I’m glad that the bishops will get together in a group. I’m not certain — as I was uncertain months ago when this was announced — what possible good would occur for a parish to “enter” the Communion Partners grouping, other than very moderate parishes who wish to convince their traditional laity that they are “doing something” but do not wish to actually “do something strategic.” As has been pointed out before — there’s a reason why conservative parishes in hostile revisionist dioceses haven’t requested an “Episcopal Visitor” and a fellowship group for bishops will not make that change.
I further have commented that I think that these good bishops are misreading entirely parishes and clergy who are in distress in TEC. These parishes aren’t concerned about having “a visible link to the Anglican Communion” — after all, all parishes and clergy in TEC have a “visible link to the Anglican Communion” by virtue of their bishops going to Lambeth and by virtue of TEC being the Anglican Communion franchise in the U.S. The parishes and clergy who are in severe distress in TEC are parishes who no longer wish to be connected with an undisciplined and corrupt TEC. And being linked up to a fellowship group for conservative bishops will not help that, although I am confident that the conversation will be richer and deeper. I expect, too, that conservative laypeople in parishes in hostile dioceses in TEC will point all of this out with clarity and vigor to clergy who hope that entrance into the Communion Partners group will assuage their concerns. And that moderate parishes who enter the Communion Partners group will be just fine either way.
I’m going to continue to maintain that those who are within TEC will need to — within their own diocese and region — figure out how to sufficiently differentiate themselves from the ruling zeitgeist of TEC. They can do it — as individuals, groups of individuals, parishes, groups of parishes, and even dioceses — but it’s hard work.
This aspect of the release, consistent with what appear to be some of Ms Hey’s concerns, is not getting much comment. That may be to do with the poor formatting of the ACI web-site, so here it is:
Communion Partner Rectors
As a fellowship of Communion Partner Rectors, we welcome and support the release of the Communion Partner Bishops’ Statement. As this initiative moved forward, we felt it crucial to have the support of a growing group of rectors from Episcopal parishes throughout the United States and we will form a counterpart to Partner Bishops and Partner Primates. We believe it important that we are a broad partnership, extended across dioceses of various levels of Communion commitment.
We pledge our prayers and support to one another and to the Bishops and Primates working together to form a clear Communion identity within the Episcopal Church. We are excited and very encouraged by the mission and Gospel commitments of the wider Communion and hope to bring that reality into our parishes in whatever form is available and acceptable to the people, and the Bishops, we serve. We are clearly committed to working within the charitable guidelines of the released Communion Partner Bishops Statement.
We appreciate the serious challenges of this present season in our greater Communion and The Episcopal Church, and we understand that for some conservative constituents, another path may have been chosen. But we pledge our prayers, our concern and hope that the Partners Plan will be a movement of keen Communion allegiance both within the Episcopal Church and the greater Anglican Communion at a time when the Episcopal Church (USA) will be considering its role within the wider Communion. In brief, we are a group of rectors who share a common commitment to the authority and traditional interpretation of Holy Scripture, the creedal and historic faith, orthodox theology with an evangelical fervor to faithfully live and preach the Good News of Jesus Christ. We are also firmly committed to remain in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, respecting and honoring the proper authority of our Bishops and working in concert with them to strengthen our voice within the Church.
We wish to be on record in our enthusiasm for the Windsor and Covenant way forward, as the best means to extend and further the Communion as God has thus far blessed it throughout the world. We will announce forthcoming visits of Partner Primates and Partner Bishops as we complete our plans for their visits, and we will soon promote a gathering of Partner Rectors, Bishops and Archbishops as these arrangements are solidified. For more information or to become a Partner Rector, please contact us via CPRectors@stmartinsepiscopal.org.
We are mindful of our Lord’s desire and prayer that all who follow Him would be “one,” (John 17:21) and His affirmation within that same prayer that His followers be “.brought to complete unity to let the world know that You have sent me, and have loved them even as You have loved me,” (17:23). We believe this imperative for unity, nor our Lord’s prayer, is not limited to simply the members of the parishes we serve, a Diocese or even a Province, but to the whole of our Anglican Communion, and even more so, the entire Body of Believers. We believe the Partners initiative to be a faithful piece of this unity and will be a building block toward establishing stronger relationships with one another and all those who follow Christ. Toward that ultimate end, we remain;
The Reverend Dr. Russell J. Levenson, Jr.
Rector
Communion Partners Representative
on behalf of, the Communion Partner Rectors, (to date):
The Reverend Dr. Russell J. Levenson, Jr.
