By George Conger
THE EPISCOPAL Church has mishandled the debate on human sexuality by misleading the Anglican Communion about its intentions to regularise gay bishops and blessings, the Primate of the West Indies said on May 15. By placing autonomy above unity it has brought the Anglican Communion to the brink of collapse, Archbishop Drexel Gomez told the clergy of Central Florida. Archbishop Gomez criticised the leadership of the Episcopal Church for not being entirely straight forward with the Communion. “You just cannot have collegiality,” he explained, “if when you meet with your colleagues you don’t share.”
He also chided the African-led missionary jurisdictions, the AMiA and CANA, operating in the United States, saying they were an unfortunate “anomaly.” It was “most unfortunate” that the Episcopal Church had hid its intentions to regularise gay bishops and blessings, Archbishop Gomez said, as it had not seen “fit to share with the rest of the Anglican Communion what it intended on doing.” During the 2003 Primates’ Meeting in Gramado, Brazil “we had a long discussion on this business of [gay] blessings and samesex unions,” he said. But at “no time during the meeting, did [US Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold] even indicate that a situation was developing in the Episcopal Church that would lead to the consecration of Gene Robinson.” “It is not good enough as Frank [Griswold] had said that The Episcopal Church has been wrestling with this issue for 30 years and the Spirit has led them to this decision. We were unaware of the problem. It must be a shared discernment if we belong to the body,” Archbishop Gomez said. ACC-13 in Nottingham was the “first time any presentation had been made by The Episcopal Church” on these issues, he argued.
At the 2003 emergency Primates’ Meeting at Lambeth Palace, “We said unanimously, including Frank Griswold, if The Episcopal Church were to proceed with the consecration of Gene Robinson that it would tear the fabric of the Communion. And yet it proceeded and the fabric has been torn,” he said. The consecration of Gene Robinson was “the first time in the history of Christendom that someone has been made a bishop who could not function as a bishop,” Archbishop Gomez argued. “Theologically I do not consider him to be a bishop,” he said. Bishop Robinson’s episcopal ordination was an example of Augustine’s argument, Archbishop Gomez stated that “a sacrament could be valid but non efficacious.” He “has been sacramentally ordained, validly ordained as a bishop, but he cannot function as a bishop in most of the Anglican Communion.”
Archbishop Gomez stated he was also “very concerned” about the formation of rival Anglican jurisdictions in the United States under the sponsorship of overseas primates. These “new groupings are anomalous in Anglicanism” he told Central Florida, adding “I tried hard at the last Primates’ Meeting to find an answer to that” difficulty, which “complicates the situation.” One of the triumphs of the Tanzania Primates’ Meeting, he said, had been the agreement made by the onterventionist primates to turn over their US jurisdictions to an international pastoral council. “We got them to the point where they would stop. This was not easy to achieve,” he said. “I thought the House of Bishops would jump at the opportunity” to end foreign interventions, but they “wouldn’t look at it.” The rejection of the pastoral council by the House of Bishops now makes it “twice as difficult to get this back on the table,” Archbishop Gomez said. He also stated the Dar es Salaam Communiqué was the first statement by the Primates where each was asked to give their personal assent.
At prior meetings “we worked by consensus in our decisions,” but Archbishop Williams “felt that the decision was so important, so critical” that all should be polled for their views. “Individually [Archbishop Williams] went around and individually every person said yes [to the Communiqué]. [Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori] said yes, but said it would be a difficult sell, but she would try.” The question put to the Presiding Bishop was whether she accepted the communiqué, “and Katharine agreed to the proposal.” Archbishop Gomez did not expect a decisive response from the House of Bishops to the September 30 deadline for compliance to the Primates’ Communiqué. “On the basis of past actions, certainly over the past 10 years, I would presume that the Episcopal Church would seek someway of fudging it. And that would be a consistent pattern,” he stated. He told the gathering that he had suggested a September 30 deadline for a response from the House of Bishops. “The intention was to give them two full meetings” before an answer was due, although Archbishop Williams had pressed for more time. The Episcopal Church “will have to make a decision” whether it will remain part of the Anglican Communion. “The official Church speaking through its General Convention places autonomy over its mission. That is the reality we have to face in the Communion,” Archbishop Gomez said.
–This article appears in the Church of England Newspaper, May 25 2007 edition, page 7
Wow, now that is a great article.
Yes, how refreshing to read an article where the author gets it, and is not afraid to speak it.
Yes, great article. The part about the pastoral council is real news that shows, again, how ECUSA has been its own worst enemy.
