A Report of the meeting of the Bishops of Albany, Dallas, North Dakota, Northern Indiana, South Carolina, West Texas and Western Louisiana with the Archbishop of Canterbury on September 1, 2009.
As seven representatives of the Communion Partner Bishops, we are grateful to have met with the Archbishop of Canterbury to discuss our concern in light of the recent actions of the General Convention and the subsequent nomination of candidates “whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on Communion” (General Convention 2006, B033).
At this meeting we expressed our appreciation for his post-convention reflections, “Communion, Covenant, and our Anglican Future,” and were especially interested in his statement about whether “elements” in Provinces not favorably disposed to adopt the Anglican Covenant “will be free … to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with parts of the communion.”
Given our commitment to remain constituent members of both the Anglican Communion and The Episcopal Church, we are encouraged by our meeting with the Archbishop. We agree with him that our present situation is “an opportunity for clarity, renewal and deeper relation with one another – and also Our Lord and his Father in the power of the Spirit.” We, too, share a desire to “intensify existing relationships” by becoming part of a “Covenanted” global Anglican body in communion with the See of Canterbury. We also pray and hope that “in spite of the difficulties this may yet be the beginning of a new era of mission and spiritual growth for all who value the Anglican name and heritage.”
We understand the divisions before us, not merely differences of opinion on human sexuality, but also about differing understandings of ecclesiology and questions regarding the independence or interdependence of a global communion of churches in discerning the mind of Christ together. However, we also shared our concern that the actions of General Convention have essentially rejected the teaching of 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 as the mind of the Communion, and raise a serious question whether a Covenant will be adopted by both Houses at General Convention 2012.
At the same time we are mindful that General Convention Resolution D020 “commended the Anglican Covenant proposed in the most recent text of the Covenant Design Group (the “Ridley Cambridge Draft”) and any successive draft to dioceses for study during the coming triennium” and invited dioceses and congregations to “consider the Anglican Covenant proposed draft as a document to inform their understanding of and commitment to our common life in the Anglican Communion.”
Therefore, at this time we make the following requests of Communion minded members of the The Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican Communion:
1. We encourage dioceses, congregations and individuals of The Episcopal Church to pray and work for the adoption of an Anglican Communion Covenant.
2. We encourage dioceses and congregations to study and endorse the Anglican Communion Covenant when it is finally released and to urge its adoption by General Convention, or to endorse the first three sections of the Ridley Cambridge Draft and the Anaheim Statement, and to record such endorsements on the Communion Partners website (www.communionpartners.org).
3. We encourage bishops, priests, deacons and laypersons of The Episcopal Church who support the adoption of the Anglican Communion Covenant to record such endorsement on the Communion Partners website.
4. We encourage dioceses and congregations, in the spirit of GC2009 Resolution D030, to engage in “companion domestic mission relationships among dioceses and congregations within The Episcopal Church.”
5. We encourage Bishops exercising jurisdiction in The Episcopal Church to call upon us for service in needed cases of Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight.
6. We encourage relationships between Communion Partners and primates, bishops, provinces and dioceses in other parts of the Communion, in order the enhance the ministry we share in the life of the Communion.
7. We invite primates and bishops of the Communion to offer their public support to these efforts.
+Mark J. Lawrence, South Carolina
+Gary R. Lillibridge, West Texas
+Edward S. Little, II, Northern Indiana
+William H. Love, Albany
+D. Bruce MacPherson, Western Louisiana
+Michael G. Smith, North Dakota
+James M. Stanton, Dallas
Doesn’t tell us much about the meeting.
That’s it!? That’s the whole enchilada!?
So we can all sign onto yet another “Statement” of solidarity and mutual warm concern etc., etc. So we can “endorse” the covenant. To “endorse” essentially means to say that we like and support it; it does not necessarily include actual membership.
So
This thing doesn’t even have any reference to the possible “right” of a diocese to actually and concretely become a [b]member[/b] of the Covenant [b][i]IF[/i][/b] not only “when” it may come available.
This is essentially the same plan that was presented to the Deputies of 5 orthodox dioceses by their bishops toward the end of the GenCon. Most of the deputies at this little gathering looked decidedly underwhelmed. This was the new strategy — we put the wagons in a circle and join hands and keep on keeping on with one another while TEC just waits for us to [i]die off[/i]
If this is all they got at their meeting, then we have pretty much nothing useful. There is no kind of commitment or even a hint that the ABC and these dioceses have a plan to be able to be part of the Covenant regardless of TEC’s decisions. They say that they would like to have this, but I would like a 20 acre estate and mansion on a lake shore.