Partner Rector Representative
St. Martin’s Episcopal Church,
Houston, Texas
The Reverend Dr. Charles Alley
Rector, St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church
Richmond, Virginia
The Reverend Keith Brooks
Rector, Church of the Transfiguration
Vail, Colorado
The Right Reverend Tony Burton
Rector, Church of The Incarnation
Dallas, Texas
The Very Reverend Anthony Clark
Dean, St. Luke’s Cathedral
Orlando, Florida
The Reverend Frank Fuller
Rector, St. Mark’s Episcopal Church
Beaumont, Texas
The Reverend Ronald Greiser, Jr.
Rector, St. John’s Episcopal Church
Portsmouth, Virginia
The Reverend Laurens A. Hall
Rector, St. John the Divine
Houston, Texas
The Reverend Charles Holt
Rector, St. Peter’s Episcopal Church
Lake Mary, Florida
The Reverend Thomas Hotchkiss
Rector, Church of The Advent
Nashville, Tennessee
The Reverend John S. Liebler
Rector, St. Andrew’s Church and Academy
Fort Pierce, Florida
The Reverend Gregg Riley
Rector, Grace Episcopal Church
Monroe, Louisiana
The Reverend Mark Seitz
Rector, St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church
Wheeling, West Virginia
The Reverend Leigh Spruill
Rector, St. George’s Episcopal Church
Nashville, Tennessee
The Reverend Guido Verbeck
Rector, St. Paul’s Episcopal Church
Shreveport, Louisiana
The Reverend Stockton Williams
Rector, St. Peter’s Episcopal Church
Kerrville, Texas
The Reverend Michael Wycoff
Rector, St. Luke’s on the Lake
Austin, Texas
So these bishops and now some rectors can enter into partner relationship with clergy of Burundi, say. And…? This does what new?
I mean this does what besides quelling any serious differentiation efforts till GC09 makes differentiation grounds for “abandonment of communion” – even in the laity!
Sorry–my intention was only to indicate a portion of the release not otherwise noted. If you have questions (#2) I suppose you could contact Russ Levenson+ (rector of the largest church in TEC) or +Bruce MacPherson. I am not a spokesman for the Partners Plan. People are involved in this, unsurprisingly, for a variety of reasons and from a differing set of diocesan realities (Louisiana, VA, S-VA, WVA, W-LA, TX, CFL, etc). Beyond that I am not going to conjecture beyond what is written and released.
Sarah, I also thought the distribution interesting. Do you see anything in this new addition to the alphabet soup that could not be done 3 or 6 months ago? It seems to me more feel good talk to quell the restless natives.
Of course, Katherine Jefferts Schori thinks she can tell a diocese whom they can and can’t invite to speak and worship with. If they invite a communion partners plan primate (a CPPP!), then maybe she might not voice as loud an objection as to, say, ABp Venables.
I posted this elsewhere before I saw this thread:
So Sarah, does this mean that there is now an actual “inside strategy†for non-liberals/non-reappraisers/non-revisionists in TEC? I am not asking about the wisdom or efficacy of this particular strategy, but whether it would qualify in your mind as an “inside strategy,†which you have recently mourned as missing in action.
In light of your comments above, can you think of any way the “communion partners” plan could be amended or expanded to give hope to orthodox parishes in hostile dioceses? Is there a small step that can be initially taken, or will it require a huge leap to be of any benefit at all?
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
Where have these institutional rectors been all these last years…these are simply not the people who have been in the fight…does anyone relate a single one of these names to the battle of the last decade?
My take is that as they have made their way along in their careers, other careers have been sacrificed…and now with limited competition left in the church these are the new TEC leaders…but will they lead, will they sacrifice, will they step up to the plate and into the face of the impending doom?
In Communion Partners by definition there is a deferral to KJS…not a good start.
So, only now do these guys sign up for something that has no real effect, as RobRoy points out, to be anything more than what we have always been able to do in the Communion…and in no way does this address the issues and misbehavior at hand.
The reason some of these rectors can be from hostile diocese is proof that this is simply not a threat to hostile bishops…and that further proves this to be another insignificant ruse by ACI and their failed Windsor Bishops.
Sarah,
That is precisely what I mean by institutional…still in TEC…and probably going to stay there no matter what.
Some of these clergy may be behaving boldly just by doing this in the face of divided congregations…my point was that these are not the folks who have been in the headlines, speaking at conferences, going to meetings, or listed as donors to various conservative organizations.
