TEC rejects forces of 'colonialism'

The Rev Richard Kirker, pictured here, is an Anglican deacon refused ordination to the priesthood because of his openly gay lifestyle. He was subjected to an impromptu exorcism by an African bishop at the last Lambeth Conference. Yet until now he has shown remarkable Christian restraint in his public pronouncements on Rowan Williams, once considered a friend of his movement. As we report Thursday, just how serious things have become with the US rejection of the Primates' demands is now clear. Responding for the UK's Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, Kirker said: 'At last some sanity is breaking into the debate. There is an obvious realisation that the consequences of this pandering to the Puritans means an increasing hostility towards lesbian and gay people so clearly demonstrated by the Archbishop of Nigeria who is fiercely promoting anti-gay legislation in his country contrary to Scripture and all the decisions of Anglicanism over the last 30 years. The Archbishop of Canterbury has much to answer for. His decision to sell us down the river in the short term to buy time has back-fired – the Americans are having none of it and we hope he will now come to see his strategy has failed. If the Americans are expelled from the Anglican Communion this will encourage those already bent on our destruction to persecute lesbian and gay people even more. Forces of the extreme American right are playing a significant role in the decisions of the Anglican Communion at the behest of Dr Williams – we see this as a dangerous sign of things to come.' As a further mark of how serious this is, even Andrew Sullivan has taken it up.

As StandFirm reports, the bishops of  The Episcopal Church have also become uncharacteristically clear in their pronouncements. Bishop Katharine Schori has at least put an end to meaningless fuzzy spiritual equivocations, if nothing else. They accused Anglican Primates of trying to drag their church back into 'a time of colonialism'. They said on Tuesday evening that will resist the Primates' demand that they set up a new pastoral scheme with a 'primatial vicar' to make a traditionalist enclave for anti-gay conservatives who reject the oversight of liberal bishops. They said the scheme 'violates' their canons, or church law. Anglican Mainstream has also summarised the Camp Allen retreat statement.

If the wealthy US church, headed by the Communion's first woman Primate, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, is expelled from communion, as now appears increasingly likely, US papers such as the New York Times are reporting that the Anglican Communion worldwide will be plunged into financial crisis because so much of the central administration and overseas aid is bankrolled by the Americans. Although the 2.3 US Episcopalians are few among the 77 million Anglicans worldwide, they finance up to one third of the Communion's total international budget. (Update: that should of course read 2.3 million. That was not prophetic or wishful thinking on my part, just one of those ordinary mistakes...Cartoon from Dave Walker.)

Speaking at the end of their annual spring retreat near Houston, The Episcopal Church House of Bishops said in a statement they had 'declined to participate in a pastoral initiative designed by the Primates to care for congregations and dioceses which for reasons of conscience cannot accept the episcopal ministry of their bishop or Primate.' In a statement the bishops continued: 'We believe that there is an urgent need for us to meet face to face with the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Primates’ standing committee, and we hereby request and urge that such a meeting be negotiated...at the earliest possible opportunity. We invite the Archbishop and members of the Primates’ standing committee to join us at our expense for three days of prayer and conversation regarding these important matters.'

The bishops said the pastoral scheme would drag them back into a time of colonialism from which The Episcopal Church was liberated. 'It replaces local rule by laity with a curial model. Most important of all it is spiritually unsound. The pastoral scheme encourages one of the worst tendencies of our Western culture, which is to break relationships when we find them difficult instead of doing the hard work necessary to repair them and be instruments of reconciliation... We cannot accept what would be injurious to this Church and could well lead to its permanent division.'

So for the sake of their own unity, they are risking a breach with the wider communion. Archbishop Rowan has made unity his primatial goal. He intends the unity of the communion. But it has become pretty clear that such unity could only achieved through an internal split at TEC, even if disguised, as the Church of England's was, by 'flying bishops' or something similar. In England, we are good at such tricks, and it does indeed appear to have worked. For the time being at least. But this is what you get if you have a scientist running a church. Such theological and ecclesiological sleights of hand will not get past the merciless logic of a trained technician, as we now discover. Bishop-elect Mark Lawrence has also good reason to contemplate the consequences of TEC's new scientific approach to the fine details of election results.

So, in effect, TEC are subverting Dr Williams' wider unity plans by playing their own unity card with ruthless clarity. We already know who is holding the queens in this high-stakes ecclesiastical poker game. And I know of at least two pretty major aces that have still to be shown. I just hope Dr Williams has some good cards still close to his chest. Because neither TEC nor Akinola are bluffing.

More links and background at Thinking Anglicans. 

Comments

[Fr. Malcolm French]

I agree that there will be splits within many provinces. I suspect those will be primarily within the "liberal" provinces, since the "liberals" are prepared to let dissenters dissent, even to the point of schism, whereas the "conservatives" who complain of having their consciences abused seem altogether too willing to abuse the consciences of their dissenters.

And I also agree that part of the problem in Nigeria and some other places has to do with what some sociologists call post-colonialism.

And, as I have said, whatever may go on in the coming weeks and months and years, my parish and I will simply get on with the job of proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ in the community where God has placed us.

[heredal]

"Perhaps it is time we left them (Central Africa) to find their own way forward"

If events in Nigeria are anything to go by, and by that I mean the growth of Islam as well as the CofE representatives, I think they are finding their own way backwards

[Frank Schnittger]

Fr. Malcolm French - Some provinces will probably also split - with some Evangelicals departing from several provinces including the Church of England. Ireland will try to avoid taking sides, but, if push comes to shove, will join in with America.

Numerically, the Nigerian led wing may well be in the majority overall, but could end up being confined largely to Africa (Excluding South Africa).

