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.”
[i] Also, a senior advisor to the Archbishop of Canterbury told The Living Church it was a serious misreading of the primates’ communiqué to say that an ultimatum had been given to the House of Bishops to take certain actions by Sept. 30 or face expulsion from the Anglican Communion. The communiqué had asked for certain clarifications from the House of Bishops, he said, but did not envision a breaching of The Episcopal Church’s constitution. [/i]
Does anyone have the Dar reading to see if this is accurate?
Iker must be terrified. THe Bishops just may propose something workable. Amazing. “If they propose something we won’t stay.”
#1
“If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.”
Depends how you choose to read it, I suppose.
This is an attempt to divert attention away from the main issue at hand which is will TEC embrace the teaching and practice of the Anglican Communion. The recent actions in New Jersey and Chicago as well as countless others make clear the answer to that.
#2, why? Quite a reach on your part…
Kendall,
Are you referring to people being nominated for Bishop who live in active sexual relationships outside the bounds of marriage? Or are you referring to somthing else? The Reports stated that the unequivical commitment is that no person living such a life would be consecrated or made a bishop.
[blockquote] In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church 1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and 2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134); [/blockquote]
It would seem to me that someone being nominated is not so much the issue, as is someone being consecreated. As long as no person who is living in an active sexual relationship outised the bounds of marraige is confirmed, TEC would fit the bill here. I mean, thats what they are asking the Bishops- “not recieve the necessary consents.”
ofcourse, the question remains of the first part of this- and that is that the bishops agree to not authorize rites for same-sex blessings. I will agree that this one will be more complicated to get through.
I cringe when Bishops authorize these actions. Not because of the actions, per se, but because I don’t think Bishops have the authority to authorize rites solo. Should be an intresting couple of weeks.
What I believe are some of the relevant sections from Communiqué of the Primates’ Meeting, February 2007:
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.
25. It is also clear that a significant number of bishops, clergy and lay people in The Episcopal Church are committed to the proposals of the Windsor Report and the standard of teaching presupposed in it (cf paragraph 11). These faithful people feel great pain at what they perceive to be the failure of The Episcopal Church to adopt the Windsor proposals in full. They desire to find a way to remain in faithful fellowship with the Anglican Communion. They believe that they should have the liberty to practice and live by that expression of Anglican faith which they believe to be true. We are deeply concerned that so great has been the estrangement between some of the faithful and The Episcopal Church that this has led to recrimination, hostility and even to disputes in the civil courts.
26. The interventions by some of our number and by bishops of some Provinces, against the explicit recommendations of the Windsor Report, however well-intentioned, have exacerbated this situation. Furthermore, those Primates who have undertaken interventions do not feel that it is right to end those interventions until it
becomes clear that sufficient provision has been made for the life of those persons.
27. A further complication is that a number of dioceses or their bishops have indicated, for a variety of reasons, that they are unable in conscience to accept the primacy of the Presiding Bishop in The Episcopal Church, and have requested the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates to consider making provision for some sort of alternative primatial ministry. At the same time we recognise that the Presiding Bishop has been duly elected in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, which must be respected.
28. These pastoral needs, together with the requests from those making presentations to this meeting, have moved us to consider how the primates might contribute to healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church and more broadly. We believe that it would be a tragedy if The Episcopal Church was to fracture, and we are committed to doing what we can to preserve and uphold its life. While we may support such processes, such change and development which is required must be generated within its own life.
* * *
31. Three urgent needs exist. First, those of us who have lost trust in The Episcopal Church need to be re-assured that there is a genuine readiness in The Episcopal Church to embrace fully the recommendations of the Windsor Report.
32. Second, those of us who have intervened in other jurisdictions believe that we cannot abandon those who have appealed to us for pastoral care in situations in which they find themselves at odds with the normal jurisdiction. For interventions to cease, what is required in their view is a robust scheme of pastoral oversight to provide individuals and congregations alienated from The Episcopal Church with adequate space to flourish within the life of that church in the period leading up to the conclusion of the Covenant Process.