Their boats are being rocked from the outside…they are clearly not the boat rockers…I think that was my point.
And no matter what anyone does in these difficult days…they are bound to have people leave…on the surface it is no a winner…but in the end if they are faithful to God, God himself will bless them.
Importantly I think we do need to honor these positions, while they need to honor the stance of those who have had to depart…(something I don’t hear from ACI) certainly my own TEC parish has been encouraged by those in the diocese who have been ‘in the bishop’s face’ and our hope is they drain the bishop’s resources so he will have to leave us alone.
But in the end, the faithful need not to chew eat each other alive…but understand differing circumstances, hard times, and various personality types, that in the end we may together hold forth.
RE: “That is precisely what I mean by institutional…still in TEC…and probably going to stay there no matter what.”
Okay — never mind. I’m an institutionalist too, then, which is fine by me.
This is a gambit, isn’t it, to save TEC’s bacon? The money is fleeing like snow in the spring sun, and matter will get more and more desperate unless TEC can find some kind of compromise that will keep the money flowing into the correct coffers. This is a band-aid to stanch the bleeding. But it won’t, because TEC’s course is fundamentally (and blindly) to pursue a social agenda to its logical conclusion regardless of its effect on their ability to survive. We see again and again the truth of the aphorism, that those whom the gods willl destroy, they first make mad. LM
I’d be interested in knowing what happened in the low church evangelical parishes in the last quarter of the 19th century. My guess is that as older rectors died off their successors were more liberal evangelicals. The same thing may be happening in the orthodox parishes in our own time.
If I may, I step ever so gently into this discussion. I rarely visit the blogs, and even more rarely contribute to them; but obviously for those of us who are, at present, committed to the CPP (Communion Partners Plan) this is an important moment to give more fuller expression to the meaning, purpose and hopes of those of us who have gathered around the Plan.
TomRightmyer asks a crucial question; “…what happened in the low church evangelical parishes in the last quarter of the 19th century.” Let me suggest we step just a bit further back — to the late 1700’s; and up until 1836 when one of the most well-known of our evangelical fathers, Charles Simeon, died finishing his 54 year tenure as vicar/rector of Holy Trinity Church, Cambridge, UK.
Simeon, as most of us know was living in the time of the growing Methodist movement — when, frankly, many were “fleeing” a dying Anglican church for the new, spirit-filled promises of the Methodist hope. Simeon did not go…most who study him (as I have) believe that he probably would have responded to those leaving with great charity, “I understand your conviction and decision, I just don’t share it.” Simeon is often a figure to whom our mentors John Stott and Paul Zahl point as one of those primary evangelical “lights” in very dark times.
He remained. Stepping even further back to the beginning of his ministry at Holy Trinity; his first ten years — ten years — were miserable — he faced tremendous opposition not only from his wardens and leaders; but the greater city. But he remained faithful — he stayed put; he preached with fervor and passion. And after that first decade, the hearts of those in his parish began to melt. Over the next 44, he began to slowly gather around him young men to counsel and mentor them toward evangelical/orthodox theology, preaching and praxis, (think Henry Martyn — one of Simeon’s shining stars).
By the end of Simeon’s long, faithful, persistent and consistent commitment, the face of Victorian Anglicanism (and even culture) began to slowly shift. One historian has suggested that Simeon’s faithfulness may very well have saved the dying Anglican church from its (last) step toward extinction.
Perhaps we are at that point again, not simply because of the pervasive revisionist agenda that so pervades our gatherings, Conventions and GC’s; but also because (in my mind) so many have left the battlefield.
I certainly understand — very much — why someone (parish, Bishop, Diocese) might want to finally raise the white flag and go elsewhere. But there are other options…that is what Simeon believed. I still remember after GC ’03 calling my mentor John Stott and catching him in his office only days after those dark days. He responded, “I know why you are calling…” When I asked him, “Where do we go from here?” His response was “Well, first of all…don’t leave.”
I suppose that Godly counsel has stayed in my mind and heart since that moment. Again, I understand why many would choose to leave…but quite frankly, I see very little measurable growth in any of the break-away movements (albeit the population does grow, but usually by the addition of more breakaways parishes…not necessarily new individual members — though I will admit there is certainly some). In my ongoing conversations with those who have broken away (a la AMiA or CANA), I can point to more than one crucial figure in that mix who has said “If I had to do it over again…I would not have left.” We do not hear that publicly, but those who have made that confession note the drain of resources and energy and the diversion away from mission into a land of litigation. Again, I confess, I know this is not the case with everyone — many have experienced a kind of “fresh” start, and freedom from the ties that so bind evangelical/orthodox clergy who remain in TEC. But how long will that last? The devil has a field day when we are divided, and any thinking person has to believe that darkness will (and in my mind already has) creep quickly into the break-away movements as well.