This split will reflect secular reality as well, with central Africa increasingly diverging from the rest of the world. Colonialism and the post colonial "Aid" model have failed to help central Africa to develop into modern political and soci-economic entities. Perhaps it is time we left them to find their own way forward.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

Mr. Wetzel:

I'm not sure how we proceed should a break come. But I'm also not certain how much of a break the potential break may be.

At it's heart, Anglicanism's sense of self is wedded to the idea of the via media. While I can see the Communion rejecting the . . . er . . . innovations . . . from North America, I am convinced it will also, at the end of the day, reject the triumphalist extremism of certain of the so-called Global South primates.

The ordination of women created an impairment in our Communion which is still not restored. We survived that. We will survive this.

We will continue to meet. Should some choose to absent themselves from meetings, it will be because they have walked away. And that will be sad.

But the statement of the American House of Bishops will, I suspect, help others to find their voice - including others in the Global South who do not care for the bullying done or the absolutism declared in their name.

At its worst, we will wake up to find two Communions - one including the Americans, the Canadians, the Scots, the Mexicans, the Brasilians, the Southern Africans; the other including the Nigerians, the Ugandans, the Rwandans. And the unfortunate Primate of All England may find himself trying to keep a foot in each.

Indeed, that may not be such a bad situation. We already have ranges of Communion. The Church of England is in Communion with the Church of Sweden. Most of the rest of us, technically, are not. Other Provinces have intercommunion agreements which, technically, are not shared by other provinces.

In the meantime, I will continue to work with the parish I have been asked to work with, and we will continue to proclaim the Good News of Christ Jesus as faithfully as we are able in the place where God has put us.

And as to the rest, God will sort it out in his own good time.

[Tom Wetzel]

Fr. French--

I too think we are much closer than I first thought. And you have given me an excellent point to ponder: ". . . surely it is as much of an abuse for the bishops to act on this very radical proposal without sufficiently consulting with the clergy and laity of the Episcopal Church."

I agree fully. My concern, of course, is what do we do, given the nature of the deadline we face. I do not know that I like the deadline, but there it is. Unlike many people, I came into TEC precisely because it was the local expression of the Anglican Communion. As I noted in posts above to others, I was moved by a global communion that stressed consensus and prayer as the heart of authentic Christ-like authority.

You point out (rightly) that I should not short-circuit this deliberative and prayerful council in TEC's deliberations, and for your clarification to my own thought, I am most thankful. Without turning this into a self-help website, could you nonetheless also offer advice on how to weather what seems to me the inevitable movement toward a rejection of full membership in the Anglican Communion as the defining element of TEC's self-identity? (To add to the description of my confused state, I note also that unlike many others who post here in support of the Anglican Communion, I firmly reject how certain Global South bishops have acted, either in the context of the broader Communion or in their own home Churches, and that I do believe in the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the Church.)

Feel free to email offline if more appropriate.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

Mr. Wetsel,

I suspect you and I aren't really that far apart - at least not as far apart as it first seemed - on the polity issues.

Certainly at a General Convention, if a matter were to be approved by one house and disapproved by the other (yes, two houses - I was misapplying language there), then the matter is settled in the negative, at least for the time being. In that sense, the House of Bishops hypothetically would have the authority to pre-empt the discussion by disapproving the item. However, that would mean that they had acted without any opportunity for the other orders to get their oar in. So while it might have been technically allowable, it would have been inappropriate at the very least, and arguably a serious abuse of the process.

Yes, the office of a bishop is to lead. But leadership - real leadership - does not occur in isolation. If (as the foreign prelates argue) it was wrong for the American Church to proceed on these issues without sufficiently consulting (and acquiescing to the views of) the rest of the communion, then surely it is as much of an abuse for the bishops to act on this very radical proposal without sufficiently consulting with the clergy and laity of the Episcopal Church.

[Tom Wetzel]

Fr. French--

Thank you for the reply. I think you still miss the broader point. The bishops DO have the power to act unilaterally in this situation. By arguing that the House of Bishops must consult with the General Convention and should not themselves make a decision in compliance with the Sept. 30th deadline, the Bishops ARE making a unilateral decision. (I'm not sure, by the way, what you mean by "two other houses." My understanding is that the House of Bishops is ONE of two houses, the other being the House of Deputies.)

Therefore, regardless of one's view on the independent, sacramental-type authority of bishops, one still has the simple ability of one house to block action on any new legislation in a two-house government. Thus, in terms of the Communiqué's requests, should one of the two houses refuse to grant consent to bishops-elect or refuse to formalize the blessing of same-sex relations, such actions are dead in the water, much as was (under different circumstances) the election of Mark Lawrence to the bishopric of South Carolina. So, if the House of Bishops refused to do either or both of these at Camp Allen, the decision already was made for any future General Convention until the mind of the bishops changed.

Thus, the bishops could act unilaterally, even under the most legalistic and non-sacramental of definitions. The question always was this: should they act in this way? That is a very different question, and the ambiguity of the answers reflects the theological confusion regarding the nature of the bishopric in America.

For instance, does a bishop need the approval of his or her diocesan convention to appoint a vicar? No, so I am not sure whether approval of a primatial vicar need even go to either house for discussion--unless one has altered the definition of bishop as it applies to the office of Presiding Bishop. Were she acting in her former position in Nevada, our Presiding Bishop probably could appoint vicars and oversight councils at will; somehow, though, the American Church has subtly changed the meaning of the bishop's office when it is the Presiding Bishop's office (at least in this particular situation).