33. Third, the Presiding Bishop has reminded us that in The Episcopal Church there are those who have lost trust in the Primates and bishops of certain of our Provinces because they fear that they are all too ready to undermine or subvert the polity of The Episcopal Church. In their view, there is an urgent need to embrace the recommendations of the Windsor Report and to bring an end to all interventions.
34. Those who have intervened believe it would be inappropriate to bring an end to interventions until there is change in The Episcopal Church. Many in the House of Bishops are unlikely to commit themselves to further requests for clarity from the Primates unless they believe that actions that they perceive to undermine the polity of The Episcopal Church will be brought to an end. Through our discussions, the primates have become convinced that pastoral strategies are required to address these three urgent needs simultaneously.
35. Our discussions have drawn us into a much more detailed response than we would have thought necessary at the beginning of our meeting. But 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. We have set these out in a Schedule to this statement. We offer them to the wider Communion, and in particular to the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church in the hope that they will enable us to find a way forward together for the period leading up to the conclusion of the Covenant Process. We also hope that the provisions of this pastoral scheme will mean that no further interventions will be necessary since bishops within The Episcopal Church will themselves provide the extended episcopal ministry required.
—————
See also, The Key Recommendations of the Primates.
Forgive my ignorance but is this some kind of lieutenant role? A stand-in for those who find the PB unpalatable? No disrespect intended but what kind of animal would this be? A future PB in-waiting?
(continuing)
The Key Recommendations of the Primates
Foundations
The Primates recognise the urgency of the current situation and therefore emphasise the need to:
affirm the Windsor Report (TWR) and the standard of teaching commanding respect across the Communion (most recently expressed in Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference);
set in place a Covenant for the Anglican Communion;
encourage healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church, between The Episcopal Church and congregations alienated from it, and between The Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion;
respect the proper constitutional autonomy of all of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, while upholding the interdependent life and mutual responsibility of the Churches, and the responsibility of each to the Communion as a whole;
respond pastorally and provide for those groups alienated by recent developments in the Episcopal Church.
In order to address these foundations and apply them in the difficult situation which arises at present in The Episcopal Church, we recommend the following actions. The scheme proposed and the undertakings requested are intended to have force until the conclusion of the Covenant Process and a definitive statement of the position of The Episcopal Church with respect to the Covenant and its place within the life of the Communion, when some new provision may be required.
A Pastoral Council
The Primates will establish a Pastoral Council to act on behalf of the Primates in consultation with The Episcopal Church. This Council shall consist of up to five members: two nominated by the Primates, two by the Presiding Bishop, and a Primate of a Province of the Anglican Communion nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chair the Council.
The Council will work in co-operation with The Episcopal Church, the Presiding Bishop and the leadership of the bishops participating in the scheme proposed below to
o negotiate the necessary structures for pastoral care which would meet the requests of the Windsor Report (TWR, §147–155) and the Primates’ requests in the Lambeth Statement of October 2003[1];
o authorise protocols for the functioning of such a scheme, including the criteria for participation of bishops, dioceses and congregations in the scheme;
o assure the effectiveness of the structures for pastoral care;
o liaise with those other primates of the Anglican Communion who currently have care of parishes to seek a secure way forward for those parishes within the scheme;
o facilitate and encourage healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church, between The Episcopal Church and congregations alienated from it, and between The Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion (TWR, §156);
o advise the Presiding Bishop and the Instruments of Communion;
o monitor the response of The Episcopal Church to the Windsor Report;
o consider whether any of the courses of action contemplated by the Windsor Report §157 should be applied to the life of The Episcopal Church or its bishops, and, if appropriate, to recommend such action to The Episcopal Church and its institutions and to the Instruments of Communion;
o take whatever reasonable action is needed to give effect to this scheme and report to the Primates.
A Pastoral Scheme
We recognise that there are individuals, congregations and clergy, who in the current situation, feel unable to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or of the Presiding Bishop, and some of whom have sought the oversight of other jurisdictions.
We have received representations from a number of bishops of The Episcopal Church who have expressed a commitment to a number of principles set out in two recent letters [2]. We recognise that these bishops are taking those actions which they believe necessary to sustain full communion with the Anglican Communion.
