Living Church: Communion Tensions Echo at Executive Council

Bishop Jefferts Schori said in her opening remarks that her June 13 homily at Southwark Cathedral in London, England, had been controversial. Later, in closed session, she revealed that Lambeth Palace had ordered her not to wear her mitre (because the Church of England is still debating the consecration of women bishops) and had required her to provide evidence of her ordination as deacon, priest, and bishop. Providing this evidence is a standard requirement for overseas clergy who apply to officiate in the United Kingdom.

Recent tensions have affected the way that the Episcopal Church’s Standing Commission on Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations plans to address ecumenical relationships. At an afternoon meeting of the world mission committee, Breuer reported that the commission wants to maintain ecumenical conversations with other church bodies, “even if the Anglican Communion Office does not.”

The committee has proposed that approximately $15,000 should be taken from the Episcopal Church’s Anglican Communion Office funding to strengthen the Episcopal Church’s ecumenical relationships. Breuer said the intention would still be to work through the Anglican Communion Office “insofar as possible,” but that “We will not say [in our ecumenical conversations], ”˜We have no need of you’ because the Anglican Communion Office says to us ”˜We have no need of you.’”

The proposal to redirect funds met with some skepticism. “I think we’ll produce massive confusion if we say, ”˜If we can’t do our international conversations one way, we’ll take the money from the Anglican Communion Office and do them another way,’” said the Rev. Canon Mark Harris of Delaware.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Archbishop of Canterbury, Episcopal Church (TEC)

17 comments on “Living Church: Communion Tensions Echo at Executive Council

  1. Douglas LeBlanc says:

    Quick correction of an important detail: The proposed redirection of funds came from the Standing Commission on Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations.

    Chip Webb and I were clear on that detail in a phone conversation, but I failed to make the change before posting the story.

    Doug LeBlanc
    Editor at Large
    The Living Church

  2. dovefromabove says:

    [i]The proposal to redirect funds met with some skepticism. “I think we’ll produce massive confusion if we say, ‘If we can’t do our international conversations one way, we’ll take the money from the Anglican Communion Office and do them another way,’” said the Rev. Canon Mark Harris of Delaware.[/i]

    Ya think?

  3. evan miller says:

    Whenever I hear a TEC apparatchik speak of “doing mission,” I wonder what on earth they can be talking about.

  4. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    [blockquote]Executive Council is holding its three-day meeting at the Maritime Institute[/blockquote]
    How appropriate

  5. A Senior Priest says:

    This is laughable and pathetic. Actually, more than that.

  6. AnglicanFirst says:

    ” She stressed the importance of the church’s work with Native Americans in the Navajoland Area Mission….”

    And the native Americans of the Great Plains States aren’t important?

    What about them? What about those Sioux/Lakota churches that were just recently ordered closed?

  7. A Senior Priest says:

    And there are only a couple of hundred Navajo people who attend the TEC mission there, AnglicanFirst. I guess that, and the MDGs is the only thing Mrs Schori has to offer these days, apart from histrionic hissy-fits of course.

  8. Sherri2 says:

    Is there any greater hypocrisy than this boasting of mission work with Native Americans. Like much about TEC, this is only for *some* Native Americans. Anybody heard from the Sioux?

  9. New Reformation Advocate says:

    Doug (#1),

    Thanks for the prompt clarification. Everyone is entitled to a mistake every now and then.

    But I feel for you, my friend, in trying to stay objective in covering such utter nonsense as the PB’s ridiculous stunt in Southwark, or worse yet, her inflammatory labelling of ++RW’s request for her not to wear her miter as “[i]beyond bizarre[/i].” What a temptation to engage in sarcasm that must have been! I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes, brother. Having the freedom to castigate such idiotic behavior by the PB in a venue like this is much more fun.

    David Handy+

  10. nwlayman says:

    “..$15,000 should be taken from the Episcopal Church’s Anglican Communion Office funding to strengthen the Episcopal Church’s ecumenical relationships.”
    I don’t think that figure or any other is going to have that effect. I’m sure it’s a bad choice of words. I hope no one thinks such things are a *money* problem.