Or this: are there not times when bishops must tell the Church how to act? I would say yes, and indeed (because I see a sacramental-type ordination given to bishops), I believe they have a responsibility to do such teaching from time to time. In regard to the recent Camp Allen resolutions, I applaud the strength of the teaching of the House of Bishops because I think they found their voice as a collegial group of bishops trying to teach the Church. I think, however, that what they taught was fundamentally flawed because they themselves misunderstand their own power to act in the current situation.

And this latter point relates to my own unclear statement that you (rightly) questioned: I did not intend to say that the Executive Council will rubber stamp this particular decision by the Bishops because American laity acquiesce to the pronouncements of bishops. Quite the opposite: my point is that the bishops have unilaterally acquiesced to a theology that has undermined the role of bishop in TEC. The tone of the recent resolutions from Camp Allen indicated a clear shift in how theology is done in TEC: bishops, according to the American BCP, are meant to lead, supervise and unite the world Church (510 ff.). The resolutions instead demonstrate that the bishops now see it as their duty to preserve the directions of TEC.

This is a change, and I do not recall that it was discussed in General Convention, so it does appear to be a unilateral action. Just because people in TEC will agree with it does not make it any less unilateral in terms of the governance of the Church.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

Mr. Wetzel - With the exception of a couple at either extreme, every American bishop who has commented on their "mind of the House" resolutions has made the point that the Bishops acting on their own in a matter as grave as this would overthrow the polity of a church in which two other Houses MUST be involved in such a decision.

That said, it is entirely possible the Executive Council may take essentially the same position as the bishops have done. I would expect that the Council would reflect a similar range of opinion as does the House of Bishops.

However, to label the Executive Council a "rubber stamp" simply demonstrates yat again that some people just don't "get it." Whatever position the Executive Council takes at the end of the day - be it generally the same as the House of Bishops, more "conservative" or more "liberal," it will be taken after prayerful and probably passionate debate and serious consideration.

Having had dealings with the odd vestry and the occasional diocesan committee, I have yet to experience a committe with lay representation meekly acquiescing to the proclamations of the clergy, nor have I ever seen a committe which included priests and lay persons to acquiesce without questions to the pronouncements of a bishop.

If the Executive Council is merely a "rubber stamp," then it is the oddest committee in the history of the Church.

As to Mr. Marsh's question, I'm sure that a polite email to the national offices of the Episcopal Church would obtain you a complete list of all American congregations which have availed themselves of DEPO.

[Alan Marsh]

Perhaps you can name some congregations which have accepted DEPO, Mr French?

I will gladly check these out with my (deposed) friend in the USA.

[Maduka]

Frank Schnittger,

You made a sweeping generalisation. So simply because we don't agree with you on the gay issue, we are now homophobic fundamentalists kow-towing to the most despotic regimes, competing with fundamentalist Islam?

With all due respect, that is rubbish. And it is precisely the kind of rubbish that is swallowed hook, line and sinker by much of the "liberal Christian" West.

What exactly do you want from Nigeria? If what you want is a conversation on the human rights situation there, you are welcome. However, if you want to malign the Nigerian Church in order to convince yourself of the rightness of your cause - you are wasting time.

2,000 years of Church teachings have clearly stated that homosexuality is wrong. The scientific community has not yet had a consensus on homosexuality, yet TEC took it upon itself to appoint VGR. TEC was warned about the consequences, yet they went ahead.

The debate has now degenerated to an attack on the person of Akinola (he did some pretty bad things)and hurling that time worn phrase "homophobic". No attempt has been made by TEC to present a water proof theological justification for their stance.(the Church is not Amnesty International - we are not simply going accept a new teaching on "inclusivity").

Then there is the funding issue. The Church in Africa will suffer, but it will not die. Uganda and Nigeria have rejected funding from TEC and they are doing exceptionally well. (The Church grew the fastest in Africa when it had the least money).

[Tom Wetzel]

Fr. French--

Actually, the American bishops DO have the authority to respond to the Communiqué. Their power to do so was not in question; it was whether they would do so and if it were appropriate for them to act unilaterally. And now they have done so most clearly by recommending that the Executive Council reject completely at least one of the non-negotiable parts of the Tanzania Communiqué. I am in the United States, and everyone I know and have read here (both liberal and conservative) has taken the response by the House of Bishops as the future direction of the Church.

While you are probably correct that the formal rejection of Tanzania needs to be rubber-stamped yet, I nevertheless will be very surprised if the Executive Council acts other than how the American Bishops have recommended. The resolutions from Camp Allen appear to have the tone and intent to be formal expressions of the teaching office specifically embodied (even in TEC) by the office of the bishops meeting and teaching in concert.

[pendennis88]

Actually, the polity, as they say, of TEC allows bishops and the presiding bishop to do most anything they want, if they want to. They have developed a habit, for purposes of arguing before the primates, that they have no power to do that which they don't want to do, and that it is instead exercised by the House of Delegates, the lay body. However, you will also find that when the HoD, as it is known, meets, they will claim they have no power to do anything that they do not want to do. A very convenient polity, as it happens, to be able to do anything you want to do, but nothing you don't want to do. TEC leaders also tend to cite the canons as immutable, as if they could not change them if they wanted to. Anyway, I wouldn't listen to American priests who want to pull the wool over your eyes. There is a copy of the constitution and canons of TEC on the web, and people can look at it themselves. I mean, really, are they an "episcopal" church or not?

[Fr. Malcolm French]

No less a conservative ECUSA icon that Salmond, formerly (and still acting) of South Carolina was quite prepared to be the "flying bishop" for the ultra-conservatives in Central Florida who couldn't stand their very conservative Bishop. Even a staunch conservative like Salmond was too liberal for them. Because, of course, their sole goal and intent was schism.