Seeing as its fixation with homosexuality, with which most Christians disagree, is the single most important issue in its corporate life, ECUSA wants nothing to do with the Anglican Communion, and nothing to do with most of worldwide Christianity. Both sides know it; why don’t we end the charade and act accordingly?
Yes insightful. And at the same time really disappointing. After all that has happened, Drexel still disapproves of orthordox oversight for the orthodox who are being persecuted (- describes it as unfortunate!).
He has obviously tried to be a peace maker, for which he is to be commended. However, TEC has absolutely no intention whatsoever of making peace on anyone-else’s terms. It’s our way or nothing. The arrogance of it is unbelievable.
Yet Drexel still holds out in the vain hope of seeking some sort of further compromise. He gives the impression that he will never give up. I am afraid he is naive beyond measure. The people he is talking to are fundamentally non-Christian. And the only thing that will stop them is the orthodox surrendering. If he is happy to see that, then he is happy to see the whole of Anglicanism apostate.
+Gomez: one of the most crucial and informed and hard working Primates there is. A man for our season. I can just see his wry smile at the suggestion he is naive. And ‘beyond measure’ at that.
++Gomez is not buying more time. The deadline idea aparently was his, not +++Williams’ nor ++ Akinola’s. I don’t see this as negotiating with non-Christians or being happy that the whole of Anglicanism falls into apostasy. He’s probing to find out if they have now discovered their first love or if there is a First Love to which they can be called back.
The final two sentences of the article state the issue rather clearly and could easily have been the lead for the piece. TEC must make decision, ++Gomez says, will they choose autonomy or mission?
BTW, five years ago most of the Anglicans in the U.S. would have agreed with ++Gomez. Only now after all that has happened, are many starting to come under alternative oversight that would have ben considered irregular just 10-15 years ago.
++Gomez realizes there is a limit to what people can endure and it is no sin to flee apostasy to safer ground. I expect the deadline to stand and serious consequences to follow if men like ++Gomez are saying these things now.
MikeS has it just right. +Gomez confronts apostasy with hard work, and prayer. He fights inside and does not run away. The idea that the Primates would just fold their hands and say, ‘OK, TEC diddled, too bad, we’re scuppered’ and give up on prosecuting the communiqué — +Gomez would be baffled by this notion. Thank God for his work and witness. Labor et Fides.
Gomez says: “One of the triumphs of the Tanzania Primates’ Meeting, he said, had been the agreement made by the onterventionist primates to turn over their US jurisdictions to an international pastoral council. “We got them to the point where they would stop. This was not easy to achieve,” he said. “I thought the House of Bishops would jump at the opportunity” to end foreign interventions, but they “wouldn’t look at it.” The rejection of the pastoral council by the House of Bishops now makes it “twice as difficult to get this back on the table,” Archbishop Gomez said.”
It’s clear that the main reason why the Pastoral Council was rejected so vehemently by the HOB is that while they know that people will continue to leave ECUSA — it is really really important to them that those people, through their leaving, are not a part of the Anglican Communion.
I think that is a fruitful area for contempation for all reasserter Episcopalians. Why is it so important to the HOB that — when you leave — you are not allowed to be a part of the AC???
++Gomez is a faithful and determined voice for the Faith Once Delivered and a soldier fighting for the health of the Anglican Communion. It is regrettable that he cannot stand behind the pastoral interventions of the foreign primates who are valiantly trying to provide a safe place for Anglican orthodoxy in America.
Seitz-ACI and MikeS, I pray desperately that you are right. I hope there are serious consequences. I fear those who will advocate “serious” consequences will be sat upon – and they will ultimately be marginalized and walk.
And if you are right, I still think Drexel Gomez is implicitly a tad too critical of the alternative oversight: I just wonder if as much progress would have been made without the rising pressure from the increasing number of these so-called “unfortunate anomalies”!
This is the position taken consistently by about 18-23 of the 38 primates since this whole unpleasantness began. However, I do question the assertion that TEC did not play it straight with the Communion prior to the Robinson election.
First, nobody here could know exactly what was going to happen until it did. The intent of New Hampshire to elect him and the intent of General Convention to confirm him were not apparent until the votes were counted. This is not a church in which formal decisions are made secretly by a handful of prelates. So neither Bp. Griswold nor the US members of the ACC and Lambeth 98 could have told anybody “what [TEC] intended on doing.”
Second, the writing on the wall was as visible to overseas Anglicans and domestic reasserters as to anyone else. I am sitting here in a small town in Central Texas completely out of the loop of what is happening in New York, Lambeth, Abuja, Nassau, or even Houston, but I could clearly see this trainwreck coming long, long before the 2003 Primates’ Meeting in Gramado or even the 1998 Lambeth Conference.