We acknowledge and welcome the initiative of the Presiding Bishop to consent to appoint a Primatial Vicar.
On this basis, the Primates recommend that structures for pastoral care be established in conjunction with the Pastoral Council, to enable such individuals, congregations and clergy to exercise their ministries and congregational life within The Episcopal Church, and that the Pastoral Council and the Presiding Bishop invite the bishops expressing a commitment to “the Camp Allen principles†[3], or as otherwise determined by the Pastoral Council, to participate in the pastoral scheme;
in consultation with the Council and with the consent of the Presiding Bishop, those bishops who are part of the scheme will nominate a Primatial Vicar, who shall be responsible to the Council;
the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the Pastoral Council will delegate specific powers and duties to the Primatial Vicar.
Once this scheme of pastoral care is recognised to be fully operational, the Primates undertake to end all interventions. Congregations or parishes in current arrangements will negotiate their place within the structures of pastoral oversight set out above.
We believe that such a scheme is robust enough to function and provide sufficient space for those who are unable to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or the Presiding Bishop to have a secure place within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion until such time as the Covenant Process is complete. At that time, other provisions may become necessary.
Although there are particular difficulties associated with AMiA and CANA, the Pastoral Council should negotiate with them and the Primates currently ministering to them to find a place for them within these provisions. We believe that with goodwill this may be possible.
On Clarifying the Response to Windsor
The Primates recognise the seriousness with which The Episcopal Church addressedthe requests of the Windsor Report put to it by the Primates at their Dromantine Meeting. They value and accept the apology and the request for forgiveness made [4].
While they appreciate the actions of the 75th General Convention which offer some affirmation of the Windsor Report and its recommendations, they deeply regret a lack of clarity about certain of those responses.
——————————–
[footnotes omitted] All this leads up to what is being requested of the HOB (next)
Q. When is a deadline not a deadline?
A. Whenever the timetable involves Anglican Fudge.
Deadlines come and deadlines go. In the Anglican Communion, they mean nothing. Just like TEC has no core doctrines, the AC has no clocks or calendars. Here it comes again. Just wait until ######, the next meaningless deadline by which time our HOB/Executive Council/GC or 815’s janitorial staff will be “obliged” to act. Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me thirty or forty times, oh well …. you get the idea.
Such a proposal would be akin to “the fox guarding the hen house” as the fox would be appointed by and responsible to the PB.
I believe I read on another site that +Iker said the ACN bishops would leave the meeting upon the departure of ++Williams and would not be present should such a proposal be brought before the HoB.
Okay, last, here is the key portion from the Communiqué:
[blockquote] In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and
2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134); unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134).
The Primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to the Primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007.
If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion. [/blockquote]
————–
Following the above, there is this section:
[blockquote] On property disputes
The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation. We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations.
[/blockquote]
Then the Communiqué republishes the Camp Allen Principles.
The proposal I was referring to was “The plan is said to call for a [b] nominee of the Presiding Bishop’s to exercise delegated pastoral authority over those dioceses that had requested alternate primatial oversight [/b] from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams following the 2006 General Convention.:
And such a proposal would do zero for a reasserter parish in a reappraiser diocese. It barely rises to the level of being thrown a bone.
Now, for my comments. I agree with Kendall, #4, if this is all there is, it’s a diversion from the main issues.
It’s a Nixonian “[url=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_limited_hangout”]Modified limited hang out[/url]” and it ain’t going nowhere.
I remember +Duncan stating that he (perhaps he included others) at least would leave the HoB meeting when the ABC did. He said it in an interview with Anglican TV, a couple of weeks ago.
#8 – the Presiding Bishop has 3 roles in TEC, if I recall correctly: (1) presiding at episcopal consecrations, (2) visiting each diocese once in her term in office, and (3) canonical discipline of bishops. In the past, Presiding Bishop Schori stated that it is canonically possible to delegate the first two of these roles to an primatial vicar who would, for those dioceses that wished it, visit the dioceses and preside over the elevation of bishops in them. She also stated, if I recall correctly, that the PB’s role in the canonical disciple of bishops was not canonically delegatable. ++Shori put forth such a proposal to a number of reasserter bishops rejected prior to Dar Es Salaam, including Bishop Iker, which was rejected.