Neither one seems likely.
The statement is simply sad.
Let’s revise it:
“As a result of our meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan has agreed to call for the resignation of Ms Schori and Ian Douglas from the Primates standing committee and the ACC, respectively. He will issue a statement calling for the issuance of the Covenant in its present form (with section four intact) to the province for ratification. He, himself, has announced personal broken communion with those bishops who voted for the resolutions C056 and D025. A statement to these effects and more will be forthcoming from Canterbury this next week.”
Now, isn’t that better? Instead we have a call for DEPO! (Ms Schori must be RLOL-ing. What a hoot.) And the business about [i]”raise a serious question whether a Covenant will be adopted by both Houses at General Convention 2012″[/i]? Of course, the TEC will gladly sign on. They would have signed on to the Covenant in the present form. Ms Schori is saying that the GC09 resolutions don’t violate the moratoria for Pete’s sake. They certainly will sign on to the castrated Covenant that will appear from the committee which Rowan stacked with revisionists.
So they all “share a desire to intensify existing relationships”
And: ” were especially interested in his statement about whether “elements” in Provinces not favorably disposed to adopt the Anglican Covenant “will be free … to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with parts of the communion.”
This asks an important question.
There is NO ANSWER to this question anywhere in this text.
DEPO died a-borning. Why are they still even referencing it??
[Comment deleted by Elf]
Seems like this needed to have been said about six or seven years ago. I’m not sure of its relevance today. Is anyone left in TEC to find haven under request No. 5?
It makes the delays in the Covenant foisted at the ACC meeting in Jamaica this spring (and earlier) so appalling.
I think it is important to note the commitment to remain members of both the Anglican Communion and The Episcopal Church. This is consistent with what Bishop Stanton, at least, has said on several occasions that I’ve heard.
[Comment deleted by Elf]
As someone who loived in DWTX where Lillibridge is I am sad to hear this. I am sure they talked about things quite candidly, but many things remain unanswered. For one: do they want to stay part of TEC AND part of the Communion? How in the world could that work? I mean, going to those terrible GC’s every three years and being submitted to authority of KJS while at the same time being on the first track of the AC? It makes little to no sense. They must have discussed these things, why not share?
The first problem is a HUGE edit by the 7 Bishops of what the Archbishop actually wrote. The misleading elipses is such a glaring omission that one has to question the intent of the authors. The 7 bishops wrote:
will be free … to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with parts of the communion.
What the Archbishop of Canterbury was careful to write was:
will be free (granted the explicit provision that the Covenant does not purport to alter the Constitution or internal polity of any province) to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with other parts of the Communion.
Second, the 7 bishops write:
we also shared our concern that the actions of General Convention have essentially rejected the teaching of 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 as the mind of the Communion
A minor, but important, distinction. The actions of GC09 rejected the teaching. It did not reject the teaching as the mind of the Communion. TEC has always agree that Resolution 1.10 represents the mind of the Communion. They simply reject the resolution.
Yes, FaithfulDeparted — as you say in #6
This IS a statement of defeat.
And # 10 Yes they say clearly and unequivocally, (never mind the nutcases at the Albany Times Union) that they want to and will stay in TEC while wanting to remain a part of the Anglican Communion.
And I have also heard Bp Bill say exactly this and nothing else on every related occasion.
The last lifeboat has pulled away. Jump over the rail or be drowned.
Boooooo!
[blockquote]We encourage dioceses and congregations to study and endorse the Anglican Communion Covenant when it is finally released and to urge its adoption by General Convention, or to endorse [i] the first three sections[/i] of the Ridley Cambridge Draft… [/blockquote]
There you have it. Unless I am missing something, isn’t this the Communion Partners confirming, post meeting with the ABC, that section 4 is dead? Next move, GAFCON ….
There are obvious complications – to say the least – about the way charted or espoused by those who feel called to remain within TEC as loyal members of the Anglican Communion. I have not met anyone who senses a vocation to this joint mission, and has reached such a conviction without great soul-searching.