And the fact that you personally are not aware of successful examples of DEPO means exactly nothing. Those who have found DEPO to be an effective means of sheltering their consciences while remaining "in the tent" are not involved in heavily financed internet campaigns to destabalize the Episcopal Church.

[Alan Marsh]

Dear Mr French, you state that "The American Church DOES have a system in place comparable to (indeed, modeled on) the English system of "flying bishops." Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight has existed for several years."

I know of no congregation which has been prepared to work with this system as formulated by the ECUSA House of Bishops. It is not surprising, as a number have been punished just for asking for DEPO.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

Many people seem to be very confused about what the American House of Bishops have done.

They have NOT issued a reply to the Primates' Communique on behalf of the American Church.

Many of you think they have because you are clueless about Anglican polity outwith England.

The Episcopal Church has real synodical government, in which all orders, not just bishops, are part of the decision-making process. One of the complaints about the Primates Communique was that it addressed its demands to the House of Bishops which, on its ow, would have no authority to accept or reject them.

In keeping with their polity, constitution and canons, the House of Bishops, quite correctly, have referred the matter to the Executive Council of the General Convention - the body responsible for governance between General Conventions.

They have also offered their reflections on what the Executive Council should look at in considering the Episcopal Church's response.

Clearly the foreign prelates who want to take over the Episcopal Church - including perhaps that foreign prelate with a pretty palaqce at Lambeth - don't "get" that the North American provinces do not operate on the principle of unanswerable and unacountable prelacy.

[pendennis88]

Will the ACC will lose 1/3 of its funding if TEC leaves the communion? What makes them think they can count on getting that money in any event?

Remember that The Living Church, the American independent church paper, has reported that although Schori "assented" to the DES communique, she told the American bishops that all she meant was that she would bring it back to the US House of Bishops, explain it to them, and seek the will of the house.

With that level of duplicity, if the ABC splits from the global south for TEC money, he should make sure the check clears first.

[Alan Marsh]

"if you are going to argue that TEC should tolerate those who seek to undermine it..." Actually these are people and congregations who were simply trying to live as they always had done, but suddenly the goalposts were moved - and the priest concerned was deposed without being given the opportunity, as the local canon law supposedly requires, of defending himself.

And these events took place long before the consecration of Bp Gene Robinson and the controversy over homosexuality. The persecution of conservative Anglicans has been going on for a long time. And of course, one always hears the oppressor saying "they deserved it." That's what Mugabe says about his opponents.

[Frank Schnittger]

Nimrod: "It is inconceivable to foresee persecution of gay/lesbian people as a result of the Episcopal Bishops rejection of the Primates’ request. "

Already we see ++Akinola supporting legislation in Nigeria which will make it a criminal offence for anyone to even speak on behalf of Gays - and doing so at a time when HE has broken the Communion by refusing to share Communion with ++Schori.

Thus the marginalisation of TEC is already having an effect in mobilising and emboldening homophobic and despotic tendencies in Global South.

Make no mistake - if TEC leaves, or is thrown out, leadership of the Anglican Communion will pass from Canterbury to Akinola because the ABC will have no one to provide balance or to equivocate between.

The Anglican Communion will become one of the many fundamentalist Churches competing with homophobic Islam and for the favour of despotic regimes in Africa and a neo-conservative right wing membership elsewhere. In the process it will lose much of its more liberal membership everywhere else in the world.

[Nimrod]

Ruth,

Your article has a dramatic tone that I had not observed in your previous writings. It is inconceivable to foresee persecution of gay/lesbian people as a result of the Episcopal Bishops rejection of the Primates’ request. Even if the Episcopal Church (“TEC”) should receive an “associate status” in the AC, or perhaps leave the AC altogether, remember that the majority of Primates voted to uphold the Christian Principles that TEC Bishops have now rejected. No need to blame the ABC alone. There is a profound theological chasm between the TEC and the rest of the AC. However, this doesn’t signify at all that it is allright to downgrade or persecute gays/lesbians. On the contrary, now gays/lesbians will have a church, TEC, which should provide the required pastoral care and, also, allow them to express fully their beliefs, support their needs, and formulate their own theology.

Regarding TEC’s financial contributions, allegedly up to one third of the Communion's total international budget as reported in The New York Times on 20-March-2007, keep in mind that these figures have not been audited by anybody, and the source of said information was not disclosed. Hence, the accuracy of said reporting is questionable. Considering that The New York Times is not a Christian-friendly newspaper, when it comes to TEC and homosexuality, this newspaper strongly advocates their stance.

Also bear in mind that if and when TEC separates from the AC, a sizable number of Episcopal Dioceses/Parishes will remain in communion with Canterbury, and separate from TEC to join/form the Anglican Church of the USA. Unquestionably, a number of Episcopal donors are likely to change churches in favor of those remaining in communion with Canterbury.

Nimrod Forever.

[Tom Wetzel]

John, thanks for the reply. I think you are still missing my point, which is this: Communion presumes shared autonomy; it does NOT assume a group of juxtaposed independent autonomies. This latter model is a federation; communion presumes a unity of some degree in teaching, in practice, and in bearing burdens together.

As far as my reading has taken me, the Churches that grew out of the Church of England were never envisioned as wholly independent. Indeed, both the current American BCP and the Preamble of TEC's constitution presume that there is conformity, respectively, to the teaching and practice of the Church of England and to the Anglican Communion.

I realize the Churches of the Communion are not a world Church as is Rome. That is my point concerning the smuggling of Roman definitions into the liberal and conservative positions. When one claims (positively or negatively) that only a Roman-type ecclesial system has international authority, one has denied that communion itself has an authority. It is a belief that the default model of authority must be the hierarchical, magisterial model. In its very attempts to distance itself from "Romish" authority, the U.S. House of Bishops has given up on the possibility of global mutuality, solidarity, shared teaching and learning, common discipline, and the hard, hard work of achieving consensus. Their declaration of independence presumes that the only authority they understand is hierarchical and magisterial.

