Updated: Group Of Bishops Reads Anaheim Statement (in private session) in the House of Bishops

This is the statement (read by Bishop Gary Lillibridge on behalf of the group)

The Anaheim Statement, General Convention, 2009

At this convention, the House of Bishops has heard repeated calls for honesty and clarity. As the conversation has proceeded within the HOB, repeated attempts to modify wording which would have been preferable to the minority in the vote were respectfully heard and discussed, but in the end most of these amendments were found unacceptable to the majority in the House. Many in the majority believed the amendments would make the stated position of this House less honest about where they believe we are as The Episcopal Church.

It is apparent that a substantial majority of this Convention believes that The Episcopal Church should move forward on matters of human sexuality. We recognize this reality and understand the clarity with which the majority has expressed itself. We are grateful for those who have reached out to the minority, affirming our place in the Church.

We seek to provide the same honesty and clarity. We invite all bishops who share the following commitments to join us in this statement as we seek to find a place in the Church we continue to serve.

* We reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury and our commitment to preserving these relationships.

* We reaffirm our commitment to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this church has received them (BCP 526, 538)

* We reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the instruments of Communion.

* We reaffirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion Covenant process currently underway, with the hope of working toward its implementation across the Communion once a Covenant is completed.

* We reaffirm our commitment to “continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship” which is foundational to our baptismal covenant, and to be one with the apostles in “interpreting the Gospel” which is essential to our work as bishops of the Church of God.

When I spoke to Bishop Lawrence midday, there were 12 bishops who had signed, and my understanding is that as of tonight that number is higher. I do not yet have all the names of those signing it–KSH

Update: Just got off the phone with Bishop Lawrence, and he said Bishop Lillibridge read the statement and it now has over 20 names


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, - Anglican: Primary Source, -- Statements & Letters: Bishops, Episcopal Church (TEC), General Convention, TEC Bishops

19 comments on “Updated: Group Of Bishops Reads Anaheim Statement (in private session) in the House of Bishops

  1. Jeffersonian says:

    Now we shall see if Rowan Williams’ contention about the diocese being the basic building block of the AC was something substantive or just more academic beard-stroking.

    [i] Edited by elf. [/i]

  2. Br. Michael says:

    I hope all these Bishops voted No on C056 and D025.

  3. art says:

    Yes; Br. Michael; that IS the crunch. Otherwise, it’s “1984” double-speak …

  4. Rocks says:

    Canon was there any reaction to this in the HOB?

  5. Athanasius Returns says:

    That’s nice.

    Now, of what value is this little pop-gun show of force?

    Rocks, good question!

  6. Jeffersonian says:

    #5, see my comment in #1. These faithful Bishops might be setting the stage for remaining in good standing with Canterbury despite their province’s apostasy.

  7. art says:

    Yes; Jeffersonian. For in ‘plain speak’ the Covenant is the only mans on the table to permit such affirmation of Communion membership. And if enough TEC Bishops sign up via their dioceses, then a critical mass might just be reached. But meanwhile we await the ABC to strongly indicate such an available avenue …. ‘before the invasion of Poland’ (cross reference Dean Munday re Chamberlain).

  8. Athanasius Returns says:

    #6, thanks!

  9. robroy says:

    I see this as an attempt to appease unhappy laity at home. “We got our clocks clean, but we signed on to this nifty letter.” Will they buy it? Maybe. Still there are a lot of newspaper headlines to waken the sleeping masses.

  10. KJS666 says:

    Too little, too late. Words mean nothing now.

  11. KJS666 says:

    [i] Comment deleted by elf. [/i]

  12. robroy says:

    A truly bold statement would be for these bishops to call for Rowan and the rest of the AC to finally impose true sanctions which would include cessation of voting rights at the ACC, removal of Ms Schori from the primates standing committee and her loss of vote in the primates meeting and loss of invitation to Lambeth 2018 (that’s a long way off).

    One of the most bizarre statements made by Bp Howe was that he was working to strengthen Schori’s hand. He had a duty to explain that which he never did.

    This statement, too, strengthens Ms Schori’s hand, in that it lessens the pressure for Rowan to call for discipline. Rowan will say, well there are 26 righteous bishops, I will spare it.

    I really think the CP-ers are very poor strategists. They are part of the problem. I wish they would hire Sarah Hey.

  13. cmsigler says:

    I guess my opinion on this statement isn’t as negative as others I’ve read. But I have some questions:

    How is this different than CP? How is this different than (the remnants of) the Network? How is this different than the ACI? How is it different than the AAC? Or other groups which predated these?