Since at least the 1980s, an increasing number of US and Canadian dioceses had been publicly pushing for full inclusion for LGBT couples and clergy and there were less formal steps being taken in England and elsewhere. The Issues in Human Sexuality compromise position followed explicitly in England and implicitly everywhere else in the West was under increasing attack from both sides, with reappraisers gaining ground. Someone reading (for example) David Virtue could see that American reasserters were already trying to line up support for intervention by the Communion well before Lambeth 98. It is hard to believe that these efforts did not involve informing the overseas primates about what was going on here. If so, everyone else in the Communion knew as much about where TEC was headed as Bp. Griswold did, so he could hardly hide the ball.
Very well said! I have heard Bishops, several, my own included, that TEC has been studying the issue of human sexuality for over 30 years, and that we are comfortable with the decisions that we have made. I have been a priest for 33 years, and to date have never been nor been invited to a discussion of Human Sexuality. My question is: Where did all these discussions take place? House of Bishops meeting? Executive council meetings? Where?
I must disagree with Dale Ray. If TEC had played it straight it would have amended the Canons and the BCP first. As it was they realized they could change doctrine politicaly and through the back door, which they did.
I do acknowlege that a realistic view of what they were going to do, regardless of what they said they were going to do at the time should have surprised no one.
12 -“I have been a priest for 33 years, and to date have never been nor been invited to a discussion of Human Sexuality.”
I have been a member of ECUSA for 35 years and I have attended two such meeting at my local parish in the late 80s/early 90s. It was my understanding that these meetings, at the parish level, were requested by General Convention…perhaps someone on this blog can support my understanding….Possibly in some diocese, classes were held for priest to be trained to conduct such meetings or professional help was encouraged. I do believe it was optional for a parish in our diocese.
Take heart, guys. It’s just all politics.
The liberals have taken over TEC. They did it the democratic way. WE all sent delegates to convension. Conservative, orthodox Christians are a minority now. Nothing can be “done”. There is no fix, short of God’s own plan; which, to me at least seems like is playing out: The orthodox leave. Start over. The “re-writers of the Bible” stay and ride the ship down.
It’s been said that God is doing a new thing. He certainly is, He is showing us that buildings and land are not the church, He is.
bl
I have the greatest respect for ++Gomez.
However, were it not for the ability to have oversight from AMiA, CANA, or (in the case of my parish) Bolivia, I would have long since left Anglicanism for Eastern Orthodoxy.
The long delay in disciplining E”c”USA’s heresies is driving many from Anglicanism. While I agree, the development of these temporary splinter groups is unfortunate, it is the direct result of procrastination by those sworn to “to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word”.
Before Archbishop Gomez makes more remarks about CANA or AMiA he may want to remember that orthodox laity are trying to find a way to remain Anglican. We orthodox Episcopalians were not surprised by what Frank Griswold did when he went ahead and consecreated Gene Robinson nor were we surprised by the quick action the Episcopal Church House of Bishops took following Dar es Salaam. What the Anglican Communion may be 30 years behind about is TEC’s long-term intentions. TEC has been very clear (read Susan Russell’s blog if you are not sure). It’s not like it’s been a secret. It’s been wide out in the open – and perhaps the joke is now on those who refused to believe it could be exactly what TEC said.
One of the major differences between “British-English” and “American-English” is that Americans have a way of saying exactly what they say they will do. Perhaps the Anglican Communion leadership needs to stop thinking like the British (case example: the word “scheme” – bad move, friends) and start thinking like Americans.
The inability for the culturally-British Anglican leadership to think like Americans (and let’s just face it, the idea of thinking like Americans must be rather repulsive, pass the tea and crumpets) will lead them into darkness.
Americans – liberal or conservative – say what they mean they will do and then do it. Not only are we having a theological divide here, but also a cultural one.
Help us, Archbishop Gomez, to remain Anglican.
bb
#11 Dale Rye
As I read this, Archbishop Gomez is referring to the fact that Frank Griswold did not give the Primates a heads-up about VGR when they met in Brazil from May 19-26, 2003. The nominees for Bishop of NH had been announced on APRIL 2, 2003. Of course, in May 2003, nobody knew the outcome of the election since it was not held until June 7. But, there was a great deal of discussion on human sexuality at that May 2003 meeting leading to the Primates statement that, “there is no theological consensus about same sex unions. Therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorisation of such rites.” Griswold agreed to this.