#15 I agree that this is straight out of the Nixon play book as a diversion.
Can we call this “Dawn of the Dead DEPO, Part 3”?
“It’s alive, AGAIN?!? Run for your lives!”
#6–And exactly what was it they were nominating these people to do? Ah, could it be consecrated as bishops? Nice try.
Bishop Iker said bishops affiliated with the Anglican Communion Network would not be present if a primatial vicar plan was brought forward during the House of Bishops’ business session, as they were withdrawing from the meeting following the departure of Archbishop Rowan Williams on Sept. 22.
Good thing Jesus likes children, because that is how the ACN Bishops are behaving. If they’re not even willing to vote, then they deserve what they get. Lambeth may look like that too if ++Akinola can be persuaded to keep his word.
It won’t work. If we want to be honest, and I think we should be, we want to be free of any (effective?) TEC control and innovations, in return we agree to be nominal members of TEC. It would mean independance from the GC and the canons. It’s like the status TEC claims for itself in the AC. TEC will never accept this.
As long as a man was appointed, would anything else be an issue for Iker? If its just a gender/female ordination issue, wouldn’t that suffice?
The presiding bishop was at the negotiating table with the primates at DES. It cannot effectively be renegotiated without rejecting DES. While it may not be surprising that the PB would try to renegotiate DES, certainly, if the ABC were to choose to engage in that without the support of the primates – with or without trying to use the unrepresentative primates standing committee as cover – that would be tantamount to a betrayal of the global south primates, and undoubtedly lead those global south primates to unilateral action. My guess is that the global south primates would simply proceed to act as a group and establish a new province in the US, and cease acting in concert with the ABC, such as by attending Lambeth, since they can have no trust in a council which rejects counciliar behaviour. It would be up to the ABC to formally kick the global south out of the communion. Lawsuits, of course, would continue as the raison detre of ECUSA. We shall see soon enough.
As long as a man was appointed, would anything else be an issue for Iker? If its just a gender/female ordination issue, wouldn’t that suffice?
Nothing would be sufficient for +Iker. ++Rowan wouldn’t even be good enough. The only thing +Iker would be willing to accept at this point is if he was appointed co-Primate for the United States.
Bryan, we are moving into an open realization of broken communion. Broken communion, to be blunt, means that we are no longer in communion with each other. To be even blunter it means, on a presonal leval, that you and I are no longer in communion with each other. I say this in the interest of honesty. Breaking communion means the severing of ties at institutional and personal levels.
All of us should pause and pray and reflect on this and ask if we really mean it. So, Bryan, if you really mean what you say (and I think you do), and are not willing to back down and adhere to Lambeth 1.10, then we are in broken communion.
“Nothing would be sufficient for +Iker. ++Rowan wouldn’t even be good enough. The only thing +Iker would be willing to accept at this point is if he was appointed co-Primate for the United States.”
Brian, you are dishonest.
#23, for the billionth time, it’s not about sex(gender OR intercourse). For all the posts on this thread, it seems as though you people just aren’t reading…
Maybe I’m misreading this, but what is ++Katharine proposing that is any different from before? It’s the exact same with different words.
Brian–I understand your point of view. But I am curious–when did you meet with Bp. Iker and discuss this with him–or were you just venting?
Broken communion, to be blunt, means that we are no longer in communion with each other. To be even blunter it means, on a presonal leval, that you and I are no longer in communion with each other. I say this in the interest of honesty. Breaking communion means the severing of ties at institutional and personal levels.
I have no problem seeing that Br. Michael. As Sarah points out, we have a different Gospel. My problem is people like +Iker trying to go around the polity of the Church and say “but they did it first.” We played by the rules and won. Maybe that will get us kicked out of the AC, maybe not. But +Iker and many other bishops refuse to play by the rules and it is tiresome. If you don’t like your situation, leave, and don’t steal. That’s all our side is asking. Plenty of departing parishes are doing this. But for people like +Iker it becomes about the cult of personality and they confuse their followers.