So, why choose to stay? The Communion Partner Rectors and Bishops (and Archbishops) are clear about who they are and that for which they stand. Someone in this blogging conversations suggested a kind of “institutionalism” among this circle. Far from it…in my discussions with the rectors group; we are not only committed to the larger Communion and our presence in it, and TEC; but we are also crystal clear that we will not capitulate to any agenda that runs contrary to the authority and traditional interpretation of Holy Scripture, (not only around matters related to human sexuality, but also creedal faith, atonement, original sin, conversion, salvation, sanctification, etc.) We remain because we have not been called (as some of our brothers and sisters have) to leave. We remain to give others who are not called to leave a solid place to cling to one another. We remain to say that the orthodox voice IS an authentic piece of the Anglican/Episcopal tapestry.
As we do remain, we remember Daniel in Babylon; Jeremiah’s wasteland of an audience; the dry bones that Ezekiel was called to preach to — despite ongoing opposition. None were given the option to “leave;” and all had to stay. We of course, remember our Lord who “wept” at the Jerusalem who not only rejected the prophets, but rejected Jesus. He did not leave — He was not given “another” Jerusalem — when His message was ignored, reviled, rejected…He did not move onto Egypt or Ethopia or Rome; He stayed, in the midst of a land that almost completely ignored His message, and by the end, His prayer in Gethsemane was that someday all who followed Him would be “one,” and “brought to complete unity,” (John 17). Can we honestly say that is where we are today? Are we anywhere close to “complete unity?” Not just within the Anglican family (with our many divisions); but within the greater Body of Christendom?
The Partners Plan is (again in my mind) one pathway toward following the lead of the great prophets and our Lord. We may never live to see the fruits of faithfully staying and faithfully preaching (recognizing — FULLY — that those who do leave, are also faithfully living into their vocational call as well). But, what if — what if those who have left in the last decade had stayed…continued to fight the tide of revisionism? What would Virginia look like? Florida? What would happen if Pittsburg chose to stay put? Certainly it is not easy, and likely continued opposition will prevail, but were we — any of us — promised an “easy” road? Did any of us plan on preaching without tremendous opposition — in some cases, even persecution?
I had an interesting letter recently from a parishioner who departed TEC and the Diocese of Texas when Good Shepherd, Tomball, Texas left. She wrote eloquently about the process that parish moved through to make its decision to leave TEC. Then she said, “I hope that you and St. Martin’s will continue to uphold the orthodox faith to make a difference in The Episcopal Church.” How ironic? I wrote her with my good wishes, and then clearly said, “Every time a parish, or a group of Christians like you make the decision to leave, it certainly makes it more difficult to do the very thing you have asked me to do…nevertheless, we will try and do just that.”
I urge those consdering departure, to consider the CPP, (whether Diocese, Bishop, Rector or Parish). It is not a perfect solution; far from it. But as one of my colleagues who has been in this battle for a very long time recently said to me, “This is my only viable option…I just don’t have a ‘plan B.'”
Those who do join us, must gently, and respectfully, live into the parameters of the Windsor Process. We are transparent — to our parishes, our Bishops, and whatever wider audience may develop. Some Bishops will oppose participation, some will give no objection, some will encourage — some may very well be hostile to it. We intend to respond faithfully to one another, and to respect the boundaries and authority of our Bishops.
This is not yet another “group” with one foot out the door; or even an eye toward the door handle. This is a fellowship — a place to belong with a common mind, common heart and common purpose — to strenghten our ties to the greater Communion, to other like-hearted Archbishops, Bishops and Rectors, and to, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, grow — however slowly — breathe the biblical and creedal faith and orthodox theology with a loving, yet consistent, evangelical fervor on those dry bones, where ever we encounter them.
If you are a rector …and interested in joining us — be transparent — discuss it with your bishop and your vestry…then send your full name, contact information, Diocese, Bishop, parish and number of baptized members to CPRectors@stmartinsepiscopal.org . As of 4 June, the consitutent membership of the rectors who have signed onto the plan is over 25,000 people. Please pray for us and for the plan.
Faithfully,
Russell Levenson, Jr.
Rector, St. Martin’s
Houston, Texas