Griswold did share with the primates the Report of the House of Bishop’s Theology Committee which had been issued in March 2003. That report revealed that there was great division among the US bishops, but the report concluded that,
“[6.5] Liturgy provides cohesion for the Anglican Communion, and it is through our liturgies that we define what we most deeply believe as Christians. 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.
[6.6] For these reasons, we urge the greatest caution as the Church continues to seek the mind of Christ in these matters. ”
How could the Primates deduce from the above statement that the church in the US planned to nominate, much less elect, approve, and consecrate a partnered gay bishop? Had Griswold shared with the Primates, in May 2003, that NH had nominated a partnered gay bishop, the issue might have been dealt with differently. Might it not have been better for Griswold to have shared with his brother primates that his province might present a problem for the Communion, and to ask for their guidance? It might have demonstrated that Griswold understood that what affects the whole must be decided by the whole.
Of course none of this changes TEC polity or autonomy or the “rights” of the Diocese of NH – but it might be a different ball game today. ++Gomez’s point is a valid one.
BabyBlue, let’s turn this around for a moment and we’ll discover that Abp Gomez has in fact supported the interventions from outside. He said that those interventions were unfortunate and anamolous. That is to say that the Primates do not want to encourage for the future generations a pattern of crossing jurisdictions. If we as a Church or Communion enthusiastically endorse these innovations today, then twenty five years from now there will new occasions of much less severity in which one archbishop or another will cross boundaries. Thus the Archbishop and Primates need to understate their approval today to protect the Communion tomorrow. But having done so, the Archbishop worked very hard and succeeded at crafting a formula by which CANA, AMiA and others would be regularized and fully recognized. Indeed as a result of Dar es Salaam, there is no doubt that these expressions of Anglicanism are in essence Anglican. The Primates have set the stage for their being brought together as part of the single unified Anglican expression in America. We Americans must be careful not to think only in terms of months and to remember that the British and much of the rest of the world think in terms of decades or even lifetimes.
RE: ++Gomez’s AMiA & CANA as unfortunate “anomaly.”
The comment fits with his other statements, it’s not a condemnation but certainly not condoning the actions either. I’d say that is consistent with other statement and actions, which is one reason ++Williams has called on him.
I believe he orthodox, through and through, but Gomez does have an opinions that might differ slightly from ++Akinola or ++Orombi.
A really insightful comment by Maria above regarding the actual timeline of events. I have never seen that before.
And I have to say I think it was quite possible for Primates to have no clue as to what was happening — after all, a whole lot of Episcopalians found out about the approval on CNN on that Sunday in August. I know — I’ve heard from them.
Keep in mind that the whole MO of the Episcopal progressive leadership is to hide, obscure, and obfuscate what they actually believe. Thankfully — thanks in part to the Internet — that scheme has been largely circumvented and they are much more open.
I also have to disagree with some of the comments here that it is somehow wrong for Archbishop Gomez to desire that a communion-approved solution be found for the issue of those who cannot be involved with ECUSA any longer yet who still wish to remain a part of the Anglican Communion.
Sarah, the communion is too slow. And Gomez’s comments make me want to cry. I want to stay Anglican, but if they are going to leave me high and dry, I’ll find my own way to be in community with Christians. Lord knows that Bishops and other clergy are no help.
LCF+, I know you mean well and it may be good to think in terms of decades and centuries. For me and now that’s bovine excreatment. As much as I love the Anglican Communion, I don’t need it to be in Christian Community. I am about at the point that you can take all the time you want because I will not be there. You can raise up new suckers to pay your salary.
RE: “As much as I love the Anglican Communion, I don’t need it to be in Christian Community. I am about at the point that you can take all the time you want because I will not be there.”
Br. Michael — I agree with you. So are you saying that since you, Br. Michael, are unable to wait for important reasons that then Archbishop Gomez is wrong to desire that a communion-approved solution be found?
Sarah, I think I am saying that they are taking to long. The best lifeboat in the world is no good when you need a life ring now. They can take twenty or thirty years to save the communion, then they can ask me if I want to come back. But by that time I will be dead and with Jesus.
In #8, Sarah wrote:
“It’s clear that the main reason why the Pastoral Council was rejected so vehemently by the HOB is that while they know that people will continue to leave ECUSA—it is really really important to them that those people, through their leaving, are not a part of the Anglican Communion.
“I think that is a fruitful area for contempation for all reasserter Episcopalians. Why is it so important to the HOB that—when you leave—you are not allowed to be a part of the AC??? ”
Also, why did the HoB seem so scared of the PV/PC idea, and of ACN and AAC? Some answers include not wanting to have to recognize those they have defrocked as ‘out of communion,’ not wanting anyone to know how few laity share their ‘theology,’ fear of losing control of GC09 to reasserters who return and get involved in church structure, loss of validation for their cause.