The thing is, unless the nomination of the primatial vicar is taken out of the hands of the PB and put into the hands of the Network/Windsor Bishops, the solution is unworkable and no one will go for it.
OK, this will probably get me in trouble, but here goes…
Regarding the new, improved, modified limited hangout, this-will-really-be-good-for-you reorganization plan: We had a name for these kind of things in the aerospace industry, where they seemed to come out every few years. We called them BOHICA. That stands for Bend Over, Here It Comes Again.
[size=1][u][url=http://resurrectiongulfcoast.blogspot.com/](from the Laffin Place)[/url][/u][/size]
[i]Nothing would be sufficient for +Iker. ++Rowan wouldn’t even be good enough. The only thing +Iker would be willing to accept at this point is if he was appointed co-Primate for the United States. [/i]
Gee Brian, you sure about that? Direct communion between “the Network” and Canterbury…I think he’d go for it, try him.
RSB
BT19
The problem that Iker et. al (including myself) have is that you “won.” The questions of doctrine were never addressed, but implemented by a political process in a political manner of “winners” and “losers.” No theological work was read or heeded. You have turned the Church of God into a den of politicians – imagine what Jesus would say about that!
As for owners of property, we can easily determine that. Whose name is on the deed and are there legal documents supporting any trusts? These things determine who owns the property, not Church laws.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
From the AAC [url=http://www.americananglican.org/site/c.ikLUK3MJIpG/b.2604387/k.AF5F/FAQ.htm]website[/url]:
[blockquote][b]What is Adequate Episcopal Oversight (AEO)?[/b] In their statement of October 2003, the Anglican Primates expressed “particular concern for those who in all conscience feel bound to dissent from the teaching and practice” of provinces or dioceses that contravene the teaching of the Communion. As part of this concern, the Primates as a whole called “on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.†Oversightprovided solely by, and potentially manipulated by, offending authorities cannot be deemed acceptable. “Adequate†oversight must be determined by those who are seeking it.
[b]What is Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO), and does the AAC support it?[/b] In March 2004, the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church approved a plan for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) as a means to meet the pastoral needs of “dissenting†churches not wishing to receive oversight from the bishop of their diocese. DEPO does not adequately address structural relief (alternative jurisdiction) for faithful Episcopalians in hostile dioceses; the plan is viable only where it is unnecessary—that is, in the few dioceses where bishops would grant AEO. DEPO in no way fulfills the call of the Primates for adequate provision for Episcopal oversight.[/blockquote]
Episcopal (small “e”) rule/management of a national church is based upon the pyramidal and traditional primate, bishop, priest, deacon, laity chain of command. And in the case of ECUSA, there is injected a triennial General Convention in which decisions are made by both clergy and laity on matters of doctrine and canon law.
ECUSA’s “chain of command” has been so compromised by ‘political’ elements that promote heresy and impose their innovations that the idea of Alternative Primatial Oversight (APO) was proposewd as a possible solution for those Anglicans within ECUSA who could no longer accept heretical leadership.
Putting a person answerable to the authority of Schori (and thus the revisionists) in charge of APO of the orthodox/traditional Anglicans of ECUSA results in essentially the same situation that existed before the implementation of APO.
The orthodox/traditional Anglicans of ECUSA are being oppressed by Schori and company. They need to be rid of Schori and company.
A Schori appointed and Schori controlled bishop overseeing APO could and probably would create all sorts of mischief for the orthodox/traditionalists.
By the way, if a person tolerates or accepts the heresies of Schori and company, he is not a traditionalist. He is a ‘fellow traveler’ with the heretics.
Hard words, but Anglican restraint and politeness has brought us in ECUSA to the situation that we are now facing. While we should all show compassion and charity, we should also be aware that the wolves are among the sheep and the time has come defend the flock against the predators.
A new plan is meaningless without the right answer.
[b]What would suit Fort Worth?[/b]
Yes, yes, and yes to the Dar es Salaam questions. Anything other than that means [b]NO[/b].
It doesn’t take the Archbishop of Canterbury’s interpretation to come up with the answer. The questions are stark, no sifting required. The Primates asked the questions, we can all hear the answer.
