demands could only be considered at General Convention — next scheduled for 2009 — thus essentially putting off the primates’ demands.

Read it all.

From Religious Intelligence:

Responding to the announcement, the Rev Dr Chris Sugden, Executive Secretary of the Anglican Mainstream group, criticised the Episcopal Church for rejecting the Primates’ authority.

He said: “When the authority of the Primates was introduced at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 to deal with the issues in Rwanda, everybody agreed.

“But now something that was regarded as acceptable when dealing with Africans is not acceptable to the Americans. It sniffs of racism.

“They are saying the Primates are not representative of them, but the Primates do represent each of their provinces, yet the Americans are forcing their polity on others.”

Relations between the Episcopal Church and the rest of the Communion were further strained earlier this week when the Church of Kenya announced it is to consecrate the Rev Canon Bill Atwood as a missionary Bishop for the United States, following the Episcopal Church’s rejection of the Pastoral Council.

Read it all.

The executive council of the Episcopal Church announced yesterday that it would not comply with demands from leaders of the global Anglican Communion to retract the church’s liberal position on homosexuality and create alternative supervision for disaffected conservative Episcopalians.

The announcement came a day after the Anglican archbishop of Kenya said he would consecrate an American bishop in Texas to minister to alienated Episcopalians in the United States. In May, the archbishop of Nigeria installed a bishop in Virginia, a step considered by many to be outside the bounds of Anglicanism’s traditional lines of authority.

The churches in the Anglican Communion, which trace their heritage to the Church of England, have been brought to the brink of schism over the issue of homosexuality. The executive council’s action makes clear that the Episcopal Church, Anglicanism’s American branch, does not intend to back down.

Leaders of the Anglican Communion’s geographical provinces, known as primates, issued an ultimatum to the Episcopal Church in February demanding that it stop blessing same-sex unions and agree not to consecrate another openly gay bishop. The primates gave the Episcopal Church until Sept. 30 to comply.

Read it all.

A key Episcopal panel defied conservatives Thursday, saying that Episcopal leaders should not cede authority to overseas Anglicans who want the church to halt its march toward full acceptance of gays.

The Episcopal Executive Council said that Anglican leaders, called primates, cannot make decisions for the American denomination, which is the Anglican body in the United States.

“We question the authority of the primates to impose deadlines and demands upon any of the churches of the Anglican Communion,” the council said in a statement, after a meeting in Parsippany, N.J.

The worldwide Anglican Communion has moved toward the brink of splitting apart since the Episcopal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, in 2003.

In February, Anglican leaders demanded that Episcopalians allow a panel ”” that would include Anglican conservatives from other countries ”” to oversee conservative Episcopal parishes in the U.S. Episcopalians also were given until Sept. 30 to unequivocally pledge not to consecrate another openly gay bishop or authorize official prayers for same-sex couples.

The Executive Council did not speak directly to the other demands in its statement Thursday, but said it has struggled “to embrace people who have historically been marginalized.”

Read the whole article.

(ENS)

I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:1-6

Conversations among Anglican sisters and brothers during the past several years have raised important questions of Anglican identity and authority. These questions speak to the nature of relationships among us.

We understand the requests made by the Primates from Dar es Salaam in February, 2007 as a good-faith contribution to that on-going conversation. Still, the requests of the Primates are of a nature that can only properly be dealt with by our General Convention. Neither the Executive Council, the Presiding Bishop, nor the House of Bishops can give binding interpretations of General Convention resolutions nor make an “unequivocal common commitment” to denying future decisions by dioceses or General Convention. We question the authority of the Primates to impose deadlines and demands upon any of the churches of the Anglican Communion or to prescribe the relationships within any of the other instruments of our common life, including the Anglican Consultative Council.

Assertions of authority met by counter-assertions of polity are not likely to lead to the reconciliation we seek. As important as we hold our polity, the questions before us now are fundamentally relational. Our salvation is not in law but in the grace of God in Jesus Christ our Savior; so too with our relationships as Anglicans.

One part of this grace is that we, all of us, are bound together irrevocably into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit through the waters of Baptism. We are, whether we wish it or not, God’s gift to each other. It is our bounden duty to respond to God’s grace, a grace that we believe warrants gratitude and respect and that must be reflected in a deep and abiding honesty with one another in the context of living relationships.