That others have chosen the option of leaving TEC, to a “continuing church” -in which description I include ACNA – to Rome, Orthodoxy or a Protestant denomination is obvious. Such people may deride or reject the path taken by those remaining within TEC. Fair enough. It would be better merely to pray for us and make common cause with us where possible. None of us doubts the difficulties which lie ahead, not least in dioceses where the balance between the orthodox and others is fine and might alter with the resignation or retirement of a bishop. Yet all of us walk by faith and not by sight.
Brian #11, what’s your rationale for saying ECUSA has always agreed Lambeth 1.10 represents the mind of the communion? Because, what I’ve read coming from that side are lunatic ravings about crafty manipulations of the vote, “chicken dinners,” secret assurances from unnamed provinces that they really agree with Episcopalianism, how it could have easily gone the other way even though the numbers were something like 500+ to 70-something, etc.
#15… good question Phil. I think Brian is basically right, and the distinction he draws is important. I think Brian means this: For the most part, most TEC leaders have in the last 6 years been willing to acknowledge (if you push them) that the overwhelming majority of bishops of the AC were solidly behind Lambeth 1.10 both in 1998 and now. They go out of their way to say that a significant minority did not support it then and now which is also true.
All you have to do, when talking to these sort of people, is define your terms. You just have to point out that if “the mind of the communion” has to mean a 98% or greater majority, then the mind of the communion will never be made up about anything, even something like the resurrection of our Lord. Therefore the phrase would be useless. When you do that, reappraisers, even KJS and similar folks, usually freely admit that the overwhelming majority of bishops in the AC support Lambeth 1.10.
All is well.
Brian #11, what’s your rationale for saying ECUSA has always agreed Lambeth 1.10 represents the mind of the communion? Because, what I’ve read coming from that side are lunatic ravings about crafty manipulations of the vote, “chicken dinners,†secret assurances from unnamed provinces that they really agree with Episcopalianism, how it could have easily gone the other way even though the numbers were something like 500+ to 70-something, etc.
I think the distinction is time. After 2003, all 4 instruments of the Anglican Communion have stated without qualification that Lambeth 1.10 is the cureent teaching of the Anglican Communion. And that is what matters. Individual bishops and/or processes from 1998 could be questioned, but the current situation is unequivocal.
Also posted at SF. Sorry, but I am truly appalled!
Communion Partners and primates, bishops, provinces and dioceses in other parts of the Communion,
This is truly awful.. In other words, we are LIMITED to only “other parts of the Communion”???
Right here in SC, there was a wonderful relationship building between the Dio. of SC, and the REC. Then death (+West) and retirement (+Salmon).
So now, the REC which IS ACNA, is out of any mission efforts? Now I understand that when I objected to leaving +Duncan off our prayer list, I was told, “but, he’s not even in our church”…
These bishops need to get their eyes away themselves, and look around. They are re-building fences that were almost down. For SHAME…..
Grannie G.
If we could go back again to the first point Brian made (#11), which just seems so very important, and that was the paranthetical aside that the 7 bishops cut from the ABC’s actual language.
will be free (granted the explicit provision that the Covenant does not purport to alter the Constitution or internal polity of any province) to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with other parts of the Communion.
I have been thinking about that paranthetical aside quite a bit, and I’d be grateful if some more knowledgable people can comment on the following conclusion I am reaching.
In the long or even medium term, there can be no meaningful rescue of traditionalist dioceses, and therefore certainly parishes outside such dioceses. All that remains is a waiting game — waiting for the orthodox bishops to resign or die. One by one they will have to. And then — and the Covenant swears it will never interfere in the polity of a province — TEC’s remaining bishops will simply fail to approve another Bishop Love or Bishop Lawrence. The next shepherd of that orthodox diocese will most certainly not be orthodox. And this assumes the least draconian, the most passive approach TEC would take — it could be much more aggressive if it wanted, requiring in 2012 or 2015 that all priests perform gay weddings, etc.
I’d love to hear from the “inside strategy” folks — including the 7 bishops! — how I am misreading this. Because I’d love it to know that I am mistaken and there is is some reasonable way the small number of orthodox dioceses can expect to continue their distinctive witness past another 15 years.
I agree with you, Jon. There is no mainstream Anglican future in ECUSA.