+Iker has more or less openly declared that he wants to break the canons and constitution of TEC (and in doing so his episcopal/ordination vows), if I recall correctly. If canonical discipline is in the hands of ++Schori, his see will be declared vacant, he will be deposed, and a Bishop who will actually uphold his vows installed in his place. If he can get canonical discipline of bishops out of ++Schori’s hands, though…. Hmmm, is it any wonder +Iker doesn’t like this proposal, since it doesn’t let him get away with his little game?
Bryan, even Judas gave back the 30 pieces of silver. TEC only has property because it was donated at the local level. A parish must be self sustaining. Is it right for a diocese or GC to claim as theirs, that to which they have never put in a penny? No, it is not!
And the claims of TEC make it difficult to ask for money to those who would willing support the parish, but do not want to suport TEC. In that case they are better off not giving anything at all.
The point is the communion is broken. And the reappraisers are not willing to do anything, of a meaningfull nature, to stop it.
DEPO by any other name is still spelled and carries the aroma of g-a-r-b-a-g-e. And until the lawsuits are withdrawn, DEPO by any other name is just another toxic substance. The institution formerly known as ECUSA still clings to the belief that it can compel by force and harassment those who do not accept its “new” theology and morality to submit to its tyranny.
You all know how difficult it is for any decision to be made by any one in TECusa. As a result, I have no doubt that such a plan (details to come) would not be concluded, and such a +Vicar would not be appointed, without the kind of meeting and process that Eddie Swain experienced.
As Christopher+ relayed, no plan but Dar Es Salaam’s will satisfy most of the Network bishops and dioceses. So they would not be at that process meeting. But others would, those who for whatever reason do not leave TECusa. I become more and more burdened for those faithful. For that reason it behooves all the orthodox bishops to take such a plan, get as much out of it, and build as much back into it as they possibly can negotiate. Such a plan would have to be in place before dioceses and individual congregations were given the opportunity to choose to sign up, which means that some would take the opportunity to NOT sign up and depart, if so willed.
The voices of those “departing” (and I use that word only for summary sake) should not pre-empt the options of those who do not. But those same voices should do everything they possibly can to make the ecclesial environment a better place (if that is possible) before they go.
Personally, appointing a +Vicar I can trust is only half the battle. I want the structure that will allow me full membership, vote, voice, and unimpeded proclamation of the Good News of Jesus Christ in the explosive and dynamic (to be redundant) power of the Holy Spirit.
As Chevy Chase said in Christmas Vacation, in a moment of impassioned verbiage, “HA-LAY-LOO-YAH”!
RGEaton
As Br. Michael notes (#22 above), having your own “Primate” does you little good as long as you’re still subject to the canons and constitution, not to mention General Convention. And if you have a parallel structure to all of that — your own constitution, your own canons, your own legislative body and process — then you have de facto your independent American province.
It’s hard to imagine any variation of “alternate oversight” that would be acceptable to both sides. When the HOB shot down the DES version earlier this year, +++Rowan’s response as I read it was, “OK, you don’t like that proposal; that’s your prerogative. But now it’s your responsibility to put a better alternative on the table.” ++Schori seems to be trying to do just that, although it’s unlikely to fly.
Are the ACN bishops really planning to walk out of the HOB meeting before it begins to debate its response to DES? I find that indicative; it seems to make it certain (as opposed to extremely likely) that the HOB will reject DES; so presumably the ACN bishops find that in their interest. That event is likely to hasten whatever formal schism is (likely) looming, so presumably that is their intent. Which is not surprising, but it’s interesting to track who has given up even attempting to avert schism.
Ross, at some point things simply start to happen and take a life of their own. That’s where we are now. This will start to play out regardless of the hand of man.
Philip Snyder: “No theological work was read or heeded.”
Tiresome.
Not true.
Misleading.
Boring, in fact.
Ring around the rosie,
Pocketful of posies.
Ashes, ashes.
We all fall down.
RE: “As Sarah points out, we have a different Gospel.”
Brian. My hero.
The reason why he is my second most favorite reappraiser, next to the dearly departed Mersey Mike.