    I’m not thoroughly versed in the polity of all these groups. However, this seems to me to be just another scrambling of all the “usual suspects,” at least the ones who are still in TEC. It’s as if GC2009 has shaken the “conservative Boggle cube” and all the individuals have once again coalesced, only in a slightly different order. Does this actually make things better for the orthodox dioceses, their parishioners and clergy?


  14. stabill says:

    Jeffersonian (#6) —

    Yes. In fact, one of the resolves in D025 appears to say that it will be OK with TEC for a diocese in TEC to establish and maintain ties on its own with other members of the Anglican Communion. I think this means, in particular, that the bishop would not then get into trouble over his oath to conform to the doctrine and discipline of The Episcopal Church.

  15. stabill says:

    cmsigler (#13) —

    I think the Anaheim Statement pretty much reflects the CP view.

    As to the others, ACI is still with us, but the leadership of AAC and the “Network” have left TEC for ACNA.

  16. cmsigler says:

    #16 stabill,

    Thank you. If this reflects the CP view, why wasn’t it entitled a CP statement? Seems to me like this is an attempt at something “new” to get the attention of ++Rowan. And there is nothing new in it.

    One of my favorite truisms is, “A difference that makes no difference is no difference.” This is no difference. Why should anyone, esp. ++Rowan, respond to a nullity?


  17. New Reformation Advocate says:

    The list of signatories stands at 29 bishops, as of noon on Friday, the last day of GenCon. But the list includes a number of bishops who are trying to have it both ways, since they voted FOR either D-25, C056, or both, and yet signed anyway. I count at least five in that category of “1984 doublespeak,” as art aptly put it above:
    F. Brookhart (Mont.), D. Henderson (Upper SC), D. Johnson (W TN), H. Parsley (AL), and P. Whalon (Europe). And that’s probably not a complete list. It’s just based on a quick look over the list and without doublechecking the relevant vote tallies.

    Bravo, +Lillibridge! I’m glad he started the protest. But such words need to be backed up by equally brave actions. Let me suggest two appropriate ones.

    First, let these bishops cut off all funding for 815. It’s the only language the PB and her detestible ilk really understand.

    Second, let these bishops follow the example of the Global South bishops and refuse to take or give communion to their heretical, schismatic colleagues, until they repent of their grave errors. And I mean that literally! And yes, I’m fully aware of the danger of the newly revised abandonment of communion canon being used against them.

    David Handy+

  18. robroy says:

    That there are bishops who voted for the resolutions and signed the minority report certainly proves the worthlessness of the document.

    How can Rowan Williams act? After the primates unanimously (including Frank Griswold) asked the Americans not to consecrate Robinson and the American proceeded anyway, they asked the Americans to withdraw from voting rights at the ACC, which they did. Rowan Williams should ask the Americans now to do the same now as well as ask that Ms Schori resign from the primates standing committee (to which he appointed her) as well as for her to yield voting rights at the Primates meeting. He should call a primates meeting now.

    Making such requests are certainly fall within his purview. Now I have no doubts that, feckless as he is, he will make no such requests.

    If the “Anaheim Declaration” (that makes it sound a lot more weighty than it is), had asked Rowan Williams to make such requests, I doubt Henderson and Parsley would have signed it.

    Boldness versus timidity.

    No sense of righteous anger that the actions have made a harlot of the bride of Christ. Collegiality is maintained. Blech.

  19. The_Elves says:

    [i]12 comments from the backup blog – apologies if some of these are duplicates to the above, I’m not reading them through one by one. — elfgirl[/i]

    Anonymous said…

    Well, if the last sentence means that others in the AC have reached out to the faithful minorty here, I can understand that. If not, delete it.

    There is no need to be grateful to anyone in TEC. TEC has done their level best to ignore, marginalize and shame the faithful minority. Why extend any gratitude to them?

    Personally, I love this resolution. Pratically, I realize this has a snow ball’s chance in H@ll of passing. It is good “last stnad”effort. Thanks for doing it.
    My prayers are with all the faithful at Gen Con 2009.
    8:34 PM

    Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This is a statement — not a resolution
    9:59 PM

    Anonymous Anonymous said…

    “It is apparent that a substantial majority of this Convention believes that The Episcopal Church should move forward on matters of human sexuality.”