The belief that the instruments of unity and a covenant of shared teaching and practice somehow are a capitulation to Romish authority is a failure of imagination rather than a fact. Communion presumes a shared covenant (think baptism) so writing up such a covenant is not a theological shift as much as it is a clarification. And that clarification is desperately needed today because both TEC and a few Churches of the Global South appear unable to envision anything other than a zero-sum game when it comes to their own idea of authority and autonomy. As I understand it, my submission to God through the work of the Son makes my autonomy greater, not less. I thought mutual submission made for an individual and a collective greatness. TEC and the Church of Nigeria appear to have forgotten this lesson a long time ago, and now it is the Communion's responsibility to start teaching it again, forcefully, clearly, and unambiguously.

There is no precedent for the imposition of outside teaching on a Church? Again, I would say that Acts 15 is quite a clear precedent. As far as we know, there are not only different churches illustrated in the New Testament (the Pauline plants, the Jewish Christians under James, the Johannine churches, etc.), but these differences also became more pronounced in the post-apostolic era. Antioch, Rome, Jerusalem, and such were different churches, not merely the local parishes of the Church. Yet these Churches came together to talk, to pray, to discern, and to teach authoritatively where there need be common teaching (as in the case of the Gentiles and the consensus rejection of the requirement to become Jewish as part of becoming Christian). I would argue that the model of Churches teaching one another and submitting to one another's teaching not only has precedent, but might indeed have been the reality of the early Church(es), which were one in their multiplicity.

Another sad fact of rejecting such shared autonomy: TEC's House of Bishops also pulled the rug from under any legitimacy that the Communion had to rebuke Archbishop Akinola for his support of teachings that clearly contravene the consensus view of the Communion in terms of sexuality. By declaring itself free from "colonialism" in theology, it made the same claim for Akinola, which means the Communion has become "do as one wants," rather than the work of discerning a common life and witness together in Christ.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

Alan, Alan, Alan.

You will find that the "conservatives" have been engaged less in conscientious dissent than in open rebellion. They have refused to work within existing structures to protect their consciences. Ironically, in one of the more remarkable cases, they have launched an attack against one of the most conservative bishops in the US, not becuase he sought to "ban" their opinions, but because he refused to unilaterally separate himself from the Episcopal Church. (Curiously, even the international panel of reference refused to take these "dissenter" seriously.)

Finally, while there have been significant cases of conflict involving "conservative" parishioners and "liberal" bishops (and even cases where the "conservatives" demonstrated better will than the "liberals") there have also been cases where "liberal" parishioners have found themselves under wholesale attack by "conservative" bishops. I refer you to the website of the Progressive Episcpalians of Pittsburgh - oppressed by the hero of the reactionaries, +Bob Duncan. If you want to look at a really nasty property dispute, see how this would be Primate is proceeding against "liberal" parishes and parishioners in his diocese.

http://progressiveepiscopalians.org/

Of course, I suspect that the Primate's Communique call for an end to litigation can be selectively ignored by the Bishop of Pittsburgh as so much of Lambeth 1.10 and Windsor have been ignored by the "conservatives" generally.

[John]

Alan:
I've heard stories about this, too, and, in every case, the conservatives were hardly blameless for the breakdown. The problem with the "looking abroad" is that it's being done in total violation of the laws and traditions of the Episcopal Church - despite the protestations of the "conservatives" that they're acting to uphold tradition.

pax et bonum

[BruceM.]

Alan,
Your view of the situation of dissenting parishes/dioceses in TEC is quite Orwellian. Do you seriously think that they are victims of oppression? No clergy have been deposed without warning. Those priests who have been inhibited have acted to defy their bishops and have sought to place themselves under other leadership. The US canons assure them of a procedure of appeal within 6 months. If they fulfill their vows, they can be reinstated. No bishop has been deposed (yet) despite the actions of +Schofield who led synod of the diocese of San Joaquin to adopt changes to its canons that violate the constitution of TEC. Similarly, +Duncan, who has formed a "network" of parishes that have acknowledged his leadership in place of the Presiding Bishop's and reportedly signed a statement of subordination to the Global South Primates (the "Chantilly Declaration")has not been deposed.
In reality, a wide range of views about many aspects of church policy exist within TEC and "conservatives," "liberals," and "middle -of-the-roaders" can be found in most of the 7,000plus parishes. The number who are willing to disrupt the mission and worship of TEC is very small -- only 7 dioceses out of 111 are experiencing serious conflict, and barely 100 parishes have broken ties with TEC, very few of them were anywhere near are unanimous.
There is no way the dissenters can be considered victims -- they know what they are doing.

[Frank Schnittger]

"Would it really not be better to live with a spectrum of belief by adapting the institution a little, rather than enforcing an ideology in such a manner? " - Alan Marsh

Alan, given that you have advocated that gays should be denied hospitality in "Christian" guest houses, that Parish Halls should not be rented to gays, and that the Government should not legislate for equality of treatment for gays in the provision of commercial goods and services, some might feel that your comment above is a bit rich.

It seems that when the shoe is on the other foot it is perfectly acceptable to enforce your ideology against those who disagree with you or meet your disapproval.

I'm sure you are no less sincere in your beliefs than the Bishop who did those things you complain of. But if you are going to argue that TEC should tolerate those who seek to undermine it, surely you should also tolerate those with whom you profoundly disagree?