PadreWayne – in 2003, the HOB and General Convention didn’t even listen to the 2003 theological report on the blessing of same sex unions. No theological justification was offered to the Anglican Communion until the rather lightweight “To Set our Hope on Christ.” Everything I have read (and I’ve read quite a bit) falls into one of two camps:
1. We think that God blesses homosexual sex in marriage like arangements, we we will bless it. Scripture is out moded and we know more than the authors of Scripture do anyway.
2. We see God’s grace exhibited in the lives of partnered homosexual men and women and so their lives must not be a bar to God’s grace and, therefore, must be blessed by God.
The problem with the first is that it assumes what it wants to prove. This is bad logic and worse theology. It makes a minor diety of time (we are smarter than they were) and of science – the science we want to read. It takes no account of opposing voices because they deny the narrative we want to hear.
The problem with the second is that it is a form of reverse donatism. Donatism taught that only the righteous could be effective ministers of God’s grace. Sin was a bar to God’s grace. The Church rightly said that if sin is a bar to God’s grace then we are all in trouble. Anyway, this latest version tends to reverse that. It starts with the observation that God’s grace seems evident in the lives of men or women engaged in homosexual sex. Since God is active in their lives, their homosexual sex must not be a bar to God’s grace. Thus, it must be blessed. This is also bad theology – if not outright heretical.
Can you show me, out of the Apostles’ teaching, where homosexual sex is spoken of in any terms of than “sinful?”
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
PadreWayne,
Heard of the Virginia Report?
The advice of the Theology Commission of the HOB prior to 2003? “the report said ‘because at this time we are nowhere near consensus in the church regarding the blessing of homosexual relationships, we cannot recommend authorizing the development of new rites for such blessings.’ On the ordination issue, the report calls on bishops and standing committees, responsible for the ordination process in the dioceses, ‘to be respectful of the ways in which decisions are made in one diocese have ramifications on others. We remind all that ordination is for the whole church.’ http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_19748_ENG_HTM.htm
Read ’em?
Compensation — That is what everyone is crying about. Well, to the reappraisers out there, what about this? If a congregation votes to leave an independent appraiser comes in and assesses the value of the property. The parish is then obligated to pay the percentage remaining from their vote.
There will be objections — I know them but we can argue back on forth about endowments and historic claims and what would my long dead aunt would have wanted, but we can only deal with the here and now.
Example: Property is worth $1,000,000. Ninety percent of the congregation votes to leave. The diocese is paid $100,000 (10% of the value). If they can’t pay, they can’t take any of it and they have to leave it.
FYI — In VA the bar to “leave” in the aborted “Protocol” was high I believe it was 70% and may have been 80%. What I think shocked and angered many institutionalists was that the votes all fell in the high 80s and 90s with one exception.
That sounds like a sensible suggestion. At the end of the day, the goal is to have a functioning congregation in the building. A majority that is not financially self-sustaining yet makes a claim to the building is being rather self-serving and “if they can’t pay, they can’t take any of it and they have to leave it” addresses that concern.
I feel our divided Church is like two idiots who have wandered into the middle of the desert. The vultures are circling overhead, but the two obliviously keep talking about who gets the family estate.
There’s death in the air. Doesn’t anyone smell it?
I pray it’s not too late.
Look ya’ll – the Episcopal Church has fundamentally changed. +Bishop Iker knows that if any scheme to retain works then the orthodox will eventually vanish. Any Church that would not have kicked +Bishop Spong out cannot be trusted – any Communion that cannot discipline a wayward province like TEC may well be of limited worth.
The thing most annoying about Brian’s truthful comments at having “played by the rules and won” – is that he actually believes that the Gospel can/should be changed by the actions of political activists. A church is not (or should not) be a political debating society or subject to regieme change as if it were simply a non-profit.
Brian is also a lawyer and he knows that nothing any departing congregation has amounted to stealing (as you know Brian falsely acusing someone of a crime is actionable). In fact, most states neutral property laws would support the congregations actions but for the fact that many states refuse to intravene because it is a Church – therefore this is an eccliastical struggle – and the traditionalists have the weight of the gospel behind them.