  11. Cennydd says:

    Umm, I don’t believe in “doing mission,” but I sure do believe in doing the work of Christ and His Church. The Great Commission, in other words. Neither do I believe in “doing church,” but I sure do believe in going to Mass (the Eucharist) every Sunday morning.

  12. Cranmerian says:

    [blockquote] The committee has proposed that approximately $15,000 should be taken from the Episcopal Church’s Anglican Communion Office funding to strengthen the Episcopal Church’s ecumenical relationships. [/blockquote]

    That ought to be just about right to shore things up with the Unitarian Universalists and the MCC.

  13. dwstroudmd+ says:

    Odds on they take the rest for the lawyers and the mission strategy of suing. Hey, you can’t have it all at once.

  14. RichardKew says:

    Contrary to Schori’s claims, the American church does have missionary societies, she just does not deign to recognize them.

  15. cseitz says:

    I see Harris has this posted. I saw no mention of questions Kearon might himself pose.
    Questions asked of Canon Kenneth Kearon by Executive Council

    These were the questions asked of Canon Kenneth Kearon by Executive Council. More later on his responses.

    There is a covenant being considered that has in it certain processes, some of which have caused great concern for some of the provinces on how fairly they would be applied. For example, the Province of New Zealand gave only partial approval to the covenant, with members of its General Synod noting that Section 4 could “get into a situation where we sanctify a process of exclusion or marginalization” and that it might be implemented in ways that are “punitive, controlling and completely unAnglican.” Do the recent actions of the Archbishop of Canterburygive credence to these concerns? [Canon Rosalie Balletine, Esq., Chair of the World Mission Legislative Committee, Diocese of the Virgin Islands]

    There are always consequences to living authentically as Christians. Within relationships among Christians, however, we ought to have opportunity to question those consequences, lest all end up walking on eggshells. Is there such a process now? And, do you foresee a season of such sanctions or is the removal of ecumenical committee appointees from The Episcopal Church an isolated event? [President of the House of Deputies Bonnie Anderson, Diocese of Michigan]

    You have stated that The Episcopal Church does not “share the faith and order of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion.” Given the place of the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral in our common life as The Episcopal Church, how was it determined that The Episcopal Church does not share this faith and order? [Blanca Echeverry, Esq., Diocese of Colombia]

    I am Jim Simons, a priest resident in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh which, as I’m sure you are aware, went through a recent and painful schism. Currently, there are over 100 priests, deacons and one bishop canonically resident in the Province of The Southern Cone as well as another Bishop canonically resident in the Province of Rwanda functioning in our diocese without licenses and laying claim to some of our parishes. This is in clear violation of the canons and it is also not unique to our diocese. What if any disciplinary action do you anticipate toward provinces who engage in such jurisdictional incursions? [the Rev’d James Simons, Diocese of Pittsburgh]

    As a lesbian priest, in a 20-year relationship, legally recognized civil union in my state for ten years , and serving in a congregation, I ask this question because inclusion is very important to me. In his Pentecost letter, the Archbishop of Canterbury said, “We are praying for a new Pentecost for our Communion. That means above all a vast deepening of our capacity to receive the gift of being adopted sons and daughters of the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It means a deepened capacity to speak of Jesus Christ in the language of our context so that we are heard and the Gospel is made compelling and credible.” Removing people by executive action seems counter-intuitive to furthering inclusion. How is the exclusion of Episcopal Church members reconciled with the language of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Pentecost letter? [the Rev’d Canon Lee Alison Crawford, Diocese of Vermont]

    The Church of England remains in full communion and ecumenical dialogue with the Old Catholic Church, which blesses same-sex unions, and the Church of Sweden, which has a partnered lesbian bishop and blesses same-sex marriages. Given this fact, how are we to reconcile the removal of Episcopal Church members from ecumenical bodies? [the Rt Rev’d Wendell Gibbs, Bishop of Michigan]

  16. Douglas LeBlanc says:

    After discussions with both Ralph Webb and Sarah Dylan Breuer, [i]The Living Church[/i] has corrected and revised this story, which remains available at the original link.
    Douglas LeBlanc
    Editor at Large, [i]The Living Church[/i]

  17. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    #16 “corrected and revised this story”
    Whatever can you mean?