Because I’d love to know that I am mistaken and there is some reasonable way the small number of orthodox dioceses can expect to continue their distinctive witness past another 15 years.
I am not a reasserter, but it seems to me that the only way that the orthodox can assure reasonable treatment and succession is to wait out the term of ++Katharine. She is the de facto dictator of TEC and because the HoB and the HoD did nothing to curve her abuses, she is now the golem intent on destroying the church. But fortunately, this creature has an expiration date. Even though she has dismantled 815 and depleted the coffers, a new PB should be a considerable improvement. So my advice is to wait and listen. This too shall pass.
Did this document actually say something? Or did it take back with the right that which it gave with the left? Larry
#22… Thanks, Brian. A very openminded and openhearted comment from across the aisle. Much appreciated from at least this reasserter.
Incidentally, do you know anyone else from your side who is willing to so openly and so candidly describe the PB and the complicity of the HOB and HOD in her administration? I was really surprised (in a very good way, but still surprised) to hear someone from across the aisle use such frank and uncompromising language: “dictator”… “did nothing to curb her abuses”… “golem intent on destroying the church.” THANK YOU. (I love the image of the Golem.)
I am guessing that what you are hoping for is something to happen like what happened after the death of Stalin. In truth there were indeed a vast number of terrified people, even high ranking officials, who hated Stalin (though they appeared to be enthusiasts when he was alive); and worked swiftly reverse his policies once he was gone. I suppose you may be right that something might happen in 2015. That a large number of TEC bishops will look back at the terrible damage, the exiles to Siberia, the trials, the scorched earth, and will be filled with remorse and will eagerly support Lawrence and Love and Co. (those who are left) and let them do their own orthodox thing. I suppose that’s possible. Certainly it’d be nice.
[Comment deleted by Elf]
Incidentally, do you know anyone else from your side who is willing to so openly and so candidly describe the PB and the complicity of the HOB and HOD in her administration? I was really surprised (in a very good way, but still surprised) to hear someone from across the aisle use such frank and uncompromising language: “dictator  “did nothing to curb her abuses  “golem intent on destroying the church.†THANK YOU. (I love the image of the Golem.)
Well, perhaps, although without such strong dislike for this PB. I don’t see how you can read the records of what happened and choose to reinterpret it favorably. There was one article im particular (lost the citation, but I want to say it was in The Living Church) that talked about the meeting of the Executive Council where she announced the fait accompli of the changes in the way 815 was run. Bonnie Anderson stood up and tried to question her about the changes and she told her to stop. She then said that this was a courtesy and that she was in charge at 815. When the truth about how the changes at 815 happened and the results come out, I think people will be shocked.
Her interpretations of the canons were questioned in the HoB. She answered, a very few objected and then there was a vote. This took her interpretation from a de facto oppression to a de jure reading and is now the standard for how the Constitution and Canons are read. The conservatives hid their head in the sand and wrote voluminously that “since these things can not happen, then they never really did.” Cold comfort to the large amount of deposed priests and bishops. And even today there are leaders in the breakaway movement who claim that they are still TEC bishops. This rejection of reality for legal gain just strengthens her stranglehold on TEC.
And finally, the lay offs at 815 were done with ruthless efficiency. What her supporters have failed to realize is that she is an ideologue who holds no value in individuals and their contributions. Look at her writings, interviews, statements, etc. She does not even use people’s names. She speaks of the principles at stake, but not the people involved. The only time we see names are when they are necessary for legal documents. People are easily replaced. They are easily disposed of because the idea is more important than the individual.
I am guessing that what you are hoping for is something to happen like what happened after the death of Stalin. In truth there were indeed a vast number of terrified people, even high ranking officials, who hated Stalin (though they appeared to be enthusiasts when he was alive); and worked swiftly reverse his policies once he was gone.
Absolutely. And Stalin is a good example because he turned on his closest advisers such as Molotov and Zhukov. (Although his was petty jealousy and paranoia and hers is a “you served your purpose and I no longer need the function you represent.)
I suppose you may be right that something might happen in 2015. That a large number of TEC bishops will look back at the terrible damage, the exiles to Siberia, the trials, the scorched earth, and will be filled with remorse and will eagerly support Lawrence and Love and Co. (those who are left) and let them do their own orthodox thing. I suppose that’s possible. Certainly it’d be nice.