What other answers go here? Sarah is right – TEC bishops do not want the AC to deprive them of the total and unique designation.
RE: ++Gomez’s AMiA & CANA as an unfortunate “anomaly.â€
I think that we’d all agree with ++Gomez’s statement. Departures from ECUSA are an unfortunate anomaly. I would suggest however, that that he does sees them as an unfortunate, yet not an unreasonable but an essential response by many of the faithful to leave an increasingly apostate and heretical church. In a communion where all were truly in communion with each other and working together to expand God’s church, there would have been no need for a CANA or an AMiA.
“The Primates have set the stage for their being brought together as part of the single unified Anglican expression in America.”
Continuing from my last paragraph. I believe that that is their prayer and long-term intention. ++Orombi said as much in his interview in California, as has ++Akinola. The success of this venture will succeed only if the various groups and individual parishes that have splintered off, remain centered on the reasons they left ECUSA and their desire to remain part of the AC, whether it is centered on Canterbury or not. Working against this are two things:
1. A failure to maintain the vision of a doctrinally and theologically sound communion as an outcome of supreme importance, because of divisions between the groups.
2. ECUSA’s efforts to work against the consolidation of the various groups in order to thwart the emergence of a parallel Anglican Province, one which might displace ECUSA in the Communion. I think that this would be ECUSA’s greatest fear, that they’d be marginalized or replaced -which would be the answer to Sarah’s ‘fruitful area of contemplation.
I think that the HoB had no choice but to reject the communique’s request that ECUSA allow those diocese that requested it the option of ‘partially’ removing themselves from ECUSA’s control. There would have been a strong and large nucleus of an alternative province ‘within’ ECUSA, yet with a separate identity with the AC.
Bp Gomez says, ‘One of the triumphs of the Tanzania Primates’ Meeting, he said, had been the agreement made by the onterventionist primates to turn over their US jurisdictions to an international pastoral council.’
I currently attend a church under the Diocese of Recife and Bp Cavalcanti and I would not return to an Episcopal church if the above agreement was make our church come under ECUSA.
Even though I had left ECUSA in 10/04, there is no way (in you know where) that I will ever become an Episcopalian again.
I had been a member of ECUSA for 56 years and when my previous diocese (Olympia) passed the following resolution in 2006 that was the last straw for me.
• affirm and call upon the bishops and Standing Committee to affirm the full inclusion in all areas of the life of the Episcopal Church of “our otherwise qualified brother and sister Christians who are single or PARTNERED HETEROSEXUAL gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered persons, and those WHO ARE IN NON-CELIBATE HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS and those who are divorced, as well as the full inclusion of the Episcopal Church in the full life of the Anglican Communion;” The above resolution can be found at http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_80158_ENG_HTM.htm
Sorry for the capital letters as I don’t know how to do all that fancy stuff to make it stand out.
In #12, Rev J asked
Before moving to Canada and becoming a member of the Anglican Church of Canada in the mid-1970’s I was an Episcopalian. I attended a series of discussions of a resource document from the national church at my parish church in Ann Arbor Michigan in either 1974 or 1975 (I was at that parish from Sept 1973-August 1975). It was about human sexuality and whether there was a way to understand same-sex relationships by using the model of Christ’s sacrificial love as an exemplar of human relationships in general. I’m sorry to say that I don’t now remember any details 33 or so years on, but I can testify that it is true that the discussion has been going on in the Episcopal church for over 30 years. It is unfortunate that apparently many parishes did not choose to become involved in the debate during this time….
AAY
My Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines “anomalous” as: “Deviating from general rule, method…”. I believe that Archbishop Gomez is simply stating a fact; these primatial interventions into TEC’s “turf” are out-of-the-ordinary (“deviating from general rule”). In ordinary times there would be no cause for this type of intervention and they would merit discipline. Note that Gomez makes no call for the discipline of those primates who are intervening. I think that the Archbishop agrees that extraordinary times and events often call for extraordinary responses.
While I make no claim on the ability to read Archbishop Gomez’ mind, I can say that he has demonstrated himself a brilliant communicator who uses words with the utmost care, precision and intentionality. I’m sure Gomez used the word “anomalous” for the specific reason that it need not carry a negative connotation. It was the author of the article who colored the word by prefacing it with his use of the verb, “chided.” I personally do not believe it was Archbishop Gomez’ intent to “scold” his fellow primates, but simply to make comment on the sad state of affairs which has precipitated their actions.