[Alan Marsh]

John, It's more than brash and reckless: what are people supposed to do when their clergy are summarily deposed (as happened to one priest I know) and their churches seized by (armed) security guards (as happened to another congregation I know) when the bishop decides that no conservatives will be allowed in the diocese?

Would it really not be better to live with a spectrum of belief by adapting the institution a little, rather than enforcing an ideology in such a manner?

People treated like this inevitably look abroad for support when they are denied any dignity by their own church and its bishops. But they would prefer such events not to take place in the first place.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

Alice: The Episcopal Church has a long and honourable tradition of combatting racism. In fact, that's one of the reasons that ultra-rightwing organizations are funding the present campaign to destablize the Episcopal Church (and other mainline denominations). Many of the donors to these "foundations" are not even members of the church bodies they are seeking to undermine.

And to my dear Mr. Marsh - you really should try telling the truth. The American Church DOES have a system in place comparable to (indeed, modeled on) the English system of "flying bishops." Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight has existed for several years.

The thing is, many (not all) of the ultra-conservatives don't want to find ways to continue living together in a broad tent. They are looking for ways to narrow the tent.

Finally, to all, I commend the pastoral letter from the very conservative Bishop of Central Florida, John Howe. It ca be found (among other places) at: http://blog.edow.org/weblog/2007/03/coverage_begins.html#more

[John]

Alan:
I certainly wouldn't hold TEC blameless for the way its acted in recent years. It's been reckless and brash, at the least. But that doesn't mean that the bad behaviour of various conservative elements within and without it is OK.

pax et bonum

[Alan Marsh]

John, you are correct to note the difference in what is proposed by the Primates, but had ECUSA shown sufficient generosity to its OWN members, long ago, and made adequate provision for them, there would now be no incursions by foreign bishops, no rapid haemorrhage within, and no expensive and scandalous lawsuits.

[John]

Alan:
WRT the property - the canon claiming property on behalf of TEC may be relatively recent, but it's still canon, approved by its governing body. By becoming members of TEC, those congregations agreed to be bound by its laws. They cannot break those laws now. And, even so, I said that the property was held in trust for the diocese. This principle is far older than TEC. And, again, when the churches formed diocese in the first place, these were the conditions and principles that they agreed to.

That these churches now feel themselves compelled to leave TEC speaks for their honesty, but their attempts to break centuries of canon law doesn't. The problem seems to be that a great many within TEC (particularly the conservatives) don't have an episcopal ecclesiology but rather a congregational one. They see the congregation as the basic unit of Church, and that affects everything they do. Sadly, the Episcopal Church and its canons take the episcopal view that the Church is heirarchical, from bishops down through clergy to the lay. That is, individual people can leave a church, but the church itself cannot - it exists separately from the congregation and serves a wider group than just the Sunday worshippers.

pax et bonum

[John]

Alan:
The provision in the CofE is different from the proposals for TEC in one crucial way - it is entirely internal. No authority or responsibility is vested in anyone (clergy, lay or Archbishop) outside the Church of England. By contrast, a similar proposal from the AB of TEC (that she appoint someone and delegate all parochial responsibility for conservatives to that person) was soundly rejected in favour of the idea that Primates outside TEC should have authority over its internal workings.

Tom:
The Anglican Communion is not a worldwide Church in the sense that the RC Church is. The Archbishops of the different member churches are just that - leaders of different churches. The Communion is where churches meet and talk with one another. It is absolutely not a governmental or lawmaking body of any sort. There is no precedent for the sorts of actions being taken by the Primates now. It is one thing saying that TEC is wrong. It is quite another to say that, as a consequence, they must allow bishops in other churches to act with ecclesial authority within TEC.

pax et bonum

[Frank Schnittger]

"Isn't that a church for gay people?" Sigh. Posted by: Alice C. Linsley

I hope it is. And also for lepers, publicans, tax collectors, Sabbath breakers, women threatened with stoning, Samaritans, Centurions and all the other outcasts of society both modern and ancient.

TEC is better off using its resources, both spiritual and material, to tackle the manifest injustices and inequalities in American society, rather than funding foreign Dioceses who are more concerned with adding to the injustices in their societies.

If others wish to found a Nigerian Episcopalian Church of America, let them do so. It is a free country, and diversity of religious belief is tolerated and encouraged far more
in America than it is in Nigeria.

Perhaps Mugabe will donate some of his Millions stashed away in Swiss bank accounts to "teach the imperialists a lesson" and engage in some reverse imperialism of his own. He owes at least that much to the Christians who have reinforced the legitimacy of his regime by making common cause with him in on the gay issue Zimbabwe.

As for the ABC, does anything he has to say matter any more - except within his own Anglican province of little England? He may have been a great theologian, but has shown himself to be an appalling politician, sacrificing principle on the Alter of political expediency.

His performance will in due course be compared with that of Chamberlain in Munich in 1938 and the Appeasement of Nazi Germany. Gay hatred is the new anti-Semitism of the 21st. Century, fomented mostly by often “well meaning” Christians who should know a lot better.

At least TEC is maintaining a proud American tradition of independence from such appeasement and tolerance of evil. No doubt the “Anglican Communion” will once again go running to America for salvation when it becomes hopelessly entangled with the Nigerian disease.

But this time it will be too late. The Anglican Communion will have long since died.

[Shaun]

"If the Church of England had as many commmunicants to membership as TEC there would be 9 million church going Anglicans in the Church of England."
I suspect this isn't comparing like with like, as the CofE explicitly aviods defining 'membership' given its official understanding of itself as serving the whole population. 27 million Anglicans probably means that many people ticked the box CofE on the national census.
I guess the TEC membership figures are more equivalent to Church of England electoral rolls (the people registered to vote for church councils)which will be far lower than 27 million.