    Naivete about others’ use of language (yes, I am speaking about good faith and it’s absence)are the rails upon which this train wreck happened.
    10:38 PM

    Anonymous Anonymous said…

    In all of these discussions where has the discussion of where the Holy Spirit is leading this church been vented? It appears we still have a divided House (at least the bishops). Gay and Lesbian peoples living in the dioceses represented by the bishops who signed this document – well, they might as well look for other alternatives to this communion. A southern bishop once told me that he would not make the same mistake on this issue as had been made during the 1960’s with civil rights – I see he kept his promise. Now for the signers – you disappoint me.
    6:12 AM

    Anonymous Bob in San Diego said…

    One anonymous poster said,”TEC has done their level best to ignore, marginalize and shame the faithful minority.” It must be pointed out to this person that many of the folks who support his exclusionary point of view have left The Episcopal Church. They were not present in Anaheim. So they, and he/she, cannot complain if therir viewpoint has fewer supporters in the House of Bishops.
    12:21 PM

    Anonymous Anonymous said…

    In the first paragraph, who is the minority and who is the majority? This was rather confusing to read, just like all other resolutions and other pieces of literature from this convention. The past six years have greatly bugged me because individuals do not have the spine to just use plain words to say what they mean; they just dance around everything, making it very confusing to the average Episcopalian who has been sitting in the same pew at the same church for 30 years – yes, there are still people like us in churches all across the country, whether the young people today want to believe it or not.
    12:26 PM

    Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Bob, the real “exclusionary” people are the new liberal-leaning members who have only come to the church in the past few years and have treated all the lifelong members of their congregations with utter disrespect just because they don’t want their church to change because it was just fine the way it was. A lot of these new people do not understand all the time and effort so many older members of the congregation have put in their churches, and thus do not want to leave. All the new radical people want to do is marginalize those of us who just want to go to church to actually hear about religion, not about social justice or political issues.
    12:41 PM

    Blogger Ken said…

    Can you tell us who are the bishops that have signed this document?
    1:07 PM

    Anonymous Bob in San Diego said…

    Dear Anonymous concerned about “all the lifelong members of their congregations”. I don’t know if I qualify as lifelong since I was only confirmed in 1956. But as an elder member of my parish, I welcome the changes, even though I still prefer Rite I and the language of the 1928 BCP. It’s not just the new church members who want an inclusionary church.
    1:53 PM

    Blogger Jack Lampasas said…

    TO: Anonymous

    >In case it has escaped your attention, young people are the future of the church. I hope your parish is not at deaths door due to lack of youth attendance.

    >Since when has at least some of Jesus’ parables not had social justice overtones.

    >I am gay and have been attending my parish since 2003

    >Most in my parish are aware of this fact and, as long as they are not “bashed over the head with it” they are fine with it.

    >Some in my parish who also know my mother have told her how much of a blessing I have been to my church.
    2:07 PM

    Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The issue, once again folks, has NEVER been about excluding anyone, it’s been about being faithful to the Scriptures’ teachings on behaviour, and many of these require challenging and difficult self-control and sacrifice. The reality is that the resolutions taken at the General Convention this month again emphasize sexual BEHAVIOUR, not orientation. In my opinion is this once more an example of a gross distortion of God’s gift of sexuality and of who He created us to be–the “norm” for Chrsitan living has always been a faithful, monogamous marriage between a man and a worman or celibacy in the single life, regardless of sexual orientation. If one is not called to a married vocation, and wishes to be a faithful Christian, then one is called to a single, celebate vocation. This doesn’t exclude ANYONE. The recent and current stances of TEC excludes literally thousands of faithful, life-long Epsicopalians, gay or straight who believe in the received Faith, the Scriptures and the Anglican traditions. This is the highjacking of an institution by a radical minority, which has “won out” because it has suggested in alienating, purging and suppressing the mainstream of the Church. As someone remarked to me recently, “the traditonalists aren’t leaving TEC, they left years ago–now it’s the moderates and othrodox Christians, who held on in hope that TEC would listen to the pleas of the rest of the Anglican Communion, as well as to most of the world’s Christians to repent and return to the Faith.” Sad, pathetic and so wrong.
    2:59 PM

    Anonymous Anonymous said…

    My name is Walter. I attended about half of the sessions of the House of Deputies.

    My comment is this:
    During the last session, valuable time was spent debating whether a motion should merely cite “all” or “lebians, gays, bi-sexuals, transgenders” (and any other group one can imagine). The fact that such a debate was held at all left me feeling that the Church has left me behind.
    6:47 PM