We strongly affirm this Church’s desire to be in the fullest possible relationship with our Anglican sisters and brothers, but in truth the only thing we really have to offer in that relationship is who we are ”“ a community of committed Christians seeking God’s will for our common life. At various times in our history, we have struggled to embrace people who have historically been marginalized. We still struggle with those concerns, sometimes in new forms. Today this struggle has come to include the place of gay and lesbian people and their vocations in the life of the Church.

We cannot tell our brothers and sisters with certainty what the future holds or where the Holy Spirit will guide this Church. We can say with certainty that we have heard what some of our sisters and brothers have said about our actions with the utmost seriousness. We have attempted to respond to those concerns sensitively and positively. The sincerity of The Episcopal Church’s responses to matters before the Anglican Communion, particularly the responses of the General Convention 2006, have been attested to by the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates’ Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council.

We can promise that our engagement with the churches of the Anglican Communion and our deep and sincere listening will continue. The truth spoken in love by our sisters and brothers in Christ, and particularly the truth lived out in our relationships with Anglicans throughout the world, will be very much on our minds and held at the center of our hearts. The advice of the larger community will continue to find reflection in the actions we take.

We have received from the House of Bishops of our Church a request to decline to participate in the proposed Pastoral Scheme; with an explanation for the reasons our bishops believe that the scheme is ill-advised. We agree with the bishops’ assessment including the conclusion that to participate in the scheme would violate our Constitution and Canons. We thus decline to participate in the Pastoral Scheme and respectfully ask our Presiding Bishop not to take any of the actions asked of her by this scheme. We affirm the pledge of the bishops to “continue to work to find ways of meeting the pastoral concerns of the Primates that are compatible with our own polity and canons.”

At the 75th General Convention, The Episcopal Church reaffirmed its abiding commitment to the Anglican Communion (A159). As a demonstration of our commitment to mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Anglican Communion, The Episcopal Church supports the process of the development of an Anglican Covenant, and through the Executive Council is responding to the proposed draft now before the Anglican Communion (A166).

It is our most earnest hope that we continue to walk with our Anglican brothers and sisters in the journey we share together in God’s mission. We believe The Episcopal Church can only offer who we are, with openness, honesty, integrity, and faithfulness, and our commitment never to choose to walk apart.

From The Living Church:

In other news, council approved a resolution declaring “null and void” attempts by a number of dioceses to revise their constitution to qualify their accession to the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention.

“Any amendment to a diocesan constitution that purports in any way to limit or lessen an unqualified accession to the constitution of The Episcopal Church is null and void, and be it further resolved that the amendments passed to the constitutions of the dioceses of Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin, which purport to limit or lessen the unqualified accession to the constitution of The Episcopal Church are accordingly null and void and the constitutions of those dioceses shall be as they were as if such amendments had not been passed,” council stated in Resolution NAC-023.

After the resolution was approved, the Rt. Rev. Stacy Sauls, Bishop of Lexington, said Episcopalians had all agreed to live by certain principles and rules and that council believed it would be “helpful to have an authoritative statement [on the matter] with respect to any litigation that might occur in the future.”

Read it all.

A task group of the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council will propose June 14 that Council tell the Anglican Communion that no governing body other than General Convention can interpret Convention resolutions or agree to deny “future decisions by dioceses or General Convention.”

A draft of the statement, titled “The Episcopal Church’s Commitment to Common Life in Anglican Communion,” says it “strongly affirm[s] this Church’s desire to be in the fullest possible relationship with our Anglican sisters and brothers.”

The draft would have the Council decline to participate in a so-called Pastoral Scheme proposed by the Primates of the Anglican Communion for dealing with some disaffected Episcopal Church dioceses. In March the House of Bishops said the plan “would be injurious to The Episcopal Church” and urged the Council to decline to participate.

The draft of the statement was released to Council members and staff the afternoon of June 13 at the Council’s meeting in Parsippany, New Jersey. The draft, and three proposed accompanying resolutions, will be discussed by the entire Council June 14.

Read it all.