[Tom Wetzel]

John:

Do the Primates of the rest of the Communion truly have no authority or right to teach and discipline the U.S. church? I'm not so sure. Indeed, I would say that they do have authority unless one uses a highly legal and curial definition of authority. The surprise here is that both liberals and conservatives in the current debate appear to get their definitions of authority from Rome, rather than from the Anglican tradition. That is clearly where the U.S. House of Bishops derived its definitions of authority in its latest documents (an ironic surprise for a liberal church body, isn't it?).

My understanding of the Communion as an entity is (was?) this: the Communion chose not to create a legal authority structure because it was attempting to emulate the shared authority of mutual submission among the bishops of the early Churches.

For me, by the way, this is the larger point of the frequently quoted Acts 15 passage: the Gentiles are welcomed into the Church only after the overseers of the local churches reach a consensus. Is this a formal ecumenical council of the Church? Only if one uses an anachronistic definition. Instead, it proves that the overseers (later bishops) meeting together for prayer, discussion, and discernment become a de facto council of the Church. Under such a view, then yes, Tanzania and the Lambeth meetings are councils. Why we need the legalistic defining of "council-status" before we witness "council-work" amazes me: again, such a view rests on a Roman view of how Church works.

So, under my reading of the Communion, the U.S. Church built itself into this system of mutual submission and consensus-building when it claimed (and continues to claim) to be a part of the Anglican Communion. This means that, as with Paul rebuking Peter, the other bishops can rebuke our Church and its leaders and can demand change of behavior.

The model proposed by the U.S. House of Bishops is a direct move to a congregational-type federation of historically-aligned Churches. Federation is not a communion, even if you have the niceties of taking tea and eucharist together. Communion is just that: communion, a sacrament submission under Christ to be taught and disciplined by the larger body of Christ to which one claims allegiance.

[Phil]

So, Alice, why do you sigh when someone asks you whether yours was "a church for gay people"? Why didn't you answer: "Yes, and for straight people, white people, black people, male and female - a church for all people"? If you couldn't share a church with gay people, no wonder you left. I just wonder what church you are now in that is not for gay people.

[Alan Marsh]

John, the national church claims the property as its own, but only by means of a disputed canon passed in recent times. Many congregations in ECUSA are older than the denomination, and some are older than the United States itself. This includes some of those which now wish to withdraw from the denomination, possessing their own title deeds and trustees.

In reply to Robert Williams, the Church of England has set an example for the whole Communion in its provision of Provincial Episcopal Visitors to care for dissidents, a model which the ECUSA authorities have steadfastly rejected, but would have saved them from the deep mess in which they have now placed themselves. It is surely to bend a little than to break down the middle? Especially in a church which claims to be "generous" and to "encourage free and open theological debate"!

[John]

DaveG, Billy, Alice etc.:
Read what's actually written, not what you think is written. Ruth made a small typo and, instead of writing what you think she did ("2.3 million US Episcopalians"), she wrote "2.3 US Episcopalians". I was merely amused by the omission of "millions". See Ruth's update above!

Otis and others:
You're undermining the integrity of your own position by wilfully mischaracterising the position of those with whom you disagree. No one is saying that the "gay agenda" is to be normative, nor that "bisexual behavior is a preferred option even for those who have sworn fidelity in their marriage vows". If you cannot see the difference between "faithful, committed gay relationships are acceptable" and "sleep with whoever you want, whenever you want" then I can only suggest that you spend some time thinking about basic logic and honesty.

Notice in both my comments, by the way, that I am not supporting either side. I am supporting clarity of speech. It's good to see the TEC bishops drawing a line in the sand - and it's hard to disagree with their points about the autonomy of the US church and the need to work within its canon law (whether or not they are right in their theological positions, Nigeria has no authority over them).

What the US bishops are saying is that the other Anglican Communion Primates have no authority or right to say how the US church runs itself. They also have little authority over whether the US church is within the Communion - that's largely at the invitation of the ABofC. And that's a problem. To split the Communion, the conservatives effectively have to persuade Rowan Williams that he must kick out TEC. And given that (a) he has made unity his main goal and (b) he personally sympathises with the US church's position, even as he deplores its effect on the Communion, this has not been an easy task. As I said above, there's all the difference in the world between kicking Fred out of the club and John deciding to leave the club because he doesn't like Fred.

Alan:
Notice, though, that those lawsuits are mostly against churches that claim to have left TEC and taken their property with them. That's not about excluding people based on their beliefs, as you suggest. It's about not letting dissenters steal from the Church (as they see it). I agree that this shouldn't have gone as far as the courts - but nor should the dissenters have simply left and taken property with them. There is no reading of the US canon law that permits individual churches to claim their property as their own - this is why the arguments are always couched in emotional terms. Church property is held in trust for the diocese (or possibly the TEC as a whole). If a church leaves the diocese or TEC as a whole, it can no longer hold its property in trust and forfeits it. It's pretty much that simple.

pax et bonum

[Julia Langdon]

Kirker decries the opponents of TEC's antics the extreme religious right in America? Hahahahahaha, methinks he's never met those of whom he speaks.

But that's what this game has been about, hasn't it? Sophomoric gay rhetoric that screams "intolerance!" at those who disagree with them.

Why is it that TEC has never taken a strong stand for any other group? The racism that is still apparent in the United States has not captivated TEC's attention; nor has the plight of the poor, the sick, the weak, the uninsured, the elderly or the abused. The "inclusion" rhetoric is full of hypocrisy -- they don't even seek to include homosexuals whose Christian ideology is conservative.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Bring on the Anglican Church of America and let Quean Lutabelle reign over TEC.