I don’t think it will be a love fest, but I think there will be a detente and maybe that is enough for now.
All this document says is exactly what we all knew. The life of exiles in Babylon is going to be very hard… lions’ dens, fiery furnaces, the whole nine yards. No surprises, 70 long years and lots of tears. But that is where the vision will come, and that is where the voice crying in the wilderness will be heard.
Quit your belly-aching, say your prayers, make the good confession and do your mission work. The Lord will not be mocked, and his timing is his, not ours.
UMMM, Any one who thinks Lawrence+ is simply waiting around until 2015 needs to read his own words especially those written to the clergy of this diocese just a few weeks ago. IN short, them is fighting words!!
http://www.dioceseofsc.org/mt/archives/000422.html
One small part of his address!
I believe we have a moral and spiritual call/obligation to stay in the fight with those still in TEC who look to us for hope; and to stay for as long as it is within our consciences to do so.
Above on this board there is an article quoting ENS concerning the meeting of the 7 bishops with the ABC:
“The Communion Partners have said that individual dioceses could sign onto a covenant whether or not the General Convention agreed to do so.â€
There was a deanery meeting this evening in the Diocese of Albany at which Bp Love read this statement that the seven bishops wrote in response to their meeting with the ABC.
The bishop was then asked what Achbp Rowan’s response was to the idea that individual dioceses could sign on to the Covenant regardless of TEC’s response. He answered that, “The Archbishop was very guarded in his response†meaning, apparently that NO assurances were given. Bp Love also said that “there are 4 instruments of unity, and they would all have their part in making any decision regarding what the dioceses may be able to do in regard to the Covenant.†He also indicated that dioceses might have to be content with merely “endorsing†the Covenant rather than signing on to it.
So it is pretty clear from the information he gave that there is no actual evidence suggesting that any diocese will in fact be allowed to join the Covenant aside from the GenCon decision concerning TEC’s membership or lack of it. Rather, it seems to be that the ABC is not planning to do anything to allow this to happen, and the ACC will be able to block diocesan membership if it so chooses—and who imagines that it will not so choose.
TEC holds all the cards in regard to the Anglican Communion as well as holding Section 4 hostage. Apparently, if you stay onboard the good ship TEC, you sink with it.
For those talking about waiting around til KJS is gone, i have two reasons why this won’t work:
1) Maybe some bishops and priests will do this, but TEC is losing orthodox families by the day. Also, center and center-right dioceses will lose congregations/money/influence. Congregations that were marginally evangelical will shift left as people leave. I don’t think there will be many pieces to pick up by the time KJS is on the way out.
2) The topic of bishops getting HOB approval is central. Each new election will be a battle, and after the ACNA departures there are is VERY little support for a real evangelical or anglo-catholic bishop anymore.
Late coming to this thread, but I think that Brian greatly underestimates the level of rage at the national level at the non-submissive traditionalists. Resistance merely infuriates them the more — GC should have been an eye-opener to anyone in attendance.
In the HOD I put the number of the enraged at easily 50%. In the HOB I put the number of the enraged at easily 35%. You’ve got basically 25% traditional bishops, and 75% revisionists — half of that 75% are essentially corporatists, but the other half are, to use Brian’s term, Stalinists.
I don’t see it getting one whit better post-KJS, but rather a continuation of her philosophy in the next PB.
I know it is probably silly to respond to someone like #25, so please forgive me. The idea of someone like Radner ‘escaping to Canada’ is so nonsensical it is hard to know where to begin. I can think of few people MORE involved internationally than Radner (or Turner). Missionaries to Burundi and Uganda; deeply travelled and involved in Windsor and Covenant. Can’t we just have some basic facts? Who is this FaithfulDeparted and what record does he have in global anglicanism comparable to Radner or Turner? As for myself, I am a Priest in CFL diocese and resident in Dallas. Could #25 get basic facts straight? If he is in fact Fr Armstrong, then this is something very sad and a matter for his overseers in ACNA to monitor.
What Frank said (27).
And Psalm 49.
Sarah at #32 said: “In the HOD I put the number of the enraged at easily 50%.”
Which GenCon did you attend? In the HoDs the votes on the liberal issues ran at 800 voices to about 40. And I would not use the epithet “enraged” for any of us. We are sad and disgusted, but still filled with the Love of Christ. This is not about rage at all but about faithfulness.