[Alice C. Linsley]

John, Billy is correct on those figures. They are available online, if you wish to verify. TEC is shrinking and is now regarded as the gay church in the USA. I didn't realize things had sunk to that level until a student said that he had read how I had been an Episcopal priest and added, "Isn't that a church for gay people?" Sigh.

[Deb]

all this and through the season of lent.............! I thought they were going to have time to think about where they are heading. Obviously quite a useful time for barring new bishops and not being charitable to orthodox diocese....ah well.

[Martin]

"He did not have a 'lifestyle' -- he loved a human being. He suffered a tragic bereavement --please do not dare to call this a 'lifestyle'."

In other words, he openly flouted the teachings of the body whose teachings he was supposed to uphold. His lamentations upon his bereavement can also be supposed to have been distressing to the deceased's family, as would have been his lack of discretion. In short, he has throughout his career displayed the kind of selfishness and militancy which would have made him manifestly an unsuitable candidate.

[Robert Ian Williams]

If the Church of England had as many commmunicants to membership as TEC there would be 9 million church going Anglicans in the Church of England.

Whether you agree with the liberal agenda or not, the TEC bishops wisely realise that the Pastoral Council would open up a can of worms, which would strike them at their very heart.

Would the Church of England bishops consent to a third province? I don't think so. When the Anglo- Catholics and conservative evangelicals start asking for alternative structures will they give in?

No...they will react like the TEC bishops, and preserve their property, investments and endowments.

[Alan Marsh]

ECUSA's Sunday attendance figure for 1994 was just 795,000 out of a population of some 300m people.

Since 1994 there has been a substantial exodus of congregations and clergy which does not yet show up in the figures. This is hardly surprising given the summary deposition of numbers of clergy who have refused to sign up to the LGBT agenda, the forcible seizure of certain churches, and a slew of lawsuits against clergy and vestry members.

Despite this the ECUSA House of Bishops claims that "we proclaim a Gospel that welcomes diversity of thought and encourages free and open theological debate" - if you can afford expensive lawyers, that is.

[Steve Lake]

Sinner,

So the latest rumour is:

* ten US dioeses - including Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, and South Carolina - are scheduling Special DIocesan Conventions as soon as their canons permit. The Network is leaving ECUSA forthwith.

* Several prominent GS Primates, and one rather prominent ex-ABC are expected in Pittsbugh shortly after Easter to consecrate an Archishop.

Two major aces - hmm...?

Where did you hear that?

[Billy]

John, be advised that TEC is down below 2.3 million, with less than 800,000 attending church, by its own count. It has lost over 100,000 members in the last 3 years and is continuing to do so.

[DaveG]

Pax
The numbers are even worse. Membership is down to around 2.15 million while average Sunday attendance is about one-third of that figure. There are whole dioceses in the US smaller than several of the churches that have already left and the newest numbers don't include the most recent departures.

[Allen Lewis]

For all their vaunted "love of diversity of opinion on matters of sexuality," the reality is that the US HOB chose loyalty to the GLBT lobby over loyalty to the Anglican Communion. The fact is, while there may be differing opinions on matters of sexuality, there is only one political reality: the LGBT agenda is the norm. Anything else is unacceptable. So much for diversity!

However, it is nice to see the bishops speaking unequivocally, for a change.

[Otis Page]

The bishops’ position is an act of “audacious and wrongful” cowardice that is consistent with the past attempts by Griswold (et al) to manipulate and deceive the Communion on defying Scripture in the name of a sexual theology that promises that homosexuality is not a sin.

TEC’s bishops are saying the homosexual witness must be condoned in educating our children that being gay is okay, that lesbianism is a choice for young girls, that bisexual behavior is a preferred option even for those who have sworn fidelity in their marriage vows.

In a “self fulfilling rationalization” the bishops have “kissed off” the Anglican Communion and has said “we know better” and you will return to our coffers and prostitute yourselves to “our way” as we prostitute ourselves in following the nonChristian theology of Jack Spong, the homosexuals and pansexualists who now dominate TEC.

If ABC falls for this, he deserves a place in history of contempt and derision.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

It is good to see the American House of Bishops openly and clearly, in measured yet defiant voice, calling the so-called Global South Primates on their manifest hypocrisy. No more "upholding Lambeth 1.10, but only the bits we like." No more "Windsor if necessary, but not necessarily Windsor."

And it was particularly gratifying to see the Bishops' reference to the manner in which the Primate's hypocritical schemes would overturn a fundamental principal at stake in the English Reformation. Did it really require the incisive clarity of an oceanographer to realize that "The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England" would, by extrapolation, establish that the Primate of Nigeria likewise hath no jurisdiction in North America however much he may wish it were so?

This week's statement from the American Bishops, combined with last week's actions by the Canadian Council of General Synod suggests that the North American Church has finally run out of cheeks to turn. And about time too.

[Sinner]

So the latest rumour is:

* ten US dioeses - including Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, and South Carolina - are scheduling Special DIocesan Conventions as soon as their canons permit. The Network is leaving ECUSA forthwith.

* Several prominent GS Primates, and one rather prominent ex-ABC are expected in Pittsbugh shortly after Easter to consecrate an Archishop.

Two major aces - hmm...?

[Laurence Roberts]

Many of us have cause to give thanks for the Ministry of The Reverend Richard Kirker.

He did not have a 'lifestyle' -- he loved a human being. He suffered a tragic bereavement --please do not dare to call this a 'lifestyle'. Common decency would forbid it.

He was not priested because Robert Runcie found Richard's honesty and intergrity too much a challange.

(It was to be many years later that it was to become clear just how challenged in the integity department Runcie was.(